Posted on 02/27/2009 6:20:33 PM PST by neverdem
>> 2% of CO2 of a gas that is .03% of earth’s atmosphere.
According to your data, the percentage multiplies out to 0.000006 of the Earth’s atmosphere. That’s 1 part in 166,667.
What percentage of the man’s CO2 contribution must be curtailed to satisfy the Global Warming crowd? Let’s say 10% which is an extraordinary amount. If 10% of man’s CO2 emission is responsible for warming, that changes the impact to 1 part in 1,666,667 of the total atmosphere. In order to justify that man is responsible for the stated Global Warming, the methods used to support the theory must have a margin of error that is less than 1 in 1,666,667. Furthermore, all the other sources of CO2 must also be constant in order to fault such a small value. If the CO2 is measured in isolation of the atmosphere, the ratio changes to 1 in 500. I would expect proximity to CO2 consumers to offset the human impact.
Would the pasture be so green not for the flatulent?
Thanks for the ping!
They think they know better, and we should be forced to do what they want.
And further character assasination of Bob Watson, who Exxon/Mobil asked the White House to remove as IPCC Chairman.
"In March 2002, the media obtained a leaked copy of an ExxonMobil memo to the White House regarding U.S. climate policy and ongoing proceedings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a multinational body charged with evaluating global warming evidence. The memo, from ExxonMobil’s senior Environmental Advisor, Arthur G. Randol III, asks the Bush administration to use its influence to oust Robert Watson from his post of Chair of the IPCC. Dr. Watson, an internationally respected atmospheric chemist and director of the World Bank’s Environmental Department, had been outspoken about the urgency for action to solve global warming and criticized the United States for its lack of action. The memo, dated February 2001, charged Dr. Watson with using leaked drafts of the IPCC’s climate reports to further his “personal agenda” and further inquired, “Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the U.S.?” At the request of the United States, Watson was removed from his job at the IPCC a year later. The leaked memo also included a list of “recommendations,” including the removal of other specific people from U.S. government offices and the appointment of climate change skeptics to key positions within the Administration. All of the listed people, including Dr. Michael MacCracken, then Director, Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, subsequently quit or were removed from their positions."
The funny thing is: Pachauri, whom the Bush Administration wanted, turned out to be just as strong a leader of the IPCC as Watson was -- if not stronger.
Supporting link (including a link to a PDF of the actual memo):
Did Exxon Mobil Get Bush To Oust the Global Warming Chief?
The memo also requests the appointment of Christy and Lindzen to positions of increased influence on the report.
Ridiculous. Utterly, frigging, ridiculous.
"We found that the likely culprit was a major drop in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially CO2."
There's no evidence presented. It's more computer modeling!!! They don't even state what the carbon dioxide concentration was before and after.
It's pitiful.
We can't. Much of science has been subverted to political ends.
"The disinterested search for truth cannot be allowed in a totalitarian system. The vindication of the official views becomes the sole object . . ." - F.A. Hayek
"One approach toward assessing the role of pCO2 in forcing climate change is to evaluate records of isotopic fractionation that occurred during marine photosynthetic carbon fixation. The isotopic composition of photosynthetic marine organic carbon is primarily a function of [CO2aq], growth rate, and cell geometry of the organism. By sampling sedimentary alkenones from oligotrophic-type settings, the effect of growth rate and cell geometry is presumably minimized, thereby leaving [CO2aq] as the major control on alkenone isotopic compositions.
Our results show that pCO2 ranged between 1000 to 1500 ppmv in the middle to late Eocene, and then decreased in several steps during the Oligocene, and reached modern levels by the latest Oligocene. The fall in pCO2 likely allowed for a critical expansion of ice sheets on Antarctica, and promoted conditions that forced the onset of terrestrial C4 photosynthesis."
Google: it's good for your brain.
