Main Menu
Google Search
Google
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

» CNN's Blitzer: 'I Don't Remember' Biden's Law School Plagiarism

» CNN's Chetry: 'Please Tell Me It's Not Lipstick Again'

» MRC Report Asks: Why No Fairness Doctrine for PBS?

***
Science and Public Policy Institute

» Mammals in a C02-Enriched and Warmer World

» Climate Model Inadequacies of Earth's Radiative Budget

» Interactive Effects of C02 and Ozone on Birch Trees

» Effects of Ocean Acidification on Marine Crustaceans

» Effects of Ocean Acidification on Marine Bivalves

» Effects of Ocean Acidification on Marine Bacteria

» Observed Climate Change and the Negligible Global Effect of Greenhouse-gas Emission Limits in the State of Utah

» Experimental Artifacts of Free-Air-C02-Enrichment (FACE) Studies

» The Extinction Risk for Stationary Plants

» Benefits of Atmospheric C02 Enrichment on Strawberries

» Forest Growth Responses to Increasing Temperatures

» Stop Climate Fear Mongering

» Was 2014 the Warmest Year on Record? No, It Wasn't...

» Problems with Model Predictions of Species Extinctions

» The Influence of C02 on Plant Antioxidants

» Health Effects of Hot vs. Cold Temperatures in Asia

» Coral Reef Responses to Temperature and Stress: Thermal Adaptation

» Forest Growth Response to C02

» Onward Marches the Great Pause

» Response of Various Marine Animals to Ocean Acidification and Warming

» FACE Experiments and Grassland Species

» Effects of Ocean Acidification on Fish

» Response of Fish to Ocean Warming

» Additional Grounds for Rejecting Biofuels

» The Global Medieval Warm Period

***
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

***


» Scientific American article: “How to Misinterpret Climate Change Research”

» Pitfalls in climate sensitivity estimation: Part 3

» Pitfalls in climate sensitivity estimation: Part 2

» Pitfalls in climate sensitivity estimation: Part 1

» Rahmstorf’s Third Trick

» Rahmstorf’s Second Trick

» Rahmstorf’s First Trick

» Jones and Dixon Refute Conspiracy Theorist Lewandowsky

» Reductio ad mannium

» How Weaver Ignored Corcoran’s Segue

***
Watts Up With That?

» First Eastern Pacific tropical depression of the season

» German Government In Crisis Over Escalating Cost Of Climate Policy

» Study finds: ‘severe cold snap during the geological age known for its extreme greenhouse climate’

» Almost Friday Funny – Tesla is apparently recharging ’emissions free’ electric cars with a diesel generator

» Recycled: 2035 Himalayan Glacier Claim

» Climate Craziness of the Week – ‘climate change music’

» Leaving the Church of Environmentalism

» The Royal Anti-Science Society of Edinburgh?

» NOAA Forecast: A below-normal Atlantic Hurricane Season is likely this year

» EPA Busted for Ideology

» Another advance in hearing restoration

» The green plan to make Capitalism cruel

***
Global Warming News

» Will EPA Scrap the Carbon Capture Mandate?

» EU Climate Policy: Unsustainability Update

» Tom Steyer’s Windfall Profits Tax: Recyling Junk Policy

» Ethanol Industry Ad Campaign: Fuels America or Fools America?

» Is Ethanol a Green Fuel?

» Independent Satellite Records Agree: Little to No Global Warming over Past 18 Years

» Clean Power Plan “Co-Benefits” Are as Insipid as the Rule’s Direct Benefits (i.e., the idiotic social cost of carbon)

» Clean Power Plan Litigation: Thoughts on Ripeness and Standing

» Forgotten Document Sheds New Light on Legality of EPA Climate Rules

» EPA Administrator McCarthy: A “Carbon Conscious Economy” Is Inevitable, and EPA Will Make Sure It Happens

***
Fox News - Climate Change Stories

***
Michelle Malkin - Enviro-Nitwits

» Obama: U.S. not losing to ISIS, but definitely getting pushed around by ‘climate change’

» Gore / great lakes

» Cher’d sacrifice: They don’t call ’em ‘green’ Hollywood libs for nothing

» Bernie Sanders stumbles upon first campaign slogan: No car in every garage

» Double dribblers at OFA toss up embarrassing desperation shot on ‘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

***
CATO - Global Warming

» NSA Surveillance Programs Are a Cancer on the Constitution

» Wall Street Offers Very Real Benefits

» A So-So Republican Budget

» The Ultimate Irony: Is China the 'America' of Asia?

