GEA's Global HVAC Technology Blog Blog

GEA's Global HVAC Technology Blog

GEA's Global HVAC Technology Blog covers a range of topics including:

  • Core HVAC Technologies
  • Technology & Patent Evaluation
  • Manufacturing Technologies
  • Product Quality Improvement
  • Materials/Failures/Corrosion
  • Product/Technology Commercialization
  • Business Strategy Development
  • New Factory Design & Equipment

We'll draw upon our range of experts to provide comments, insights, technical articles and a little humor from time to time

We encourage your participation and feedback!

Previous in Blog: The Real Truth About Global Warming   Next in Blog: Say It Isn't True!! - A Real Corrosion Story
Close
Close
Close
Page 1 of 3: « First 1 2 3 Next > Last »

Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

Posted August 08, 2012 3:00 PM by larhere

Our last post generated more than a hundred comments. It is clear the subject is high on the emotional scale. Unfortunately, we have two polarized groups that are intent on looking for further "proof" their position is right.

Yesterday's WSJ had an Opinion page post titled A New Climate-Change Consensus which is an ambitious goal of finding a consensus on this topic. Unlikely, however noble. Needless to say, a raging war of words is ensuing.

I propose we take the first step by recognizing there is a middle ground.....that we all open our minds to the phrase "Is it possible that....?" Answers need be based on facts, science, not emotion.

(Image by Chad Crowe)

In this spirit, I ask our knowledgeable readers about a point mentioned in the above article.... and one that I have not received a clear answer on...isn't it a fact (e.g. physics?) that carbon dioxide absorbs solar radiation?

Factual comments welcome.

Editor's Note: CR4 would like to thank Larry Butz, President and CEO of GEA Consulting, for contributing this blog entry.

Reply

Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Guru
United States - Member - New Member Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Washington USA
Posts: 566
Good Answers: 53
#1

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/08/2012 3:06 PM

Carbon dioxide does indeed have the ability to absorb solar radiation, as does every other element and compound.

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22643
Good Answers: 410
#2

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/08/2012 3:31 PM

Global Warming makes me sleepy...................snore

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: at the beach in Florida
Posts: 30964
Good Answers: 1727
#3

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/08/2012 3:39 PM

This paper I'm linking to here is the most comprehensive I've seen...it goes into detail about all the forces at work here....read it, then talk to me....

http://www.randombio.com/co2.html

__________________
Break a sweat everyday doing something you enjoy
Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 259
Good Answers: 6
#21
In reply to #3

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 9:40 AM

Quotes from the paper:

"This misleads the reader into thinking that CO2 levels have undergone a huge increase when in fact, CO2 levels have only increased by 23.7% since 1900."

(23.7% since 1900 is huge!)

"According to the US Department of Energy, about 14.8% of the total CO2 is man-made. The remainder is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes and forest fires [25].

At the current rate of increase, CO2 will not double its current level until 2255."

(Current rate = no population increase, no more cutting down of the rain forests, etc.)

"Thanks to many readers for pointing out mistakes and making constructive suggestions."

Yes, and there are a lot more mistakes that need correcting. Methane release from the melting permafrost is not constant, but accelerating. Everything we do that releases CO2 also releases water vapor. none of that is considered by the author because it goes against his stand against global warming. But why let facts get in his way?

Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11112
Good Answers: 918
#22
In reply to #21

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 10:09 AM

You wrote, "Current rate = no population increase, no more cutting down of the rain forests, etc."

Current rate usually means that the trend continues at the same rate of change.

If you have a graph of that change and the rate of change is linear, then all you need to do is extend that strait line at the current line's slope.

If, however, that rate of change is non-linear (curved), then the trend will continue to follow that curve.

The graph that I assume you are referring to appears to become linear for the last 35 years, so it it reasonable to assume that if nothing changes then the predicted data is a reasonable prediction.

The variables that created the last 35 years of data on the graph are changing with respect with time. Population is increasing, deforestation is actively taking place, etc.

If the graph is correct, then the predicted trend is very likely to be a valid prediction.

Reply
Guru
Belgium - Member - New Member APIX Pilot Plant Design Project - Member - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Glabbeek, Belgium
Posts: 1481
Good Answers: 28
#23
In reply to #21

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 10:26 AM

The biggest issue that is feeding the CO2 debate is the fact that the CO2 levels should be way higher than actually if all man made CO2 was not absorbed by nature.

This Carbon sink as it is called has depleted somewhere in last decade and since then the rate of rize is going up.

