Main Menu
Google Search
Google
Twitter
Current GWH News
Global Warming Hoax News From Around the Web

World Climate Report

» A Classic Tale of Global Warming Alarmism

» More Evidence Against a Methane Time Bomb

» Agriculture: Tropical Cyclones are Welcome Visitors

» Sea Level Acceleration: Not so Fast

» Hansen Is Wrong

» Earth’s Carbon Sink Still Strong and Growing

» Wild Speculation on Climate and Polar Bears

» Illiteracy at NASA

» The Heat Was On—Before Urbanization and Greenhouse Gases

» What’s to Blame for the Rains on the Plains?

***
NewsBusters - Global Warming

» NY Times Pushes 'Climate Change' Activism on Front Page Two Days in a Row, Blames GOP

» Panicked NBC: 'World Must Act Now' to 'Avert Disaster' of Climate Change

» CBS Touts Showtime's 'Groundbreaking,' 'Well-Done' New Series Hyping Climate Change

» New Climate Alarmist Tack: Go Green for God

» Thomas Friedman On Questioning Global Warming: ‘That’s Not Conservatism, That’s Trotskyite Radicalism’

» NBC Promotes Global Warming Special: 'Did Climate Change Just Hit Home?'

» Univision Partners with Liberal UN Foundation on Climate Issues

» NewsBusted: Al Gore, America's Original Weather Drone

» Politico: Obama Wants 'Halo Effect' From Pope Francis, 'Whose Cool Factor Far Outweighs His Own'

» 17 News Companies Support FOIA Lawsuit Against Michael Mann

» David Letterman Pushes Jimmy Carter To Agree That A ‘Global Mandate’ Is Needed ‘To Do Anything About Climate Change’

» For NYT Enviro Reporter Justin Gillis, It's Always 'Apocalypse Now'

» Nets Uncritically Hype Dem 'All-Nighter' on Climate Change, Mocked Cruz's 'Long-Winded' Protest

» NPR Station Conducts 'Scientific' Sea Level Rise Survey Via Bizarre Computer Voice Shoutouts

» Scarborough Taunts Liberals Who Claim ‘There’s Been A Total Blackout On Climate Change’

» Former Greenpeace Official to Senate Panel: 'No Scientific Proof' of Human-Caused Global Warming

» CBS Predicts Climate Change Means the End of Snow: 'Winter Sports Could Be Doomed'

» Leftists Try, Fail to Suppress Krauthammer Column; Fox's Kurtz Not Amused

» Carol Costello Doubles Down on CNN Declaration of No Climate Change Debate

» NY Times Cartoon Suggests 'Climate-Change Deniers' Should Be Stabbed to Death

***
Science and Public Policy Institute

» Can Plants Evolve Fast Enough to Cope with Increased Drought?

» Health Promoting Effects of Elevated C02 on Common Food Plants

» Response of Corals to Ocean Acidification

» Effects of Ocean Acidification and Warming on Marine Echinoderms

» Effects of Elevated C02 on Soil Carbon Sequestration

» Biospheric Productivity in South America

» Killing Wildlife in the Name of Climate Change

» Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting Resources and Economies

» The Interaction of C02 and Non-Ozone Air Pollutants on Plant Growth

» Global Cooling

» The Final Final IPCC AR5 WGI Report

» Rising Atmospheric C02 and Soil Erosion

» The IPCC Admits Defeat

» Medieval Warm Period in the Contiguous United States

» Evolution in Natural Vegetation: The Role of C02

» Lindzen Libeled

» Health-Promoting Effects of Elevated C02 on Medical Plants

» Effects of Increased C02 on Woody Plant Pests

» The Scientific Method

» Judith Curry's Statement to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the US Senate

» Risking Lives to Promote Climate Change Hype

» Global Hurricane Trends

» Water Use Efficiency of Trees

» Game Over! The IPCC Quietly Concedes Defeat

» Potential Inaccuracies of Assessing Temperature Trends

***
Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group

» Roger Pielke Sr. is now on Twitter!

» 2012 Climate Science Weblog in Review by Dallas Jean Staley – A Guest Post

» The Weblog Is Retiring

» Publication Of “Reply to “Comment On ‘Ocean Heat Content And Earth’s Radiation Imbalance. II. Relation To Climate Shifts’ ” by Nuccitelli Et Al. By Douglass and Knox 2012

» Q&A From A Group Of Retired NASA Personnel And Associates

» The Importance of Land Use/Land Practices On Climate – A Perspective From Jon Foley

» Interview With James Wynn In The English Department At Carnegie Mellon University

» University Of Alabama At Huntsville October 2012 Lower Tropospheric Temperature Analysis

» USA Election Day 2012

» New Paper “Climatic Variability Over Time Scales Spanning Nine Orders of Magnitude: Connecting Milankovitch Cycles With Hurst–Kolmogorov Dynamics” By Markonis And Koutsoyiannis

***


» The “Ethics Application” for Lewandowsky’s Fury

» Frontiers Issues Statement on Lewandowsky

» SH Proxies: Peru d18O

» Neukom and Gergis Serve Cold Screened Spaghetti

» UWA Vice Chancellor Johnson Refuses Data Again Again

» UWA Vice-Chancellor Refuses Lewandowsky Data

» Lewandowsky Ghost-wrote Conclusions of UWA Ethics Investigation into “Hoax”

» Lewandowsky’s Fury

» Does “Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity” by Drew Shindell make sense?

» Data and Corrections for Rosenthal et al 2013

***
Watts Up With That?

» Satellite captures five volcanoes erupting at once on the Russian Kamchatka Peninsula

» Decision expected tomorrow in Mann UVa FOIA case

» More tabloid climatology: gloom and doom about the jet stream, winters, and global warming

» UN IPCC AR5 climate reports: Conjecture disguised as certainty

» Good news: no ‘ozone hole’ in the Arctic

» Climate Craziness of the Week: Oh noes! Moths affected by ‘hidden’ factors of climate change

» Ditto, Tom – ‘here are some things I believe’

» Quote of the week – beyond ‘noble cause corruption’

» A quorum of drama queens at Polar Bears International?

» Major Errors Apparent in Climate Model Evaporation Estimates

» JPL Claim: Asian Pollution makes US Storms Worse

» IPCC WGIII: throwing the greens under the bus

***
Global Warming News

» MoJo Not Always Wrong on Energy

» Breaking News: Ridiculous Utility MACT Upheld by D.C. Circuit Court [1:36 PM updated: Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent hits it out of the park!]

» Bipartisanship Alive and Well in Opposition to O’s Anti-Energy Policies

» Matthew Dowd, Meet the EPA

» Will Cherry Blossoms Get Sucked into the Polar Vortex?

» Weekend Energy/Environment TV Roundup: Platts, McLaughlin Group, Years of Living Dangerously

» WaPo Wonkblog Makes Case that EPA’s Carbon Pollution Standard Is Illegal

» Senators Sessions and Inhofe Come Out Swinging against EPA

» Ivanpah: Dead Technology Propped Up by California Ratepayers

» Must Read: Walton Francis on the Social Cost of Carbon

***
Fox News - Climate Change Stories

***
Michelle Malkin - Enviro-Nitwits

» Latest hot trend for saving the planet: Propose throwing ‘climate deniers’ in prison

» Inevitable: Maybe Malaysia Airlines flight 370 hasn’t been found because of… global warming

» Settled science: Global warming has raised ocean level so much Cory Booker can no longer drive to Hawaii

» Senate Dems to spout hot air all night to save world from global warming

» John Kerry orders U.S. envoys to give top priority to… climate change

***
DailyTech Michael Asher`s blog

» Will the Real Antarctica Please Stand Up?