» NYT Shows No One Buys Government’s ‘Term of Art’ Argument in King v. Burwell

» Venezuela: No Rule of Law, Bad Money

» The 4 Percent-Plus Solution

» African Dawn Needs the Rule of Law

» 'Should We Have Waged the Iraq War?' Is Not a Gotcha Question

» Washington's Free-Riding East Asian Allies

» Memo to Congress: Don't Do Something, Just Stand There

» Cuomo's Dangerous Wage-Board Play Will Hurt the Workers He Says He Wants to Help

» Sen. Paul's Great Surveillance 'Filibuster' and What to Expect Next

» The Glaring (Ir)Relevance of Ramadi

» If You Don't Want Your Food Genetically Modified, Tell Nature to Stop It.

» Currency Manipulation Can't be Fixed by Countervailing Duties

» An Open Letter to Governor Hogan: the New Metro Lines Are Too Expensive

» Don't Confuse Tax Credits with School Vouchers

» U.S. Monetary Policy: a Ship with a Broken Rudder

» Assessing the GOP Candidates' Plans on Poverty

» Hank Greenberg's AIG Case Might Not be Open and Shut

» The Pentagon Conned Washington … Again

» Amtrak Is No Way to Run a Railroad

» How am I Supposed to Learn Anything without a Lazy River and Wet Wall?

» Politicians Love Ribbon-Cutting

***
CanadaFreePress - Global Warming

» The real climate threat to our national security

» Queen’s Speech 2015: UK Energy Bill To Boost Oil And Gas Production

» Vox Features Yet Another Climate Science “Denier”

***
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

»Santorum: ‘The idea that the science is settled, to me, tells me that this is political science, not real science’
"I always have problems when people come up and say the science is settled," said Santorum, a Republ ...
»Are Sea Levels Really Rising Faster Than Ever? ‘The study’s own data seems to refute’
The study itself notes that its estimates of a sea level acceleration aren’t “significantly differen ...
»‘Are climate scientists influenced by skeptics?’
»Warmist: ‘As weather bounces between record extremes, what say the climate-change deniers?’
»Paper: ‘Are There Any Evils Global Warming Is Not Responsible For?’
»Bill Nye is pretty sure that the Texas storm was caused by global warming
»Scientists Don’t Actually Know What’s Causing ‘Extreme Weather’
»‘Is The Catholic Church Drifting Into Eco-Spirituality?’
»Veteran Meteorologist James Spann slams media for ‘idiotic claims’ on Houston floods: ‘No, this was not ‘unprecedented’
'The Houston flood this week is weather, and not climate, and leave it at that. No doubt national ne ...
»Study Predicts Decades Of Global Cooling Ahead


Date published: Fri, 29 May 2015 05:51:55 +0000
Details

»TRMM Satellite Coming Home Next Month
NASA’s Tropical Rain Measuring Mission, the first satellite to carry a rain radar, has been on ...
»New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot”
One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropica ...
»Iraq’s Largest Oil Refinery Still Burning After 5 Weeks
The latest NASA MODIS satellite imagery from today shows that the huge Baiji oil complex continues t ...
»Nearly 3,500 Days Since Major Hurricane Strike… Despite Record High CO2
As Subtropical Storm Ana churns off the southeast U.S. coast, the global atmosphere has exceeded 400 ...
»Mystery Climate Index #2 Explanation
Yesterday I presented this time series of climate data and asked if anyone could determine any physi ...
»Magical Mystery Climate Index #2
A little over a year ago I posted a climate riddle of sorts: a time series that showed warming, then ...
»This EcoNonsense Has To Stop
I was watching a Ford commercial last night that highlighted their “EcoBoost” engine technology, whi ...
»UAH V6.0 Global Temperature Update for April, 2015: +0.07 deg. C
NOTE: This is the first montly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old V ...
»Is North Korea Cutting Down All Its Trees?
A secretive government can lie about many things, but it can’t hide its landscape from Earth o ...
»Version 6.0 of the UAH Temperature Dataset Released: New LT Trend = +0.11 C/decade
by Roy W. Spencer, John R. Christy, and William D. Braswell (a PDF version of this post is available ...