The full CO2 cycle is not yet understood: climatologists admit this and are studying the issue.

Those who will loose power when it all needs to be done different use this as claiming the whole issue is a scam.

They can't prove either that man has no influence, except some extreme groups who found it in their holy books. But for seriously vaste regions in the world these are the only source of information.

__________________
"Here we are now, entertain us"
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tulare, CA
Posts: 1783
Good Answers: 35
#25
In reply to #21

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 11:17 AM

Well looks like the only solution to save the world is to eliminate the entire human race. The the fauna will over grow everything, O2 levels will increase and so will the size of the animals, until the the next introduction of an intelligent alien lifeform to mess it all up again.

__________________
Why is there never enough time to do it right the first time but always enough time to do it over?
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Virginia, Georgia, Idaho
Posts: 1079
Good Answers: 30
#26
In reply to #3

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 12:14 PM

What do you want to talk about? Details of forces at work are simply pieces of a puzzle, analogous to analyzing a film of a runner and declaring that you understand what makes him fast.

That paper explores, with terms like likely, to some extent, it is estimated (with no footnotes), the validity of this opposing data has been questioned (by whom?),and most interesting, is the assertion that the impact of CO2 on warming is not related to the increase in water vapor levels, which is in turn partly caused by increasing CO2 levels. Essentially the author is accepting the causal effect that CO2 has on temperature increases, but rejects the increase water vapor levels caused by that increase as an additional (and greater) contributor to the total effect. Furthermore, climate change methodology does not rely on theoretical totals of temperature increase to create hypothesis. It is clear that climate instability is greater when regulatory energy exchange is inhibited, no matter what the cause.

I could go on and on. I admit that there could be no issue with CO2 levels, re climate change. But we are in a highly accelerated temperature increase pattern right now, and it is the most likely culprit. Historical (the last 100 years) records are absolutely indisputable, and the increase is far grater than I believe it is dangerous. I also freely admit that a reduction in CO2 emissions is like to correspond to a reduction in atmospheric toxins, which is an even more pressing issue. Search Richard Muller to understand why it is no longer a debater over whether e man madCO2 is causing Climate change. If you want to ask why it matters, lets move on to that debate.

__________________
PFR Pressure busts pipes. Maybe you need better pipes.
Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Associate

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 28
Good Answers: 2
#132
In reply to #26

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/14/2012 11:46 PM

I question the data set to measure average global temperature. How does one randomly choose locations to measure the temp? Probably divide the globe into 1000 equal areas and randomly choose a lat lon location within each and use equipment to take the data. Seems most of the sights are near man made objects. I've seen pictures of one in San Diego that is near a condenser from an AC unit.

MIT has some good models and questions yet to be answered on their site.

I admit to the possibility that there is a temperature rise due to man, but the proof is far from in and I'm a skeptic.

Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Atchison Village
Posts: 383
Good Answers: 39
#130
In reply to #3

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/14/2012 11:00 PM

We can't agree using this paper. It seems a little biased politically, i.e. "This validates suspicions that, if environmentalists get their way with CO2, a campaign to force us to reduce water vapor could well be next." I'll take the IPCC, personally.

__________________
Align culture with nature...
Reply
2
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sebastopol, California
Posts: 1062
Good Answers: 48
#143
In reply to #130

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/15/2012 11:00 AM

I agree. Every section on every aspect of the effects of CO2 without ANY consideration of the source of heat.

The Sun is in an extended period of increased activity. It has been moving into and getting closer to the galactic plain, which it does periodically. This event has tidal effects on the Sun just as the sun itself has tidal effects on the Earth.

Not a single argument for or against global warming, including the one posted above takes this source of increased temperature into account.

If you are not calculating the amount of heat received by a system, then you cannot talk about the effects of retention of heat or escape of heat.

The "global warming" arguments seem like two kids fighting over the setting of the thermostat on the wall, while the oven is on, the fireplace is lit, and they have all their winter clothes on!

What is the Sun's current condition? We have SOHO and other Sun Science experiments and monitors so where are the solar science people? Where is that data?

__________________
Most people are mostly good most of the time.
Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Commentator

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 63
Good Answers: 1
#152
In reply to #143

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/15/2012 1:13 PM

You said "The Sun is in an extended period of increased activity."

This source says that the sun is in a period of decreased solar irradiance.

Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

What is the cause of this discrepancy?

Reply
2
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11112
Good Answers: 918
#153
In reply to #152

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/15/2012 4:31 PM

Good link. Just to show how confusing data can be, here is another irradiance plot from Colorado University.