Now it's up to other scientists to come up with alternative Eocene-Oligocene climate scenarios where the radiative forcing effects of CO2 are not the major cause of significant climatic cooling, because the researchers have shown a) that CO2 levels were dropping significantly when the ice sheets were established and expanding, and b) the likeliest cause of the cooling was the reduced greenhouse effect due to lower levels of atmospheric CO2 (climate modeling, dontcha know).
For Sheppard to say there's "no evidence"; I repeat the statement of "ridiculous".
Good point. As a Geologist, I can assure you that there have been lots of global warmings and coolings (e.g. climate change), long before man was on the earth. To think that we can spend enough money to change the climate is absolute lunacy. My contention is that since most of the green proponents are not stupid, their agenda is to take over the world economy and enslave us little people.
Scientific theory is just that, theory. Facts in science can be trusted, because they represent an unbiased answer to a question. Science facts have given us a lot of good things like electricity, mobility, flight, medical advances, and communication.
The problem with science as presented today is that politics has hijacked the process, forcing outcomes for cash grants and/or the political agenda of the chief scientist.
Do not confuse real science, which is simply the process of discovery through thought and experimentation, with the climate hoax going on today.
There won't be any reduction of CO2, only a slowing of the rise. That slowing will have a huge economic cost, with only trivial climate effects (compared to natural variations). There will not be any impact on vegetation whether we follow this program or not.
There won't be any reduction of CO2, only a slowing of the rise. That slowing will have a huge economic cost, with only trivial climate effects (compared to natural variations). There will not be any impact on vegetation whether we follow this program or not.
How much warming is caused by the human-induced rise in CO2 is a matter of debate. But there is no debate that CO2 warms the earth. Without CO2, earth's water would remain frozen except near the equator during the daytime. The primary reason for that is that air would be too cold for water vapor.
Hey Cog, good to see you are back. There was certainly more politics on the nonalarmist side. But that doesn’t mean the AGW alarmist side was free of it, or that they had no preconceived notions before writing the report (or especially the summary). In any case the science is clear: manmade CO2 causes warming. If there is any catastrophic warming due to that warming (not likely) there is zero chance that the CO2 games currently proposed will have any effect on that.
That is incorrect. Science overstates its theories as some sort of fact (see Global Warming and Evolution as good examples) instead of an educated guess that could very well be wrong, and history has shown that science has been wrong more than it has been right. I do not know how you can say that “Facts in science can be trusted because they represent an unbiased answer” when you then go on to admit that science is being taken over by politics. Actually, your statements show that you know very little about science history. Science has always been corrupted by politics and has never been unbiased or given solid objective answers.
“The problem with science as presented today is that politics has hijacked the process, forcing outcomes for cash grants and/or the political agenda of the chief scientist.”
You are making my case here.
“Do not confuse real science, which is simply the process of discovery through thought and experimentation, with the climate hoax going on today.”
LOL. So global warming is not “real science” but just a “hoax” and yet the whole damn science community and the most important and influential publicans and universities and other science organizations are backing it and not stepping forward to call it a hoax. You don't have a clue.
Not really back; I had a bit of extra time (like now) to add some historic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and uninteresting narrative.
If there is any catastrophic warming due to that warming (not likely)
Catastrophe is one thing; serious detrimental consequences are another. I cannot see any scenario now in which there will not be serious downside to BAU. But I'm convinced there is some momentum behind the necessity to change how energy is produced, regardless of climate consequence. Judging for myself, I think wind + natural gas (Pickens Plan) + nuclear is the most logical way to buy time. I'm getting really more and more concerned about the potential hydrological consequences.
Could be, but a lot of that is politics. There will be two types of electrons, politically correct and expensive ones and cheap ones that are politically incorrect. Won't have very much to do with science or economics, just politics (like Pickens and his vested interests).
Your hydrological concerns are valid, but they need to be viewed in context. By far the worst long term droughts here in Virginia were in the 1930's and they took years to build up. One year of anomalous drought somewhere with fires is trivial in comparison.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.