Can We Stop Climate Change?

Although popular sentiment is that CO2 is causing glovbal warming, NASA's own satellite data shows slight cooling for boththe N and S hemispheres over the past 10 years--despite increasing CO2 concentrations.

Personally I think the thermodynamics of the system are just too complex . It seems to me that it is difficult to fix a problem when you really don't know what is causing the problem!

Fear tactics are being used to get the US to cut back on its use of carbon fuels. This is a nobal goal and should be a long term effort to share world resources. We have the ability to be free of imported fuels with use of coal, new found natural gas, and nuclear resource while the technology improves for other energy resources. Carbon dioxide is certainly not a pollutant and a warmer earth with more of it makes growing of food for the increasing population more likely. We have had maybe 0.5C increase in temperature the past century from carbon and this is slow enough for most species to adapt.

The current effort to demonize CO2 emissions appears to be driven by certain economic interests rather than by objective science. The most recent reliable data shows a lack of global warming during the last 10 years. As a member of the UN Panel recently acknowledged, the climate computer models did not predict such experience.

The U.S. Surface Temperature Record on which many global warming predictions have been based is demonstrably unreliable. Check www.surfacestations.org for the hard objective evidence.

The absence of causal evidence between man-made CO2 emissions and any warming of the earth is documented, with links to original sources, at www.joannenova.com.au .

The above comments are actually contrary to the facts. The past ten years are significantly warmer than any of the the previous decades of the 20th century. You only need to look at photos of the ice caps to SEE reality. Meanwhile, climate models actually do predict short-term fluctuations, including several years of trends in the opposite direction to long-term (multi-decade) trends. Everything makes (scary) sense.

The question is why is this topic so controversial? The right-wing in the U.S. only opposed climate legislation because top officials of the Republican Party were getting so many campaign contributions from Oil and Coal interests. (With the former Vice-President getting a nice $200 million-dollar bonus.) Nothing in the U.S. interest (to 99% of the population) is consistent with buying as much oil as possible from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Again, why is cutting back something that is helping our terrorists enemies so controversial???

Meanwhile the "costs" are being analyzed in the same way that the movie industry analyzed the impact of video tapes! They were against them because they would eat into revenue from movies. Well, they didn't get their way, and a few years later they were getting most of their revenue from video or DVD releases.

In the same way, if during the last housing boom we had built houses that didn't require heat in the winter (yes, they actually exist and are economical), we might still have a foreclosure crisis, but anyone living in such a house wouldn't have to buy oil (or get a free donation from Chavez!). Why you guys are against such investment is beyond all understanding...

To unveil the global warming problem -for population- first we have to clear out the fumes purposly spread by the news, Algore, Bush and others to protect the huge petrobussinesses from fuels, and their effect in Wallstreet..... and You said...

Although popular sentiment is that CO2 is causing global warming, NASA.!!!...

1º) As some one wisely stated here, CO2 is not a contaminan. Which is true, since animal -all- naturarly exhal it -include humans-, although it is well know that if exceding a limiting concentration -it is letally toxic, in our garage for example- and eventually that will happen in the near future, if we keep passivelly burning 85 milion barrels daily, and if we forgget that our friendly Threes -are nature factories which- transform that CO2 into Oxigen plus green matter, wood & food; then Reforestation -by billions- is a priority to replenish a healty atmosphere, no doubt.

Then, we conclude that CO2 -as cool gas- is not problem jet.

2º) However, Your clever point of view that global warming is a problem from an uncontroled thermodynamic global system, when saing......

Personally I think the thermodynamics of the system are just too complex .!!!.

It is true, but not so complex, if we split it the simple way, as it happens:

A) It is a fact that, Sun has been thermically in equilibrium with earth ever since mileniums, so we conclude it is not a problem, either.

B) But, atmosphere temperature increase is -as real as global desasters occurs daily- caused by a huge source of heat that comes from some where else.

But the know only HUGE SOURCE is the wasted energy -exhausted as heat while combusting daily a huge amount of 85 millioms barrels of fuels plus the carbon plus Nat GAS plus tyres rubber crumps, etc.-

Remember physic basic law:

MATTER AS ENERGY CANNOT BE DESTROYED -BUT TRANSFORMED ONLY-

And that accumulated heat -TeraTeraTera...Calories- goes into the atmosphere -since a century about- and stays there -causing the temperature increment of air-

Then we conclude again that CO2-gas is not the problem, but only the heat that goes along with it while combusting fuels -depleting our O2 and O3 shealth by the way-.

Finally we conclude that solution is in our hand, and remark the only way it is: "Reducing drastically fuels consumption to cero -as energy source-", there is no much time left, we must move very fast to harvest clean and free energy only from sun, wind, tide and hydro -even do from nuclear, in a safer way-.

No biofuels either -petroleum is nature`s biofuel- Do`not invest nore promote them either.

We must be earth friends if we want pleasent life within a friendly earth.

cheers.

Everyone Stop Breathing
Global Warming and CO2

October 16, 2009 (Breakpoint)

It was kind of a cool summer, wouldn't you say? And those folks enjoying the early snows out west this fall, well, they might actually be praying for a little global warming.

OK, global warming is no laughing matter. But it is also not a scientific fact, as the new movie Not Evil Just Wrong makes clear. But that's not stopping leaders in wealthy Western nations from pushing radical "solutions" to this dubious problem.