This shows the trend to be continuing to grow if you take the median.

This type of data has only been around for a short period of time, so it is difficult to accurately tell what the true long-term irradiance has been, but my point is that you can pull up almost any data you want to substantiate your point due to a host of factors.

Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - Been there, done that. Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 15111
Good Answers: 936
#155
In reply to #153

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/15/2012 7:50 PM

I know that it upset you that I said you were obstreperous and that I compared you to a 1969 rock and roll character. But did you really have to prove my point so quickly or are you really blind. Lets compare MaxT data set with your rebuttal data set. First I repeat the data from MaxT.

Lets start with identifying the range of the data presented here. The solar irradiance data moves from about 1365.4 to 1366.1 W/m^2 over a time span just over a century of years.

Now here is the data you choose to rebut with that has the longest span of time.

This is the most recent three months of daily data. Any trend or slope response of your rebuttal data will be at best part of a single data point of the earlier graph. Additionally the actual solar irradiance range in your rebuttal data is from 1360.3 to 1362.2 W/m^2. This entire range is lower than the earlier plot. So instead of a rebuttal you've provided confirming data, yet your comments claim the opposite.

Tommy can you hear me!

__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11112
Good Answers: 918
#157
In reply to #155

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/15/2012 10:45 PM

Nice work, but you pulled the wrong plot. It's the big one on the bottom, but I have noticed a trend of you pulling this type of stuff. It's called dishonesty.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tulare, CA
Posts: 1783
Good Answers: 35
#195
In reply to #157

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

09/03/2012 12:42 PM

I'm not going to agree or disagree with you, however if you're going to call him a liar, then pull up the correct graph for us.

What I interpret his post in saying is that the two graphs presented are only depicting a small part of a big picture and the third graph giving an overall showing that the trend goes up and down over time.

I liken this to the stock market. The stock market is in a sideways trend and has been for the last 12 years and will continue until 2016 or 2017, at which time will make a huge climb. The stock market has done so consistently since 1933. All the up and down you see and people panic over them are just reactions. Since the stock market is going to go back up as much as it dropped during the sideways trend, history dictates this and has been consist since 1933.

__________________
Why is there never enough time to do it right the first time but always enough time to do it over?
Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - Been there, done that. Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 15111
Good Answers: 936
#197
In reply to #195

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

09/03/2012 1:53 PM

Thanks Jan. I appreciate your comment.

The back handed comments and refusals to consider any information outside of preconceived biases, particularly on anything related to global warming, has really worn me thin. I try to review information presented to me by those who disagree with me. I make mistakes and I usually admit it when I do. My efforts to document the basis of my opinion has more than once allowed my errors to be found. I do not see others reciprocate. Instead I see people refusing to read or even look at any data that might disagree with their ideas. I rarely see people providing their evidence for their opinion. I even more rarely see a recognition of error by others.

__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1053
Good Answers: 110
#199
In reply to #197

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

09/03/2012 5:24 PM

Well put.

__________________
Think big. Drive small.
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11112
Good Answers: 918
#201
In reply to #197

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

09/03/2012 6:06 PM

Fred,

It is hard to get a clear picture on your intent, but from my perspective your remarks to me have been nothing less than insults. That may not have been your real intent, but that is exactly how they were served.

I can understand the emotional trend when arguing a point. You may feel that I am overlooking data or making a mistake (and I very well may be). However, as any thinking, feeling being, there is no gain in insulting another because they have an opinion different from you, only continued angst. So here we are.

In the end I have no personal distaste for you. I feel that you were wrong to frame your rebuttals the way you did and for that I am happy to just pass on any future arguments with you. I simply choose not to go there. If you feel backhanded, it is simply because of the way I feel about your comments to me personally. Nobody is a label.

Actually, I really do not have a lot invested in the global warming argument. I simply have too many other irons in the fire to get absorbed in the subject to the level it requires to unwind all the lies, misstated facts, and uncertainties to achieve expert status.

I can observe that the subject has been effectively used for political purposes by both sides of the argument and willfully obfuscated to the point where I (as well as most people) simply will not be able to unravel the truth. I am also suspicious of anyone that claims they can.

Secondly, regardless of the truth I do not feel that it makes much difference one way or another because it will sort itself out in the end. We will deal with it. We are amazingly adaptable creatures.