Date published: Fri, 22 May 2015 16:20:59 +0000
Details

»Manual Adjustments in the Temperature Record
I have been getting inquiries from folks asking me what I think about stories like this one, where P ...
»Mistaking Cyclical Variations for the Trend
I titled my very first climate video “What is Normal,” alluding to the fact that climate ...
»Typhoons and Hurricanes
(Cross-posted from Coyoteblog) The science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes some warming is h ...
»Those Who Follow Climate Will Definitely Recognize This
This issue will be familiar to anyone who has spent time with temperature graphs.  We can ask oursel ...
»Layman’s Primer on the Climate Skeptic Position
I am a “lukewarmer”, which means a skeptic that agrees that man-made CO2 is incrementall ...
»When Climate Alarmism Limits Environmental Progress
One of my favorite sayings is that “years from now, environmentalists will look back on the cu ...
»Why We Are Exaggerating “Extreme Weather”
I have written in article at Forbes.com called Summer of the Shark, Global Warming Edition.  It desc ...
»HydroInfra: Scam! Investment Honeypot for Climate Alarmists
Cross-posted from Coyoteblog. I got an email today from some random Gmail account asking me to write ...
»Presentation: The Science of the Skeptic Position
Here is the most recent version of my presentation “Don’t Panic: The Science of the Clim ...
»Switching Back to Disqus
For a variety of reasons, I had to turn off Disqus a while back.  We are going back to it for commen ...


Date published: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:37:18 +0000
Details




Date published: not known
Details

»Scientific American article: “How to Misinterpret Climate Change Research”
A Scientific American article concerning Bjorn Stevens’ recent paper “Rethinking the low ...
»Pitfalls in climate sensitivity estimation: Part 3
A guest post by Nicholas Lewis In Part 1 I introduced the talk I gave at Ringberg 2015, explained wh ...
»Pitfalls in climate sensitivity estimation: Part 2
A guest post by Nicholas Lewis In Part 1 I introduced the talk I gave at Ringberg 2015, explained wh ...
»Pitfalls in climate sensitivity estimation: Part 1
A guest post by Nicholas Lewis As many readers will be aware, I attended the WCRP Grand Challenge Wo ...
»Rahmstorf’s Third Trick
Rahmstorf et al 2015 Figure 5 shows a coral d15N series from offshore Nova Scotia (see left panel be ...
»Rahmstorf’s Second Trick
The Rahmstorf et al reconstruction commences in AD900 even though the Mann et al 2009 reconstruction ...
»Rahmstorf’s First Trick
In any article by Mann and coauthors, it is always prudent to assume that even seemingly innocent ch ...
»Jones and Dixon Refute Conspiracy Theorist Lewandowsky
Jonathan Jones and Ruth Dixon have published (see Ruth’s blog here) a comment  in Psychologica ...
»Reductio ad mannium
The new article by Rahmstorf and Mann (see RC here) has been criticized at WUWT (here here) for maki ...
»How Weaver Ignored Corcoran’s Segue
Four of the incidents in J Burke’s background chronology in Weaver v National Post (the Januar ...