Not Evil Just Wrong does a great job of clearing the air over some contentious issues. Take the hysteria over CO2 emissions, for example. CO2 is not a pollutant. It's an odorless gas that every living being gives off when he or she exhales. As Patrick Moore, once a founder of Greenpeace, says in the film, "Anybody who knows anything about biology knows that carbon dioxide is the most important nutrient of all of life. It is the currency of life."

Therefore, as MIT's Richard Lindzen says, we must distinguish between pollutants and CO2. He says, "When you see smokestacks in this country, it is very rare that you see black soot. We have tons of environmental regulations designed to control real pollutants."

Notice that he says "in this country." Global warming activists would be happy to slap moratoriums on the building of coal burning plants here in the U.S. Even better, they'd like to see existing plants eliminated. This would crush American industry—maybe 7 million American jobs are associated with coal alone.

And, ironically, it would boost industry and production in China and India, were there are virtually no environmental regulations, and where they use "dirtier" coal than we do in the United States! The unintended consequence, of course, is that by shutting down coal and coal-based industries here, we end up increasing global air pollution, which comes from dirtier plants overseas.

The film also questions another global warming proposition—that is, that even slight rises in global temperatures would be catastrophic. Well, it would be catastrophic if you consider increased global food production and human flourishing a bad thing. Europe, for example, thrived during the Medieval warm period. In the latter Middle Ages, when temperatures dropped dramatically, crops failed, malnutrition and disease was rampant—millions perished, and the human "herd" was culled, if you want to put it that way.

Which raises another issue addressed in the film. The proposed "solutions" to global warming are, in many ways, profoundly anti-human. The wealthy can afford expensive power. The poor and working poor cannot. Patrick Moore says, "The idea that Al Gore has proposed that we can stop using fossil fuels in 10 years is completely reckless...85 percent of global energy is fossil fuel today, and we depend on it for our survival."

Lord Lawson, a member of the economics committee of Britain's House of Lords, puts it plainly: "The people who are calling for massive carbon dioxide reductions are the enemies of poverty reduction in the developing world."

I urge you to see the film Not Evil Just Wrong, being distributed by the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. Visit BreakPoint.org, and we'll show you how you can get a copy for yourself, your friends—or maybe even for your congressman.

• OF COURSE WE CAN STOP IT.
• SINCE WE ARE THE PROBLEM, GENERATING THE CLIMATE CHANGE BY OVERHEATING EARTH WITH THE WASTE HEAT EXHAUSTED WHILE COMBUSTION TAKES PLACE IN OUR VEHICLES, BUSES, AIREPLAINS, TRAINS, RANGES, HOME AND INDUSTRY BOILERS, GAS DRIERS, ETC., WHERE IT GO A HUSH AMOUNT OF 85MILLIONS PETROBARRELS DEMANDED DAILY (WWW.WORLDWACHERS.COM), AND THAT RESPONDS TO A SINGLE MATH EQUATION:
• EARTH OVER HEATING = HEAT WASTE EXHAUSTED FROM COMBUSTINON.
• THEN, SHOULD STOP USING PETROLEUM FUELS, NAT GAS, AND EVEN BIOFUELS, AND REPLACE THEM WITH ECO-CLEAN POWER BY HARVESTING NATURAL ENERGIES AS SOLAR, WIND, HIDRO & TIDE. AS WELL AS GLOBAL REFOREST.
• OR WE WILL EXTINGUISH OUR SELF WITH STRATOSPHERIC AMOUNT OF OUR DAILY OWN WASTES (COMBUSTION GASES&HEAT, GARBAGE AND DRAINAGE).
• NO OTHER WAY,,,,, BLINDS DOESNT SEE IT, ONLY
• ENJOY A NICE HOT CO2 DRINK!!!!!!!!

REMEMBER FELLOWS:

MATTER AS ENERGY CANNOT BE DESTROIED -BUT TRANSFORMED ONLY-.

THIS IS IT, WE ARE TRANSFORMING HUGH AMOUNTS OF BURNED FOSSIL FUELS IN TO CO2+HEAT -MAINLY-. BUT HEAT ACCUMULATES AND REMAINS HERE IN OUR ATMOSPHER -A CENTURY AGO- OVER HEATING THE AIRE;,,,, SINCE, SUN HAS BEEN IN THEMAL EQUILIBRIUM WITH EARTH, FOR MILENIUMS.

NONE PHISICS MUST DOUBT IT.

2009 was the second hottest year in the hottest decade on record in Australia so I am sceptical of your 'data' regarding the temperature in the Southern Hemisphere being cooler.

Last year in the state of Victoria we had fire conditions that were so extreme that they were off the scale of the bushfire index which was based on previous catastrophic bushfire conditions. The fires traveled at a terrifying 100kmh and left 173 people dead and 7500 people homeless as well as millions of dead native animals. The CSIRO(the Government funded research organisation) scientific predictions are that the current rate of climate change we are experiencing will result in 4 times as many extreme fire dangers days like Black Saturday each year by 2050. Of course there were other contributing factors and it would be simplistic to just blame climate change but nobody was in doubt that what occurred was an order of magnitude worse than anything that had been seen before. Many of the people who died thought they were well prepared to defend their homes as many had done before; Australians are used to dealing with bushfires.

We as well as the USA emit individually more CO2 than the rest of the world. About 5.5 tonnes of CO2 per person.

Oceans absorb large amounts of CO2 but too much causes acidification. Warm the oceans too much and they release methane from the ocean bed,it has already has been observed in the Arctic. If enough ice melts in Greenland and the Arctic the thermohaline circulation of the Gulf Stream could stop - then you might see some climate change but it might not be warming.