Reply Off Topic (Score 4)
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11112
Good Answers: 918
#200
In reply to #195

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

09/03/2012 5:35 PM

1. I believe Fred was wrong when he clearly cited the wrong graph for his rebuttal and then resorted to insults.

2. The correct graph was already cited in the post you responded to. Look at my initial post #153, follow the link, and the large graph is the one I was citing. It has always been there for everyone to see.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1894
Good Answers: 44
#223
In reply to #155

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

09/05/2012 11:24 AM

Your plot ends just after 2000...we are nearing the peak of the 11 year Maunder cycle...your chart is incomplete for today, more than a decade later.

Reply
2
Commentator

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 63
Good Answers: 1
#165
In reply to #153

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/16/2012 1:25 PM

The two graphs are based on the same data (Wang 2005). So they are the same. If you go back to the link i posted, then click on the "advanced" tab you will see a graph that more closely resembles the graph you were referring to, the only difference being the range of time. They go through some very simple calculations and conclude that the sun is not responsible for the warming observed.

Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11112
Good Answers: 918
#167
In reply to #165

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/16/2012 2:53 PM

See it. Thanks.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tulare, CA
Posts: 1783
Good Answers: 35
#202
In reply to #153

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

09/03/2012 6:07 PM

By the looks of it, we've been at the same level since 1950, with a drop equivalent to the mid 1800's in 1980 then back to 1950's level again. Looks pretty inconsistent. Basically speaking, always fluctuating. What is causing the valleys to occur? There is a point where readings became pretty tight, then it breaks out into sporadic again.

Thank you for pointing this out, there are so many posts on here already, I wasn't going to open up everyone's links.

__________________
Why is there never enough time to do it right the first time but always enough time to do it over?
Reply
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22643
Good Answers: 410
#162
In reply to #152

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/16/2012 7:54 AM

This is what upsetting is which chart to believe, Maybe if I was an accountant for Arthur Andersen, I could understand this.

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member Fans of Old Computers - PDP 11 - New Member Technical Fields - Architecture - New Member Hobbies - HAM Radio - New Member

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 2168
Good Answers: 70
#135
In reply to #3

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/15/2012 7:22 AM

SolarEagle, thank you for posting that article. I plan to reread it a few times! Being a "computer guy" I put a lot of faith in models that can be proven by predicting the present state of something by the use of known past data, and also reversing the process by input of current data to prove past "conclusions". The concluding statement says a lot! A lot more work is certainly ahead!

"Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations."

__________________
Tom - "Hoping my ship will come in before the dock rots!"
Reply
2
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South of Minot North Dakota
Posts: 8378
Good Answers: 774
#4

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/08/2012 3:51 PM

"and one that I have not received a clear answer on...isn't it a fact (e.g. physics?) that carbon dioxide absorbs solar radiation?"

YES. However that's not the whole argument or problem behind the debates either. There are a number of other factors in the equations that hold far far greater influence and control over the system than just CO2.

That other majority of the systems part is what us skeptics keep on picking and pointing relentlessly at. Good science doesn't and will not ignore the other 95%+ part of the systems and related equations because its good for politics and personal agendas.

Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
4
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11112
Good Answers: 918
#5

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/08/2012 5:01 PM

Maybe.

Now you have your middle ground.

Reply Good Answer (Score 4)
Guru
Belgium - Member - New Member APIX Pilot Plant Design Project - Member - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Glabbeek, Belgium
Posts: 1481
Good Answers: 28
#24
In reply to #5

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 10:28 AM

It depends

may be a better answer, depends on the occasion.

__________________
"Here we are now, entertain us"
Reply
3
Power-User

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 159
Good Answers: 14
#6

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/08/2012 11:11 PM

You can start the conversation there, and that is being totally disingenuous. The FIRST question that needs to be addressed is, "is a warmer earth better or worse." History dispenses that answer clearly and unequivocally. Warmer climes are better for humans and life in general, and colder climes are worse for humans and life in general. The second question that needs to be addressed is, is CO2 a climate driver or not? I'm more than satisfied that it is not. It was proven to be entirely reactionary and not causative.

Your question, however, is improperly phrased. The solar radiation does not interact to any appreciable degree with the co2. Instead, it strikes the earth's surface, is absorbed, and then re-emitted as longer wave radiation. THIS longer wave radiation then interacts, albeit weakly, with CO2. The effect of this radiation on CO2 is logarithmic and quickly reaches a point of saturation beyond which further increases in co2 have virtually NO effect. This saturation level is below present atmospheric levels. This longer wave radiation reacts with a host of other atmospheric gasses as well. Water vapor is present in greater quantity and co2 and water vapor have specific wavelengths in common to which they both react. In other words, there is some overlap. As water vapor is a much more effective greenhouse gas and there is much more of it than there is of CO2, it should seem obvious to the most casual observer that CO2 just isn't very relevant in terms of the greenhouse phenomenon. Higher up in the atmosphere, co2's spectral absorption is even less. It was also proven by satellite data that the atmosphere allows the escape of a LOT more heat energy than the AGW "models" projected or claimed.