» Global Warming May Decrease Hurricanes, Research Suggests

» Japanese Report Disputes Human Cause for Global Warming

» Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

» A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the (Climate) Forum

» Climate Report Downgrades Ice Loss; Media Reports Opposite

» Princeton Physicist Calls Global Warming Science "Mistaken"

» Defying Predictions, Sea Level Rise Begins to Slow

» Electric Car Sales in Freefall; Industry Risks Collapse

» Glaciers in Norway Growing Again

***
C3 - Climate Cycles Change

» Those Stubborn Facts: 99.9% Proof That IPCC "Expert" Climate Models Are Hugely Wrong - The Science Is Indisputable

» Newest Climate Research: Snow Extent Unaffected By Human CO2 Emissions, Contrary To IPCC "Expert" Predictions

» IPCC Gold-Standard Confirms: CO2 No Longer Has Any Global Warming Impact On Month of February

» Fundamental Lies of The UN's IPCC: "Food Production Harmed By CO2 & Warmer Temperatures"

» International Team of Scientists Discredit "Scary" Sea Level Rise Myth: Possibly 2.1 Inch Increase By Year 2050

» Climate Models: Documentation From NOAA Confirms Quackery of Computer Simulations

» Those Stubborn Facts: Chinese Scientists Confirm That Medieval Period Warmer, That Solar Impact Is Huge

» Climate FactCheck: Exactly How Much Did The Democrats' 'Cash-for-Clunkers' Reduce Global Warming?

» A Reminder From NOAA: It's Now 17+ Years And Global Warming Trend Still AWOL In U.S.

» Climate FactCheck: Plastic Bags & More Quack, Global Warming Anti-Science From Democrats

» Climate FactCheck: The Quack Anti-Science of Democrats - Dimmer Than A 40-Watt Incandescent Bulb

» Per NOAA: U.S. Climate Change Not So Much During The Massive CO2 Emission Increase of Modern Era

» Climate Sensitivity: The Old "Consensus" Fails - Latest Research Provides New Answers

» Satellites Confirm: Despite A Near Trillion Tonne Human CO2 Surge, Global Atmosphere Warming Goes AWOL

» Climate "Experts" Growing List of Excuses For Global Warming 'Pause' & Official Climate Model Failures

***
CATO - Global Warming

» Speech on Public College Campuses Liberated in One State

» Justice Stevens Is Right: Good or Bad, Death Penalty Is Constitutional

» Abusive Civil Asset-Forfeiture Laws

» Deputizing Everyone Isn't Producing Results against Terrorism, but Officials Keep Trying

» Gujarat Is India's Top State in Economic Freedom

» The NSA's Heartbleed Problem Is the Problem with the NSA

» Ten Ways the Income Tax Harms Civil Liberties

» Three Things You Don't Know about Money in Politics

» Whistleblowers Need Protection

» The Zombie Political Economy of Algeria

» Obamacare For Lunch?

» The Fourth Amendment Shell Game

» Is Estonia Worth a War?

» Former Inmates Learning to Avoid Going Back to Their Cells

» HealthCare.BigGov

» Republican Leaders Should Be Consistent on 'Imperial Presidency'

» What Education Reformers Can Learn from Kosher Certification

» Why Do We Still Use Paper Money?

» Washington Should Not Defend Ukraine or Expand NATO: U.S. Should Shift Responsibility For Europe's Defense to Europe

» Mozilla's CEO Showed the Cost of Disclosure Laws by Crossing the Satan-Scherbatsky Line

» The Libertarian Surge

» A Golden Fiscal Rule Nurtures Prosperity

» The Constitutional March Down the Aislel

» UPA’s 10-year Averages Are Just Statistical Spin

» Public Schools Can’t Help but Curb Freedom of Expression

***
CanadaFreePress - Global Warming

***
More Global Warming Hoax News Feeds

---
Since Exxon Hasn't Sent Us Our First Million Dollars Yet You're Welcome To Help Pay Our Bills Until They Do.









Headlines

»U.S. greenhouse gas emissions down almost 10% from 2005 through 2012 – Due to increased use of natural gas vs. coal
»Wash. Post asks: ‘What is the backup plan if the world overshoots its emissions goals?’
»The Other Climate Report – ‘Debunks the dire claims of the IPCC’s latest report’
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/other-climate-report
»Beer Drinkers Must Unite Against the Pleasure Bigots! Beer ‘couldn’t happen without CO2′
http://cnsnews.com/commentary/jen-kuznicki/beer-drinkers-must-unite-against-pleasure-bigots
»NY Times Pushes ‘Climate Change’ Activism on Front Page Two Days in a Row, Blames GOP
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2014/04/15/ny-times-pushes-climate-change-activism-front-pa ...
»James Lovelock concedes: ‘A lot of investment in green technology has been a giant scam, if well intentioned’
http://www.nature.com/news/james-lovelock-reflects-on-gaia-s-legacy-1.15017?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
»James Lovelock calls Fukushima nuclear incident ‘a joke’: ‘How many are known to have been killed by the nuclear accident? None.’ – Dismisses fears about Chernobyl: ‘There has been no measurable increase in deaths across Eastern Europe’
http://www.nature.com/news/james-lovelock-reflects-on-gaia-s-legacy-1.15017?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
»Green Guru James Lovelock says Warmist claims ‘mistaken’ in interview in Journal Nature: ‘The thing we’ve all forgotten is the heat storage of the ocean — it’s a thousand times greater than the atmosphere and the surface. You can’t change that very rapidly’
»Ice, ice – Up up and away! Global Sea Ice 955,000 sq km Above Normal and Antarctica 1,451,000 sq km Above Normal
Sea Ice Update April 15 2014 – Global Sea Ice 955,000 sq km Above Normal and Antarctica 1,451,000 sq ...
»Analysis: 3 Reasons Not to Trust the New UN IPCC Climate Report: ‘The IPCC acts as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury. It has a long history of recruiting activist personnel, and is led by a man prone to exaggeration’
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/04/15/3-reasons-not-to-trust-the-new-climate-report/
»Bravo! GOP Congressman Ted Yoho of Florida calls global warming ‘agenda-driven science. I can read stuff that says that the information was skewed. It’s not right’
Congressman Denies Manmade Climate Change, Calls It ‘An Agenda-Driven Science’ http://thinkprogress. ...
»Britain’s Warmist Climate Establishment Attack Green Guru James Lovelock for Daring To Dissent on Global Warming
Britain’s Climate Establishment Attack James Lovelock http://www.thegwpf.org/britains-climate-establ ...


Date published: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 14:48:58 +0000
Details

»ENSO, SST, CERES, forcing, and feedback: The travesty continues
Now that the CERES radiative flux products from the NASA Terra and Aqua satellites have been updated ...
»Do aliens cause global warming? The data say ‘yes!’
It’s been over 11 years since the late novelist Michael Crichton advanced the hypothesis that aliens ...
»SSM/I Global Ocean Product Update: Increasing clouds with a chance of cooling
My research field of satellite passive microwave remote sensing took off like a rocket (pun intended ...
»UAH Global Temperature Update for March, 2014: +0.17 deg. C (again)
The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2014 is +0.17 ...
»Global Warming is Destroying April Fools Day
For the last few days I’ve been trying to think of some crazy, almost-believable angle to illu ...
»Hey, IPCC, quit misusing the term “risk”
The latest report of Working Group II of the IPCC, entitled Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation ...
»Did global warming take down Flight 370?
Sure, why not? I can’t believe this explanation wasn’t near the top of the list from the ...
»The Next Great Famine…or Age of Abundance?
One of the most annoying things about climate forecasts is the apparent need to predict catastrophe. ...
»Re Missing Flight MH370: Smoke from North Sentinel Island
Most days I check out the global MODIS imagery at the NASA Worldview website, and today I zoomed in ...
»UAH Global Temperature Update for February 2014: +0.17 deg. C
The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2014 is +0. ...


Date published: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:34:18 +0000
Details

»The Thought Experiment That First Made Me A Climate Skeptic
Please check out my Forbes post today.  Here is how it begins: Last night, the accumulated years of ...
»Explaining the Flaw in Kevin Drum’s (and Apparently Science Magazine’s) Climate Chart
Cross-Posted from Coyoteblog I won’t repeat the analysis, you need to see it here.  Here is th ...
»If You Don’t Like People Saying That Climate Science is Absurd, Stop Publishing Absurd Un-Scientific Charts
Reprinted from Coyoteblog science a “myth”.  As is usual for global warming supporters, ...
»Update On My Climate Model (Spoiler: It’s Doing a Lot Better than the Pros)
Cross posted from Coyoteblog In this post, I want to discuss my just-for-fun model of global tempera ...
»Climate Goundhog Day
I posted something like this over at my other blog but I suppose I should post it here as well.  Fol ...
»Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7
I will be rolling out version 3.0 of my presentation on climate that has already been around the Int ...
»Climate De-Bait and Switch
Dealing with facile arguments that are supposedly perfect refutations of the climate skeptics ...
»Lame, Desperate Climate Alarm Logic
Via Kevin Drum: Chris Mooney reports today that there’s also a very simple reason: global warm ...
»Extrapolating From A Single Data Point: Climate and Sandy
I have a new article up at Forbes on how crazy it is to extrapolate conclusions about the speed and ...
»A Great Example of How The Climate Debate is Broken
A climate alarmist posts a “Bet” on a site called Truthmarket that she obviously believe ...