Date published: Tue, 26 May 2015 01:21:07 +0000
Details

»Mammals in a C02-Enriched and Warmer World
We begin this brief analysis of the effects of global warming and atmospheric CO2 enrichment on Eart ...
»Climate Model Inadequacies of Earth's Radiative Budget
One of the most challenging and important problems facing today's general circulation models of the ...
»Interactive Effects of C02 and Ozone on Birch Trees
Trees grown in CO2-enriched air nearly always exhibit increased rates of photosynthesis and biomass ...
»Effects of Ocean Acidification on Marine Crustaceans
As the air’s CO2 content rises in response to ever-increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and as mo ...
»Effects of Ocean Acidification on Marine Bivalves
As the air's CO2 content rises in response to ever-increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and as mo ...
»Effects of Ocean Acidification on Marine Bacteria
Cyanobacteria-also known as blue-green algae, blue-green bacteria or Cyanophyta (the smallest of whi ...
»Observed Climate Change and the Negligible Global Effect of Greenhouse-gas Emission Limits in the State of Utah
In this report, we review the long-term climate history of Utah and find little in the way of eviden ...
»Experimental Artifacts of Free-Air-C02-Enrichment (FACE) Studies
In a provocative paper they entitled "Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation w ...
»The Extinction Risk for Stationary Plants
In addition to migrating to more suitable locations, Earth’s plants have other ways of successfully ...
»Benefits of Atmospheric C02 Enrichment on Strawberries
Nearly all agricultural plants benefit from increases in the air's CO2 content and strawberry (Fraga ...


Date published: Fri, 29 May 2015 08:03:43 +0000
Details

»Coldest April night record broken twice in Hughenden and Maryborough in Queensland – various cold night records scattered across Australia through May too
The Courier Mail reported 22nd April – Several Queensland towns hit record low April temperatu ...
»2011 Grantham floods – how significant were breaches in the sand quarry wall
I saw the 60 Minutes segment on the 2011 Grantham floods last Sunday where they raised again the iss ...
»Increasing bank ripoffs exposed in differences between Visa Card purchase rates and RBA cash interest rate
A reader has sent me a spreadsheet that amazed me when I got around to examining the data. We have a ...
»Graphic placing the California drought in millenial perspective – from the San Jose Mercury News in January 2014
California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say Does anybody kn ...
»Greens ask the BoM Director Dorothy Dix questions at Senate estimates hearing which highlights that no MP’s have the guts to ask the BoM serious questions
The Canberra Times has this story – Bureau of Meteorology rejects Maurice Newman’s clima ...
»Example where the Australian Bureau of Meteorology is told about a fault in rain recording but in two years fail to correct their data
I was told by a reader about a loss of ~18mm rain recorded at Montague Island Lighthouse 69017 (NSW ...
»Why can’t the BoM decide on Canberra official temperatures in four days ?
This puzzles me – here we are Sunday morning the 24th May and the BoM can not settle on the ma ...
»Media beat up about drought in western Queensland – forum in Longreach – not a word about rainfall history
Western Queensland community turns out for drought forum in Longreach The chart shows there have bee ...
»From Chinese icebreaker captain – advice on not getting stuck in sea ice
Page 19/45 of a presentation by Captain Jianzhong Wang of the icebreaker R/V Xuelong given to the CO ...
»French Antarctic research discussing solar signals in sea ice data over the last 11,000 years.
This is a fascinating example of a taboo climate subject we seldom hear from IPCC compliant science ...


Date published: Fri, 29 May 2015 01:15:00 +0000
Details
Latest Forum Posts
Posted by Anonymous
[quote][quote]You put certainly revolutionary idea[more ...]
05/14 11:08

Posted by Anonymous
Anonymous wrote ...You put certainly revolutionary[more ...]
05/12 23:28

Posted by Anonymous
[quote]You put certainly revolutionary ideas in th[more ...]
05/12 23:27

Posted by Anonymous
[quote]You put certainly revolutionary ideas in th[more ...]
05/12 23:25

Posted by Anonymous
[quote]You put certainly revolutionary ideas in th[more ...]
05/12 23:24

Posted by Anonymous
You put certainly revolutionary ideas in the post.[more ...]
05/12 06:06

Posted by Michael Bay
Have you guys ever considered the fact that maybe [more ...]
05/04 12:00

Posted by Anonymous
S L U T
05/04 11:22

Posted by Anonymous
[censored]
05/04 11:17

Posted by Bruce Norris
Great examine post! That’s most significant detail[more ...]
04/05 23:52

Relevant Sponsors

Donations
Any Amount helps support improvements





* or *


Advertise on this site

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
RSS Feeds
Our news can be syndicated by using these rss feeds.
rss1.0
rss2.0
rdf
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...;-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!

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.
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...



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.
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”!
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, 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