AGW proponents like to mislead by leaving out black body radiation and focusing on spectral absorption; again, totally disingenuous. The topics you would want to study are black body radiation and spectral absorption. If you want the truth concerning both, make sure whatever you study makes no mention of co2 or global warming.

And finally, you can't get away from the math if you try. Co2 is maybe 1% of the greenhouse phenomenon. Man is responsible for 3% of atmospheric co2. 0.01 x 0.03 = 0.0003. Multiply by 100 to convert to percentile. 0.03% man's contribution to the greenhouse phenomenon by way of co2 production. Even if we accept the AGW crowd's contention that it is 8% and not less than 1%, you only get one-quarter of one percent.

Reply Good Answer (Score 3)
Guru

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Geelong, Australia
Posts: 1084
Good Answers: 54
#8
In reply to #6

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 12:04 AM

Well I have to again reluctantly disagree with jerrys. The FIRST question is the one atmospheric scientists have been working on for decades namely "What are the mechanisms that drive the Earths climate systems?"

Based on that research the majority consensus view is that the Earth's system is sensitive to CO2 levels (as well as many other things) and that Human activity is increasing CO2 levels.

Whether this is a good or bad thing is a value judgement that is outside the scope of science, it's political and certainly open to wide discussion.

As for jerrys' rant about "if you want the truth.. make sure the study makes no mention of CO2 ..", I think it shows he's trying a bit too hard. There's a small gap in the emission spectrum from the Earth coresponding to the absorbion/reradiation frequency of CO2, reducing that window even slightly will increase the temperature, higher temp means more water vapor and so on resulting in a new higher equilbrium temp

__________________
If there's something you don't understand...Then a wizard did it. As heard on "The Simpsons".
Reply
3
Power-User

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 159
Good Answers: 14
#9
In reply to #8

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 12:37 AM

Ah, and back you come AGAIN attacking the messenger. IF you had anything you wouldn't need your thinly veiled insults, you would counter with some actual facts.

The reason no one has successfully modeled climate is because it is too complex to model. No one ever mentions a real obvious input, internal heating from the earth. However, the main driver of climate is well known and understood: THE SUN. Milankovich cycles have yet to be disproven. The second main driver is also well known, the ocean currents.

Man contributes to atmospheric co2. So do ants, twice as much as man. Should we do away with ants? AGW proponents keep pretending man is not part of nature, like we are an alien specie with no right to exist on this planet and we should be entirely subservient to whatever else exists here. Man versus nature. An entirely fallacious viewpoint. For better or for worse, WE are part of nature.

You CLAIM the majority consensus view (again you spew facts without proof), is that the Earth's system is sensitive to CO2 levels. As the second part of that sentence, "sensitive to CO2 levels" is purposefully vague, it rather renders the first part "majority consensus view" meaningless. As far as climate is concerned, CO2 is as close to irrelevant as you can get. The Vostok Ice core evidence is hard to ignore here as it clearly demonstrates temperature rises first, THEN 100 to 1000 years later, co2 levels rise. Then temperature drops while CO2 levels remain elevated, and then CO2 levels GRADUALLY decline. That sure LOOKS like CO2 level increase is a reaction and not causation.

However, if you are trying to imply that a majority of scientists support AGW, that is simply a lie, and an oft-repeated one at that.

If you are trying to imply that higher temperature means more water vapor which leads to even higher temperature which leads to even more water vapor and so on and so on, again, that is a lie. Look up latent heat of vaporization as it applies to water. It takes 1000 times as much energy to change liquid water to gaseous form as it does to raise the same quantity one lousy degree. That heat energy is carried high up in the atmosphere (away from the earth's surface where we measure temperatures) and radiated back into space when the water condense to form precipitation. This has a moderating effect on temperature.

And I stand by my statement that if you want the truth, just go for the raw science and stay away from the ones that make mention of global warming as much as possible. They often (usually?) have an agenda behind them. They tend to be disingenuous and deceitful, I'm sure you know what I mean.