Date published: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:43:56 +0000
Details

»The IPCC’s Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science
By Joseph Blast This week, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is r ...
»Feds spent $700,000 on a Climate Change Musical
By Michael Bastasch - It looks like the National Science Foundation has been handing out grants for ...
»Wyoming First State to Block Next Generation Science Standards over Man-Made Climate Change
By Dr. Susan Berry - Wyoming has become the first state to officially reject the Next Generation Sci ...
»American Physical Society sees the Light: Will it be the first Major Scientific Institution to Reject the Global Warming ‘Consensus?’
By James Delingpole - The American Physical Society (APS) has signalled a dramatic turnabout in its ...
»Senate Republicans Accuse Dems of using ‘Climate Talkathon’ to suck up to Megadonor
Obama has said that if Congress does not pass a substantive climate bill, he will use executive orde ...


Date published: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 23:06:51 +0000
Details

»The “Ethics Application” for Lewandowsky’s Fury
In today’s post, I will discuss the ethics application and approval process for Fury. Accordin ...
»Frontiers Issues Statement on Lewandowsky
Following a variety of untrue allegations by Lewandowsky and his supporters, Frontiers have issued a ...
»SH Proxies: Peru d18O
One of the hidden assumptions of proxy reconstructions, as carried out by IPCC authors, is that each ...
»Neukom and Gergis Serve Cold Screened Spaghetti
Neukom, Gergis and Karoly, accompanied by a phalanx of protective specialists, have served up a plat ...
»UWA Vice Chancellor Johnson Refuses Data Again Again
Barry Woods has been trying to get Lewandowsky’s data, inclusive of any metadata on referring ...
»UWA Vice-Chancellor Refuses Lewandowsky Data
Over the past 15 months, I’ve made repeated requests to the University of Western Australia fo ...
»Lewandowsky Ghost-wrote Conclusions of UWA Ethics Investigation into “Hoax”
Following the retraction of Lewandowsky’s Fury, the validity of University of Western Australi ...
»Lewandowsky’s Fury
Moon Hoax author Stephan Lewandowsky is furious that Frontiers in Psychology has retracted his follo ...
»Does “Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity” by Drew Shindell make sense?
A guest post by Nic Lewis  This new Nature Climate Change paper by Drew Shindell claims that the low ...
»Data and Corrections for Rosenthal et al 2013
Last year, I wrote a blog post covering Rosenthal et al 2013 – see here. It reported on intere ...


Date published: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:15:01 +0000
Details

»Can Plants Evolve Fast Enough to Cope with Increased Drought?
Evolution is generally thought of as acting over long periods of time. So is there anything it can d ...
»Health Promoting Effects of Elevated C02 on Common Food Plants
How will the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content alter the amounts of various health-promoting sub ...
»Response of Corals to Ocean Acidification
It has been predicted that rates of coral calcification, as well as the photosynthetic rates of thei ...
»Effects of Ocean Acidification and Warming on Marine Echinoderms
Most of the ocean acidification research conducted to date has focused solely on the biological impa ...
»Effects of Elevated C02 on Soil Carbon Sequestration
It is important to note at the outset that atmospheric CO2 enrichment typically has but a small effe ...
»Biospheric Productivity in South America
How will the terrestrial vegetation of South America respond to global warming and atmospheric CO2 e ...
»Killing Wildlife in the Name of Climate Change
The facts show that federally subsidized efforts that are being undertaken to, in theory, address cl ...
»Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting Resources and Economies
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of ...
»The Interaction of C02 and Non-Ozone Air Pollutants on Plant Growth
We begin this review of the interaction of CO2 and non-ozone air pollutants on plant growth with the ...
»Global Cooling
The hypothesis that human emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), are causin ...


Date published: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:07:43 +0000
Details

»New category now for the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) ACORN SAT “Rolls Royce” adjusted temperature series
Just click on the ACORN category and the seven articles come up starting June 2012.
»Bureau of Meteorology adjustments to construct ACORN SAT Adelaide temperature data Jan 1910 to Feb 1979
The Adelaide temperature history was discussed at Jo Nova’s – Forgotten: Historic hot te ...
»Another $1.7Billion was to be spent by GreenLabor over six years through The Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Board
This page describing The Land Sector Carbon and Biodiversity Board looks to describe an additional s ...
»A Quarter $Billion in climate change grants over three years 2010-2012
I see the biggest single grant was $94Million in 2010 to birth the Australian Carbon Trust Limited h ...
»Ninti One Ltd – a skilled operation gets $1 million from Fed Govt Climate Change Fund
Checking out who gets what in the world of Climate Change grants I came across this neat little oper ...
»North Queensland less threatened this morning – Cyclone Ita downgrades to a category 2
Last night at 10pm the ABC was featuring 230kph winds in headlines. Cyclone categories. This morning ...
»Sun spot numbers come off February high
The twin peaked shape becoming better defined as cycle 24 proceeds – interesting to compare SW ...
»David Archibald book – Twilight of Abundance
New thought provoking book by David Archibald -
»Not a lot of clear water seen between the ice around the Aurora Australis just now
They are on their way home to Hobart after cargo operations at Mawson – seeking a way out of t ...
»Sydney temperature history – BoM raw data compared to ACORN adjusted data
Here is Sydney raw max & min annual temperature history - This shows raw compared to ACORN also ...


Date published: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 23:26:36 +0000
Details
Latest Forum Posts
Posted by jonnhy
watch supernatural season 9 episode 18 streaming o[more ...]
04/14 19:07

Posted by Anonymous
Global warming - this is old news for everyone! I [more ...]
02/27 12:28

Posted by Anonymous
Interesting blog about Global Warming in space. Th[more ...]
02/22 09:27

Posted by Anonymous
I want to thank you for this wonderful blog. And I[more ...]
02/22 08:21

Posted by Anonymous
Interesting blog about climate and global warming.[more ...]
02/22 08:18

Posted by Anonymous
Interesting blog about climate and global warming.[more ...]
02/22 08:15

Posted by Anonymous
It has long been began talking about global warmin[more ...]
02/10 13:34

Posted by Anonymous
As leaders from athwart the earth encounter to pro[more ...]
02/06 00:50

Posted by Anonymous
A unprecedented spill parameterization in the ocea[more ...]
02/06 00:48

Posted by Anonymous
This exaggeration single could esteem for many of [more ...]
02/06 00:42

Chat Box
You must be logged in to post comments on this site - please either log in or if you are not registered click here to signup


Denny    [12/19 10:03]
Hey Ron! It looks like we will finally have a Winter this year...Hope things are going well. Yes, since Obama has other issues to deal with AGW has taken a back stage. Thank God! But I think it gives us more time to refine and to show how much of a fiasco this is. Don't get here but once a week at times. Don't know if John is primarily on Facebook or not...not much updating going on here...Have a great holiday eveyone!


ron    [12/17 10:14]
Not much activity here. We had 4 inches of ice and it stayed on the ground for over a week, here in Texas. Yes, I said, Texas. Normally, we get maybe an inch every few years.


StopSmokingPot    [02/01 09:01]
I'm loving this Gore getting bashed by MSM for selling to "big oil", the MSM of course is worried about the CO2, but the real worry should be that the programing will just continue to attack drilling in the U.S. giving the middle east the edge and the profits and the jobs, etc. etc.


WCK    [11/25 10:52]
Scientists are try to figure out what fossil fuel was used by a 9,000 year old society that caused their city to end up 120 feet below sea level. lol ;-)


WCK    [11/25 10:48]
Here is the story of the 9,000 year old city found under 120 feet of water.




WCK    [11/25 10:46]
Scientists are try to figure out what fossil fuel was used by a 9,000 year old society that caused their city to end up 120 feet below sea level. lol ;-)


ron    [11/18 05:47]
And I am still learning how to edit after recording. I come from the good old days of a 5 inch reel-to-reel.



ron    [11/18 05:46]
I'm still having problems adapting the mic to record. I sing so loud on the high parts that the mic clips and produces that distortion that you hear.


ron    [11/18 05:43]
Hey WCK, I am playing a Spectrum acoustic with Ernie Ball Slinkies. The song is the theme song from the tv show "Sons of Anarchy."


WCK    [11/17 20:56]
Hi Ron you're a blast from the past. I really like the song and am thrilled to see you're pursuing your passion. What guitar are you using in the song and what kind of strings?


ron    [11/17 17:17]
I haven't checked in for a while. Still cooking on my charcoal grill, driving a gasoline engine. And still singing.





WCK    [10/21 11:42]
SSP - Here's another group across the pond working on the same process of making fossil fuels green. and others

CO2 is a green fuel not just for plants but for humans, who knew? Since current wind and solar require Rare Earth Elements that are as limited of a resource as fossil fuels that have to be mined from the Earth, this new technology of recycling CO2 into gasoline provides an inexhaustible supply of fuel without increasing CO2. See SSP you and I have been supporting green renewable energy all along.


StopSmokingPot    [10/16 08:55]
WOW Battery maker get 9 million in Taxpayer money and the investment goes bankrupt. Hows that happen? Govt. does not know how to invest in anything.


StopSmokingPot    [10/16 08:39]
WCK CO2 to gasoline! What's the name of that company? I know the Govt. would rather invest in bankrupt solar/wind. But that typical but I wouldn't mind investing in gasoline anything.


WCK    [10/10 16:41]
Fossil fuel can be a renewable energy with a net zero CO2 impact and the technology to make it so is being developed. An artificial tree that can absorb 1 ton of CO2/day can then transfer that CO2 to be combined with other chemicals to make gasoline. The cycle can be repeated indefinitely.




WCK    [08/11 08:35]
The climate disinformation ministry earlier this year tauted forest fires as more evidence of extreme weather caused by warming. As usual the public was lied to as fires this year are well below normal.

2012 (1/1/12 - 8/10/12) Fires: 39,445 Acres: 5,047,443
2011 (1/1/11 - 8/10/11) Fires: 47,187 Acres: 6,320,510
2010 (1/1/10 - 8/10/10) Fires: 41,614 Acres: 2,167,361
2009 (1/1/09 - 8/10/09) Fires: 59,990 Acres: 4,969,641
2008 (1/1/08 - 8/10/08) Fires: 56,778 Acres: 3,991,073
2007 (1/1/07 - 8/10/07) Fires: 59,258 Acres: 5,548,273
2006 (1/1/06 - 8/10/06) Fires: 74,045 Acres: 5,994,790
2005 (1/1/05 - 8/10/05) Fires: 41,003 Acres: 5,285,571
2004 (1/1/03 - 8/10/04) Fires: 50,774 Acres: 5,623,787
2003 (1/1/03 - 8/10/03) Fires: 39,467 Acres: 1,958,238



The latest satellite based global temperature fell in July and didn't even make the top 10 but in the USA we are told to just look out the window for proof of AGW. lol


WCK    [08/09 05:46]
Here is an article describing a scam in which money from carbon trading is not really reducing GHGs. It exists because the cost of producing the harmful GHG is much less than the profit from destroying the GHG. It allows companies to make 10s of millions in carbon credits by increasing the production of the harmful gas in one factory and then destroying it at their other factory. It's like paying an arsonist to put out fires and having the arsonist going out and starting more fires to put out. This reminds me of the instance where feed-in tarrifs for green energy were so high in Germany that people bought fossil fuel powered generators to run at night to shine light onto their solar panels which netted a handsom profit. Last year 800,000 German families couldn't afford heat last winter as energy costs were unaffordable.



StopSmokingPot    [08/08 15:59]
I think it's interesting that they are using sat images that are not the actual images of Greenland but use "computer generated images" to show that ice melted countrywide and visually make people think all the ice melted in 48 hours even though the ice is 2 miles thick. The amount of ice that melted nation wide was most likely less than a 16th of an inch melt.
Yes they have ramped up the disinformation they sound like the current administration. They just blurt out stuff even though they know our own eyes see different and if we question it they a attacked verbally today... but tomorrow?? It's feeling a bit Soviet.


WCK    [08/06 09:56]
SSP - The alarmists' have ramped up the disinformation campaign to frighten the ignorant and uninformed. They ignore the scientific fact that paleoclimate researchers have identified periods of past drought that lasted 200+ years in the last 1,000 years when CO2 was below 300PPM and then pretend that a few months of drought today is unprecedented and "proof" that global warming is the culprit for more extreme weather. However the actual scientific evidence that something is wrong with the current CO2 based models/theory continues to grow. Antarctic ice melt models have been found to be wrnong and now the Greenland models are being questioned for accuracy. What a shock! lol





StopSmokingPot    [08/02 19:06]
Hey guy's you've seen the sat images of Greenland purported to be take on the 8th full of ice then on the 12th with no Ice?? Just to let you know I flew over Greenland on the 14th and it was solid white what is known about this sat. imagery??


WCK    [07/16 21:10]
One of the key tenets of global warming is that warming amplification will occur in the form of increased water vapor feedback. Bryan Walsh of Time Magazine claimed that the heavy snow in D.C a few years ago was due to increased water vapor in the atmosphere caused by global warming. Of course Walsh never had data to back up his assumption and now there is 22 years of NASA "special project" data that shows that his assumption was wrong.

This is quite inconvenient as climate models base 2/3 of future warming on non-CO2 based feedbacks like water vapor. It also means that the models used by the IPCC are not robust and that it would be illogical to assume that future predictions are accurate when models are unable to replicate what the Earth is actually doing. Other problem areas for these models are aerosols, clouds and Stratospheric water vapor.


stopsmokingpot   [07/14 20:26]
At one time man new weather was Poetry not to be feared.

"Rain falls, clouds rise, rivers dry up, hailstorms sweep down; rays scorch, and impinging from every side on the earth in the middle of the world, they are broken and recoil and carry with them the moisture they have drunk up. Steam falls from on high and again returns on high. Empty winds sweep down, and then go back again with their plunder. So many living creatures draw their breath from the upper air; but the air strives in the opposite direction, and the earth pours back the breath to the sky as if to a vacuum. Thus as nature swings to and fro like a kind of sling, discord is kindled by the velocity of the world's motion."Pliny the Elder, from the Natural History, AD 77


stopsmokingpot   [07/14 20:23]
Date Line July 14 2012-Just flew back from London, Greenland pure white from head to toe, Southern Baffin Bay plenty of Ice flows from the spring & summer thaw as always. long way from not having Ice in the Arctic... You Crazy Moonbats.
Altitude 37,000 ft over Denver -60 degrees F and that's where all the Heat goes up and cooled and dispersed. HEAT-TRAPPED! No place but between you crazy ears Moonbats. Fires in Denver no, Rain, YES.


Thetruth   [07/13 16:02]
LINK--->


Thetruth   [07/13 16:02]
WCK is an Alien! Listen to what he's saying! This guys wicked smart because hes from outterspace and has a spaceship! GO GLOBALWARMING HOAX!!!


Relevant Sponsors

Donations - Any Amount:




* or *


Advertise on this site
RSS Feeds
Our news can be syndicated by using these rss feeds.
rss1.0
rss2.0
rdf

Road Gear

License Plate Frames
Support the Truth

Skeptic License Plate Frame
"SKEPTIC"

It's Natural License Plate Frame
"It`s Natural"

Liberty License Plate Frame
"Liberty"

* MORE *
Strong and durable metal license plate holder. Uses full color high resolution images. UV and Water Protection. Satisfaction Guaranteed
Welcome
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
[ ]
Mobile Version
e107mobileYou can now visit us on your mobile phone! Simply goto http://GlobalWarmingHoax.com on your mobile phone or PDA to get started!

Forums
<< Previous thread | Next thread >>   
Finite Oil

Begin New Thread
Author Post
David
Fri May 21 2010, 06:19PMQuote
GuestUnless you're one of the devote apostles of abiotic oil, then you weil know from your grade school teacher in Geography, that there are somethings called limited and renewable resources. Those resources like oil/coal are limited. When you take a closer look at that it means or would mean that the amount of oil on this planet is limited. If everything is burned off then, it's gone. While this not entirely true, because if we waited a couple tens of millions of years some of it would be replenished.
So if we are sitting on a finite amount of oil/coal/peat, whatever, then these reservoirs are one of the many world's carbon deposits. The others are the carbonates, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the carbon in the biosphere. Of course, there are other sources and stashes of carbon in this world, but to keep it simple let's remain by what are considered the largest amounts. Carbonates are the stones that are formed when water and Carbon Dioxide out of the atmosphere mix with minerals like Calcium and carbonates are formed. You know hard water right. Well these carbonates when not used by the biosphere get caught in the earth's crust, these carbonates slowly reach the mantel and eventually are released as CO2 from volacnoe, hot springs, black smokers, geysers and other geological wonders. This cycle is probably one of the most important at making sure that the planet doesn't and didn't turn into a huge iceball.
The CO2 in the atmosphere is reservoir that is connected to all the others, CO2 is released and taken up by the biosphere, released and taken up by the carbonates and finally released by the burning of fossil fuels like oil/natural gas/coal. Long ago these fossil fuels were CO2 in the atmosphere were taken up by the biosphere, those plants, bacteria and animals were pushed underground in the wetlands by newer plants and animals and eventually these huge biomass reservoirs were closed off by sedimentation and over millions and millions of years, this biomass was turned into oil/coal/peat/natural gas. A lot like what will happen with out garbage dumps if we don't open them up sometime in the future.
All of the CO2 that was in the atmosphere back then is no trapped in the crust as oil/coal. It would have eventually reached the surface through natural burning off (natural coal burns, Kazachstan burning fields), release through geological events see carbonates or release through anthropogenic activities.
When oil is finite and it was earlier in the atmosphere, then that means that before life on this planet all of this CO2 was in the atmosphere. Let's take at what the atmosphere was like back then. CO2 was the main part of the atmosphere, the earth was warm, really warm and was really rainy. During this time alot of carbonates were made as would be expected but that only washed out a small part of the CO2, that was a good thing too, because the warm, wet and cloudy weather is probably one of the main reasons why life could take hold on an otherwise inhospitable rock. 3 billion years ago the earth was a different place, so too was the sun is was only 70% as strong as it is today. In fact, the sun get's stronger from year to year. So when the first life blicked the light of day, it was in a very inhospitable enviroment, but at the same time through a lack of Oxygen, something that is dangerous for all life including humans, a welcoming world for the first photosynthetic bacteria. They started taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere, and made carbon molecules and Oxygen out of it. It took almost 1 Billion years until enough CO2 was taken out of the atmosphere that the atmosphere was similiar to that today. Well, this wasn't the best thing, because the earth turned into an almost complete ice-ball for a few million years. Thank God it didn't stay like that, those bacteria died and were eaten by other bacteria and turned into CO2 again, warming up the earth again. Well after this near ice-ball experience, life went chugging along for many many years keeping an equilibrium so that we didn't run into this problem again. Of course there were asteroids and supernovae that almost wiped life off the face of this planet, but it somehow survived and kept this most important of all equilibriums going.
It kept this equilibrium by keeping trapped CO2 in the biosphere and in the crust. Every now and again the planet would get hot, more plants would grow and die and trap the CO2, the planet would cool. If an ice-age came then plants and animals would die and fewer plants would grow and the planet would warm up. Well if you know how long some of these periods took then you know that CO2 takes along time to influence the climate sometimes 100's or thousands of years.
The biggest regulator of our climate is well, mother earth/Gaia for the Greek's.
That was until we started the energy revolution, utilizing cheap fossil fuels to do the work of animals and men.
Ever since then, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased along with a reduction of the biosphere. So we are at the same time warming up the earth and destroying earth's ability to regulate itself.
If I think this is as threatening as a lot of people say, no not really, but there is a chance of something going horribly wrong (might discuss this in a later post). What I do believe is that a lot of the earth's enviroment will change. Are we as a race in danger, not at all, but I do believe that due to desrtification, loss of habitat and other immense changes along with a loss of cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels, alot of the world's population will be decimated in famines, droughts, wars and other conflicts.
I think that is a high price to pay, just so that we can use cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels.
Please pardon the writing style I didn't take time to correct it.
Back to top
Denny
Fri May 21 2010, 07:56PMQuote

Registered Member #140
Joined: Sun May 11 2008, 12:38PM
Posts: 2178
Finite Oil??? This is has been stated for a very long time...I mean Long Time!!!



Otherwise, David, not a bad post...yes, could use a little better structure...I know you will do better...Thanks for the posting! I hope you will continue to visit here...If you have any questions let Us know...;-)



For further articles here at GWH.com archives, click "Forums" and search for your favorite topic
.


Let it Be Known to Others who Need to be Led!
Back to top
David
Sat May 22 2010, 06:18AMQuote
Registered Member #535
Joined: Sat May 22 2010, 06:14AM
Posts: 10
Unless you're one of the devote apostles of abiotic oil, then you well know from your grade school teacher in Geography, that there are somethings called limited and other called renewable resources. Those resources like oil/coal are limited. When you take a closer look at that it means or would mean that the amount of oil on this planet is limited. If all fossil fuels are burned off then, it's gone. While this is not entirely true, because if we waited a couple tens or hundreds of millions of years some of it would be replenished.
So if we are sitting on a finite amount of oil/coal/peat, whatever, then these reservoirs are one of the many carbon deposits of our earth. The others are the carbonates, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the carbon in the biosphere. Of course, there are other sources and stashes of carbon in this world(the methane sitting on ocean floors and in tundras, etc.), but to keep it simple let's remain by what are considered the largest deposits. Carbonates are the stones that are formed when water and CO2 out of the atmosphere mix with minerals like Calcium and carbonates are formed. You know hard water right. Well these carbonates when not used by the biosphere get caught in the earth's crust, these carbonates slowly reach the mantel and eventually are released as CO2 from volcanos, hot springs, black smokers, geysers and other geological wonders. This cycle is probably one of the most important at making sure that the planet doesn't and didn't turn into a huge iceball.
The CO2 in the atmosphere is the reservoir that is connected to all the others, CO2 is released and taken up by the biosphere, released and taken up by the carbonates and finally released by the burning of fossil fuels like oil/natural gas/coal. Long ago these fossil fuels were CO2 in the atmosphere until they were taken up by the biosphere, those plants, bacteria and animals in the wetlands were pushed underground by newer plants and animals and eventually these huge biomass reservoirs were closed off by sedimentation and over millions and millions of years, this biomass was turned into oil/coal/peat/natural gas. A lot like what will happen with out garbage dumps if we don't open them up sometime in the future, we probably will to get at those wonderful resources we used to throw away.
All of the CO2 that was in the atmosphere back then is now trapped in the crust as oil/coal/etc.. It would have eventually reached the surface through natural burning off (natural coal burns, Kazachstan burning fields), release through geological events (see carbonates) or unnaturally through anthropogenic activities.
When oil is finite and it was earlier in the atmosphere, then that means that before life on this planet all of this CO2 was in the atmosphere or in the crust/mantel. Let's take a look at what the atmosphere was like back then. CO2 was the main part of the atmosphere, the earth was warm, really warm and was really rainy. During this time alot of carbonates were made as would be expected but that only washed out a small part of the CO2, that was a good thing too, because the warm, wet and cloudy weather and high CO2 concentration is probably one of the main reasons why life could take hold on an otherwise inhospitable rock. 3 billion years ago the earth was a different place, so too was the sun it was only 70% as strong as it is today. In fact, the sun get's stronger from year to year(may talk about this in a later post). So when the first life blicked the light of day, it was in a very inhospitable enviroment, but at the same time through a lack of oxygen, something that is dangerous for all life including humans(may also be in a post later), a welcoming world for the first photosynthetic bacteria. They started taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere, and made carbon molecules and Oxygen out of it. It took more than 1 Billion years until enough CO2 was taken out of the atmosphere that the atmosphere was similiar/not the same but similar to that today. Well, this wasn't the best thing, because the earth turned into an almost complete ice-ball for a few million years. Thank God it didn't stay like that, those bacteria died and were eaten by other bacteria and turned into CO2 again as well as the volcano activity that increased(later post), warming up the earth again. Well after this near ice-ball experience, life went chugging along for many many years keeping an equilibrium so that we didn't run into this problem again. Of course there were asteroids and supernovae that almost wiped life off the face off this planet, but it somehow survived and kept this most important of all equilibriums going.
It kept this equilibrium by keeping trapped CO2 in the biosphere and in the crust. Every now and again the planet would get hot, more plants would grow and die and trap the CO2, the planet would cool. If an ice-age came then plants and animals would die and fewer plants would grow and the planet would warm up. Well if you know how long some of these periods took then you know that CO2 takes along time to influence the climate sometimes hundreds or thousands of years.
The biggest regulator of our climate is well, mother earth/Gaia for the Greek's.
That was until we started the energy revolution, utilizing cheap fossil fuels to do the work of animals and men.
Ever since then, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased along with a reduction of the biosphere. So we are at the same time warming up the earth and destroying earth's ability to regulate itself.
If I think this is as threatening as a lot of people say, no not really, but there is a chance of something going horribly wrong (might discuss this in a later post). What I do believe is that a lot of the earth's enviroment will change. Are we as a race in danger, not at all, but I do believe that due to desertification, loss of habitat and other immense changes along with a loss of cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels, alot of the world's population will be decimated in famines, droughts, wars and other conflicts.
I think that is a high price to pay, just so that we can use cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels.
This is a second draft, still not complete I might correct it again tomorrow.

Biochemist with a penchant for astrobiology
Back to top
David
Sat May 22 2010, 07:10AMQuote
Registered Member #535
Joined: Sat May 22 2010, 06:14AM
Posts: 10
@ Denny, first thanks for the link.
Second, I know that alot of people talk about peak oil, and alot of people say that we are soon approaching it if not already past it.
I can certainly agree that when it comes to predicting the future, it really is an uncertain buisness. Although you must admit, that some of the connections being made in that article are more than precarious.
The truth is, and that no one denies, oil reservoirs that are easy to tap, are gone. Those that were near the surface and readily found and even started the first big oil multis (quaker state/standard) are long gone. In Pennsylvania my home state you can see the old oil derricks rusting away, the same goes for much of texas and california. Those pumps with alittle oil below the surface only get turned on when the oil price jumps up to near $100 the barrel, because otherwise they are just loosing money.
It's getting harder and harder to find oil, just look at the most recent oil catastrophe in the Gulf. A well about a mile underneath the surface on top of sedimentation zone of the Mississippi delta and in one of the most dangerous areas for ocean based drilling(hurricanes). It doesn't really get more risky than that now does it.
We are attempting to find even more deposits, even deeper and even smaller, while attempting to satiate a hunger that has grown at an almost exponential rate.
Looking at the way oil skyrocketed before the recession, and how even with decreased demand it has remained at about $70, begs the question if we have not reached peak oil have we at least plateaued. For years now the production has not increased. Of course, we could open up drilling in Alaska, which is not as big as people would lead you to believe, it's easy to get at compared with today's technology but it's production wouldn't even make a dent in oil prices, we consume too much. And so I would leave Alaska untouched and let it be that what it was once called, a strategic reserve. Who knows when we really might need it, and not just for making gas 10 cents cheaper.
Have we reached peak oil, who knows, we won't really know until oil starts getting more expensive and the production decreases, so like I said we can't predict the future, we will only really know when we are going down into the valley that we were at the top.
My opinion is that we have reached peak ouput at this price. When the price goes up we will be able to start tapping alot of wells that are right now technically/economically out of bounds or start extracting energy intensive deposits like in Texas, California and in Alberta(tar sands). The only way around peak oil might be the free market, the more expensive the energy the more people start looking for it, it's like gold.
The real question behind all of this is can our country and the western world for that matter, really afford to tap these new deposits. Will the economies be able to cope with these costs. I think it's pretty obvious, that is no. Again the free market will see that conservation and efficiency will bring more than looking for more expensive oil. You see that today, people buying hybrids, SUV's and the Hummer going extinct, wind farms popping up like daisies, the first commercial solar plant being built in the U.S.
So if these trends stick, than no we won't see peak oil but rather plateau oil. My only fear is that the free market isn't fast enough when responding to infrastructure demands especially in a globalized market. Privatized water for instance trucks water to customers rather than build pipes, because in the short run it's more profitable. Privatized electricity doesn't build new masts and lines, see what happened in the west a couple of years ago and in the greater metro area of manhattan, even in winter or after a thunderstorm.
Let's be honest our energy needs belong to our infrastructure and even if we haven't theoretically reached peak oil, I'm sure we technically haven't, we have almost certainly reached peak oil economically. I don't think consumers will be able to swallow $100-150 oil any time in the near future unless inflation takes off along with salaries.
And seeing as how infrastructure, planned infrastructure, is not a real strength of private companies, I think we might be in for a real treat if the economy starts getting better.
While I don't think your link totally misses the point I think it not only oversimplifies both sides of a complex argument, but ignores important facts of the issue. Like many who preach peak oil, this article preaches the other side of the coin. While both have certain truths in their argument, both also have certain falicies, and when earlier one side was nearer the truth now the other side is reaching the middle.
Peak oil was never a question of technology, when you take a look at my first post I attempted to explain that the earth used to have a hell of alot of CO2 back in the day, now most of that CO2 is trapped in the crust and mantel. There is probably enough oil in the crust to power our civilization for a thousand years. The question really is when will the power of a man or a horse be cheaper than the equivalent of that in oil, the answer I believe is not too far in the future.

Biochemist with a penchant for astrobiology
Back to top
David
Sat May 22 2010, 07:21AMQuote
Registered Member #535
Joined: Sat May 22 2010, 06:14AM
Posts: 10
@Denny I used the argument of finite oil, only because unless those reading the post believe that oil is finite, then they couldn't follow my argument, however if they believe in abiotic oil, then there is no way that my post could be followed as they reject the premise on which it is based. Another argument using an abiotic oil premise could come to the same conclusion but instead of finite oil, finite carbon. That is of course unless they are believers in the earth fusion hypothesis. Just a short post about this one: They believe that the center of the earth is actually a small star that produces all the elements that we need continously, so that we would never run out of carbon, oxygen, iron, etc.
I wonder if there are people here who believe in that.

Biochemist with a penchant for astrobiology
Back to top
ron
Sat May 22 2010, 07:24AMQuote

Registered Member #378
Joined: Sun Jun 14 2009, 09:02PM
Posts: 431
A well-written post but with some scientific errors. The warming effect of CO2 is predominately in the first 50 to 80 ppm. It is like a some sunglasses. Let's say the first pair cuts down 50 percent. Another pair doesn't take out the remaining 50 percent. It takes out half of the remaining 50. And so on and so on. Even that is inaccurate. The response of CO2 is actually logarithmic in orders of magnitude, rather than parabolic by halves.

As for land use changes, well, you have Venezuela to thank for that. They are cutting down rain forests to make room to grow corn to make ethanol so they can be independent of "oil." Also, the process of oil production in the Earth's mantle and crust is thought to be from the fossilized remains of plants and animals but that has never been proven. Carbon is carbon and it could just as easily be a process of vulcanization. I think it is within our technology and science to harvest carbon fragments and componds such as CO2 and create more oil. If all the components are still here (law of conservation of mass and energy), then we've lost nothing and merely need to reclaim it. How is burning corn any more legitimate than burning down trees for heat and cooking?

CO2 doesn't bring or hold in the heat. It feeds plants and therefore it feeds us animals that feed on plants and on animals that eat plants. As a planet warms, more CO2 is released to the atmosphere, which feeds more plants, etc. If there is a connection fo positive feedback to CO2, it is in the support of life. That is, as the planet becomes warmer, more creatures survive and these creatures exhale CO2. Also, thanks to Henry's Law (chemistry), as the oceans warm, they release CO2. CO2 concentration is a by-product of warming, not a cause of it. And the name Greenhouse Gas is a misnomer. The gases can only vary the heat exchange rate and irradiance but they cannot stop the exiting radiation or the process of convection. Even an actual greenhouse cannot stop the escape of heat through a hard barrier such as glass or plexiglass. They only slow the rate of heat exchange from inside to outside. The only other advantage of an actual greenhouse is in blocking off the wind, which helps to convect heat away.

The Earth will survive. If we ruin our food supply by burning it as fuel, we will die as a species and Nature will grow trees once again, thanks to birds and squirrels and it will grow back.

But far more creatures die in ice ages from cold, bacteria, and lack of food than in warm times of abundance and higher temperature. Your body runs a fever because heat kills bacteria. I've read of bacterial infections from Viet Nam, a veritable jungle. But I'm not hearing of rampant bacterial infections in the desert southwest.

No, I'm afraid this article is still striving to place the control of the planet in the hands of man, a rather overreaching arrogance and just not logically or experientially possible. Politics ruin the day. The Gulf Oil Spill has not reached the amount of the Exxon Valdez yet some are calling it the greatest disaster known, as justification to nationalize the oil industry. Everything becomes a reason to advance socialism.
Back to top
ron
Sat May 22 2010, 07:27AMQuote

Registered Member #378
Joined: Sun Jun 14 2009, 09:02PM
Posts: 431
David, I live in Texas. My father-in-law can point to a number wells in south Texas that are sitting idle, not because it has become to difficult to get the oil. The deposits are full and often so are the storage tanks in Texas City, near Houston. No, they are locked down and idle because of the fed saying we can't process our own and must, instead, buy foreign oil, which places us at the mercy of the middle east. Hence, we get involved in wars over there to ensure the flow of oil. If we could develope our own, we could get out of the middle east to a large extent.
Back to top
ron
Sat May 22 2010, 07:57AMQuote

Registered Member #378
Joined: Sun Jun 14 2009, 09:02PM
Posts: 431
Also, the price of oil is not reflective of the costs of exploration and drilling, though that does increase a small amount depending on difficulty. No, the price of oil is reflective of it being a traded commodity controlled, for now, by OPEC. Though you are well-spoken, I think that you have already reached a conclusion that leads to nationalization and more socialism and merely seek to support your ideas with the straw boss of how difficult it may or may not be to get oil. As for untapped easy wells being gone, are you aware of oil seeping from the ocean floor off the coast of California? Oil is pouring out of the ground, literally, but California does not allow drilling on its shores.

We have yet to run out of oil and we just get better at finding it.
Back to top
David
Sat May 22 2010, 11:18AMQuote
Registered Member #535
Joined: Sat May 22 2010, 06:14AM
Posts: 10
@ron I will only speak on a few points here:
CO2 does trap heat and the effects of this can be seen in mathematical models, it either absorbs infrared emitted from the sun or emitted from the surface, this energy is either transformed into a temperature increase, increase in the kinetic energy of the molecule or re-released as a lower energy wavelength. This emission can occur in all directions so either into space or in the direction of the surface or anywhere between. When the concentration of CO2 increases then this net of molecules able to absorb infrared becomes thicker, effectively warming up the atmosphere and the surface more. I'm not aware of any model that shows a flattening of this curve at 50-80 ppm. The models that I know that take into account only CO2, meaning no water or methane and no temperature increased release, show that while the of course the highest slope at the beginning of concentration scale is, the temperature never ceases to rise up until 100 bar and 100% CO2.
In one sense it is true, every ppm at 50ppm brings more than a ppm at 380ppm in our atmosphere, but this difference is not as large as you propagate, because the absorption re-emission of solar infrared radiation in the upper atmosphere while it does contribute to this diminishing slope, must be seen in relation to the amount of infrared and visible light being emitted by our sun. Much of this visible radiation is converted to infrared on the surface, the thicker the net the less likely that this energy will be lost into space.
Of course, you're right about CO2 being a nutrient for plants and therefore vital for all life(not all but almost all), and that higher CO2 would lead to increased growth and increased capture of CO2, but at higher temperatures this falls away as Rubisco, the CO2 capturing protein and most abundant protein on the planet, has evolved for current/past temperatures, higher temperatures lead to less capture of CO2, I know you might be thinking of jungles then, but the difference being in jungles the plants have the water to cool themselves. Warming won't necessarily bring the necessary increase in water to effectively cool the plants at the new temperatures.
Alittle note to the Gulf spill, the last undersea boring island disaster was the largest in history, it was back in the seventies, I think it was spilling less than the BP rig for a year or more before they could shut it off, you can still find oil on the beaches of Cancun. I mean you have good intentions, but you seem to be discussing things I never touched on. Sorry if I don't respond to them.
If California doesn't allow drilling of the coast then I don't know what all those platforms are doing there, and drilling undersea is anything but easy, it's not like in Pa. or Tx. where you used to be able to get oil out of the ground with a shovel.
That with idle wells in Texas is not true, it's the costs of running the electric motors on the pumps that makes the oil more expensive than the cost of buying oil on the open market that's why they are idle, and for no other reason. The U.S. used to be the largest producer of oil world-wide because of Texas, but then the oil stopped coming out of the ground with pressure and needed to be pushed out.
Cost of a barrel an oil exploration go hand in hand, while the U.S. might have more restrictive rules other countries do not. The largest reservoir discovered in the last couple of decades was in Russia, it's difficult to get at and the only reason they started drilling was because the price of oil went up from the 90's low of $20, oil sands deposits are huge, but because of the energy needed to extract it, they are first economical when the price hits $100 or more. There are deep reservoirs all over the world, but because of the price involved in drilling so deep and getting the oil to the surface they first economical at a certain barrel price some are $100 some about $200.
I don't mean to be mean, but why would a company or gov't. not pump oil when the price is high enough, they lose profits and taxes and other revenue. The BP rig in the Gulf, was a test rig, that they were going to close, so that they could get the allowance to from the gov't. for commercial operations, for that you have to know how big the well is, how much pressure, quality of oil and so on.
I never reached a conclusion leading to anything, but rather asked the question can private companies of their own wish without regulations build infrastructure. Do you think private companies would build highways for the sake of it if the gov't. wasn't spending money on it. Do you think the private sector would build a sewer system, water treatment, power lines without them either being required by law to due so or by the gov't taking over that part of the infrastructure.
The gov't. on local to federal levels is there to build infrastructure, if it didn't do you think there would be anything but dirt roads and if there was asphalt you'd have to pay tolls, do you think the company would care about laying sewer lines out to your house, when they earn so little from it, do you think a private company would treat the sewer instead of just pumping into the river when there weren't laws against it. The free market doesn't do infrastructure, because it isn't profitable and there is little growth.
I'm not talking about nationalizing anything or even socialism. Get my words straight.

Biochemist with a penchant for astrobiology
Back to top
Denny
Sat May 22 2010, 01:22PMQuote

Registered Member #140
Joined: Sun May 11 2008, 12:38PM
Posts: 2178
Denny Posted: Sat May 22 2010, 03:21PM

David,

May I suggest you take the "time" to listen to Dr. Richard Lindzen presentation..His presentation is a little over an hour...A very good listen!

Denny Posted: Sat May 22 2010, 03:21PM

David,

May I suggest you take the "time" to listen to Dr. Richard Lindzen presentation..His presentation is a little over an hour...A very good listen!





For further articles here at GWH.com archives, click "Forums" and search for your favorite topic
.


Let it Be Known to Others who Need to be Led!
Back to top
David
Sat May 22 2010, 03:26PMQuote
Registered Member #535
Joined: Sat May 22 2010, 06:14AM
Posts: 10
Although, I haven't hear this "lecture" I am sure it is quite interesting, however, I don't want to spend my time listening to a man that seems to be able to predict cloud development in a warming atmosphere. Even as Mr. Lindzen often states, there is too much uncertainty, and I'm assuming he means his models as well.
Mr. Lindzen has worked on the IPCC, has supported its conclusions, had at that time simply not supported the advice to policy makers. Through the years Mr. Lindzen has become more politized, even demonstrated his willingness to run for political office. It is at this point that one could lose respect for him, as a man of science doesn't belong in politics.
I would appreciate in the future if you would make an effort to read my posts, as in your recent posts, there seems to be no reference in your links to any theme that I spoke of, except generally in the form of global warming.
Your quoting someone here that according to Wikipedia, doesn't believe that smoking causes lung cancer. This seems to be a man that just wants to be on the other side, if he's right he'll be a hero and if he's wrong he'll already be dead before he's proven to be a nut.
Don't get me wrong some of his work was really good.
It's just his assessment of others' work not related to his research field.
He's even a person that said that humans are depleting the ozone layer.
Look I don't mind you sending me a pile of links that I can respond to but I wish you would also attempt responding to my posts.

Biochemist with a penchant for astrobiology
Back to top
Denny
Sat May 22 2010, 06:31PMQuote

Registered Member #140
Joined: Sun May 11 2008, 12:38PM
Posts: 2178
David,

I'm just showing a response to what you've stated...I'm not asking for a "response".

No. 2, I would appreciate that you quit "running" your paragraphs together for it makes your statement harder to read...I thought you were going to do this...Look at the articles I post and you will see how you run an article and display it at a site...Plus, I appreciate the type being bigger for it makes the "older" generation easier to read and fun... ;-)

Anyone who uses "Wikipedia" for Climate Research is a person who is an "Alarmist" and will be recognized as such...







and a great article by James Delingpole...







For further articles here at GWH.com archives, click "Forums" and search for your favorite topic
.


Let it Be Known to Others who Need to be Led!
Back to top
David
Mon May 24 2010, 09:36AMQuote
Registered Member #535
Joined: Sat May 22 2010, 06:14AM
Posts: 10
I am not a climatologist, and if I were I cetainly would no everyone in the field. I would know who is reputable and who hypotheses and theories are believable, based on my own knowledge. There is nothing wrong with using wikipedia to look up info on people or subjest. It is democratic, peer-reviewed and upto date. If you describe Wikipedia as being alarmist, than it simply means, that you disagree with the scientific method and peer-review.
If this is the case then I see no reason to continue this discussion as your beliefs are fundamental and could be described as religious fervour.
You simple dismiss arguments and evidence that are unconfortable for you, instead of refuting it.
So either start refuting or I see no reason that I should waste my time with someone who doesn't understand the difference between religion and science.

Biochemist with a penchant for astrobiology
Back to top
Denny
Mon May 24 2010, 04:59PMQuote

Registered Member #140
Joined: Sun May 11 2008, 12:38PM
Posts: 2178
I am not a climatologist, and if I were I certainly would no everyone in the field.

Nor am I and I never claimed to be but what’s knowing “everyone” got to do with what you “perceive” , “know” and what you’ve “learned”. It’s obvious, IF you’ve taken the time to look at “both” sides of this “agenda” for that’s what this is, you would have a different opinion and conclusion. Hopefully an “open” mind…Even though it looks like I have concluded my decision it’s ONLY based on that Science is NOT “consensus” driven. Unfortunately the CAGW Issue IS “consensus driven”. True science is “never” closed in its theories. It’s always open to be proven “falsified” by any researcher that comes to conclude on different and verifiable results. This is not happening in Climate Science today and a large portion of them what to be on the “band wagon” of continuous research grants.

Even since WWII, the government has taken over our Science Institutions to their benefit and agenda…CAGW is a very good result from this conclusion.

I would know who is reputable and who hypotheses and theories are believable, based on my own knowledge.

Uhmm, based on YOUR knowledge. Very interesting considering you approve of Wikipedia in their “biased” consideration on “one sided science”. I showed you the articles where Connelly was not posting “both” sides of this issue...But you came here with “knowledge” that it isn’t. Hence, you’ve already made the decision that CAGW is correct in its nature and approve of “consensus” science...Just for what it’s worth, this Site’s Title is “Global Warming Hoax”.com I do not know what you believe in the meaning of the word “Hoax” but let’s look at the definition. In Webster’s New Dictionary the word Hoax states this:

“An act intended to trick or dupe; also: something accepted or established by fraud” unquote!

Need I say more??? This is what this site believes. Did you even go to the “about Global Warming Hoax” and see what’s stated by the owner? If you haven’t here it is:

Global Warming Hoax is about change. Mostly climate change. It should be obvious to anyone that objectively looks at the data that our planet's climate changes. It changes often, it changes dramatically, and it often changes very quickly. We all know that weather changes, we make jokes about it. Climate is simply weather over time. Ask any geologist or paleontologist about climate change and you're very likely to get a much different answer than what you'll get if you ask a modern computer model crazed climatologist. Anyone that studies the history of this planet laughs at the notion that what little climate change our planet has experienced in the past 100 years is unusual. In fact on a geological time scale the changes we've seen are quite uneventful, to the point of not even being noteworthy to a paleontologist.

GlobalWarmingHoax.com is here to give you climate change perspective. We aren't going to try to convince you that change isn't happening, it is. We aren't going to tell you the earth hasn't recently warmed, because it’s possible that it has. We aren't even going to tell you that 'climate change' is some vast left wing conspiracy, though we will point out the self-interests of many who preach it. We are going to show you climate change from a historical perspective, a common sense perspective, and above all the perspective of dissenting scientists that dare to research natural causes of climate change. We may even point out from time to time the benefits of a warmer planet (yes, there are many). In short, climate change is real; everything happening has happened many times before and above all there are natural explanations for it
. Unquote!

Yes, Natural Climate Variation does occur regularly on the hour, day, week, month, year, decade, centuries and millenniums. We are not disputing temperature has increased…but in very small increments. The issue is the “proclamation” that CO2 is the cause. Well, it isn’t. There are peer reviewed papers here at this site states this though a number of scientists. Yes, man can and does affect regional climate thru the “island heat effects” from cities and large tracks of land exposed due to farming… But I can show you a rather large list of all the proclaimed reasons CAGW is causing but you probably don’t want to see it.

There is nothing wrong with using Wikipedia to look up info on people or subjest. It is democratic, peer-reviewed and upto date. If you describe Wikipedia as being alarmist, than it simply means, that you disagree with the scientific method and peer-review.

Like I’ve stated and showed you articles where Wikipedia IS a “Biased” source in THIS field…I didn’t say others because I have, myself, used it in other fields but I carefully compare this information. Something I suspect you do not do...Yes, its peer reviewed. We have 700 peer reviewed “Realist” papers here at this site. I recommend you checking them out. Your last statement is rather “pungent” to state that I disagree with the Scientific Method. I’ll just state read the above paragraph in my response to your 2nd sentence...I’ll just make a statement by Pete Chylek. He states:

Science is the search for “truth”, the never-ending path towards finding out how things are arranged in this World so that they can work as they do. That search is “never” finished!

I could state more but I won’t since you proclaim to be proficient in Science…

If this is the case then I see no reason to continue this discussion as your beliefs are fundamental and could be described as religious fervour. You simple dismiss arguments and evidence that are unconfortable for you, instead of refuting it.

When you come here and start “talking” like you do, thru my experiences I’ve learned to be “cautious”. If you noticed how I “welcomed” you on the end of my first comment, I sensed someone who was “intelligent” and checked on your profile…uhm a Biologist. Ok, hopefully some “science” background. I was correct but just from a “different” perspective. David, you have every right to think, learn and profess what you’ve learned in your life and state such. There will be “always” someone who will refute it! You should know that…I’m just showing here another side of this so-called “fiasco” for this is what I’ve found to be thru two years of “solid” involvement.

My Specialty chosen for over thirty years is “Micro Environments”. I have learned AND applied controlled environmental Systems in residential, commercial and industrial applications. I make people FEEL good and have done it well. I’ve always kept up on Science thru most fields...I find them fascinating. And I still do with the Internet…Wish this was around when I was young. You know what they say, “Better late than Never”!

So either start refuting or I see no reason that I should waste my time with someone who doesn't understand the difference between religion and science.

Ok, since you came HERE to expose your beliefs, may I recommend that YOU propose the questions you want answered. Then either I or someone here will give you an answer. State what kind of intended answer you want! Only you can show us what you are searching for IF you are…Maybe you’ve just came here to tell us and use us for your “book” your thinking about writing. I don’t know!!! But if you don’t like our responses, then may I suggest you going to “Real Climate” where they specialize in “biased science” and “Consensus”…

I hope you have a great time trying to figure out that there IS another side to this “AGENDA”!




For further articles here at GWH.com archives, click "Forums" and search for your favorite topic
.


Let it Be Known to Others who Need to be Led!
Back to top
ron
Fri May 28 2010, 03:42PMQuote

Registered Member #378
Joined: Sun Jun 14 2009, 09:02PM
Posts: 431
David, mathematical models with arbitrary weighting that has no analog in the real world is not data. Really, man. It's not. And the model produces a "what if" projection, not a validated model of what is happening. In fact, none of the GCMs from the IPCC has turned out correct.
Back to top
Moderators: Admin, Joseph Herron, Kristen Byrnes, R.Danneskjöld, MMulligan

Jump:     Back to top

Begin New Thread

Quick Reply:

 

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System
Translate to: French German Italian Spanish Portuguese GTM_LAN_DUTCH Russian Chinese Arabic Korean English
Recent Additions
Recent Additions