Reply Good Answer (Score 3)
Guru

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Geelong, Australia
Posts: 1084
Good Answers: 54
#10
In reply to #9

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 1:24 AM

I think we have a fundamental difference in how we approach the issue.

I want to understand the mechanism and the general explanation, available in many websites, seems plausible while the data from many studies over the years seems to point in the same direction.

You however seem to already know the answer and collect a huge array of factoids to "prove" your point of view. Hence your latest a grab bag of ideas - internal heating, milankovich cycles, ocean currents, ants, latent heat, evil scientists etc.

Let's look at your "Latent heat issue" (the ratio is actually about 540:1). Yes, I am saying if the temp goes up there is more water vapor in the air, hence more heat energy is radiated back to Earth, hence the temp goes up until a new equilibrium will be reached. You've studied "Nuclear reactor design" so this basic thermodynamics idea should be familiar.

I don't think your individual facts are necessarily wrong, but I do think you're missing the big picture.

__________________
If there's something you don't understand...Then a wizard did it. As heard on "The Simpsons".
Reply
2
Power-User

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 159
Good Answers: 14
#14
In reply to #10

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 2:37 AM

When we studied this in nuclear engineering school, we were told 973, not 540. I rounded up to 1000.

What you seem to be neglecting is that radiant heat is EMITTED in all directions. So, this energetic photon that is absorbed has maybe a 25% chance of being emitted downward. The evidence indicates that higher up in the atmosphere, most of the emission is back into space. Since convection is carrying the latent heat of vaporization HIGHER UP, seems a safe bet that most of that energy is going back into space, and that is why water vapor has a MODERATING EFFECT. IF you are trying to imply something akin to thermal runaway, that is not going to happen.

I'm not missing the big picture. The big picture comes into focus when one takes each and every "claim" of AGW and proves them false. The big picture comes into focus when one understands the deception and the reason behind the deception. People have trouble believing there is deception for deception's sake, they want to know the MOTIVATION. The UN makes their agenda plain for anyone and everyone to see. Carbon tax and "sustainability."

Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
2
Guru

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Geelong, Australia
Posts: 1084
Good Answers: 54
#16
In reply to #14

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 3:03 AM

Specific heat of vaporisation (water) 2257kJ/kg, Specific heat (water) 4.2kJ/kgK, 2257/4.2 ~= 540. (Admittedly those figures are from the internet so they may have a green/left bias).

The water vapor circulation occurs in the troposphere, there's a fair bit of atmosphere after that where the mechanism is different.

__________________
If there's something you don't understand...Then a wizard did it. As heard on "The Simpsons".
Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru
Belgium - Member - New Member APIX Pilot Plant Design Project - Member - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Glabbeek, Belgium
Posts: 1481
Good Answers: 28
#17
In reply to #9

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 3:19 AM

I have to disagree with your idea about attacking the messenger.

But dare to step away from the causes and start looking to the effect: something is going on with the atmosphere and it does not look good for the places were man tends to live.

Start with the question is a warmer climate good or bad: at global and regional level it is bad.

Colder climate? It is as bad as warmer.

There is too much equilibrium in the actual situation: some trees need to have cold feet, other can't withstand droughts. Some can't have frost, other really require it.

Insects tend to live in specific temperature zones and will migrate with it, this could bring certain insects in regions where there is no food for them as the specific plant they tend to eat is not following that fast.

General conclusion: rapid climate change (as happening now) is bad.

In the 80's the Austrian Alpenverein started warning about evolutions they saw happening in the higher regions of the mountains, their claim was that in 20 to 30 years time it might become so unstable in the alpine regions that it would become to dangerous to go up in summer.

These are simple facts: the Matterhorn is claimed to be unstable: the mountain is hold together by a permafrost which is thawing.

The collapse of such a mountain should be spectacular but it will also be dramatic.

My 5cent worth of advice: dare to look beond the discussion and start from the facts.

The Global Warming adepts did not invent it to make some noise: it all started from facts and real scientists who wanted to know what was going on. It took years of investigations to come to the concluson it was no natural cycle happening.

And don't laugh to hard: in some years most of us will anyhow use public transport or electric cars as mineral oil will be too expensive due the fact that the actual rise in demand can't be compensated anymore with rise in production. A decent report from the Pentagon is clearly explaining the mechanisms.

Iran knows why it is working hard to get nuclear running: they have the fuel (Uranium ore) and if you can make a nice weapon from that side product you can't avoid when enriching the stuff, who cares?

In 50 years they will be able to sell the fuel for the power plants that are running and keep the world running, that is why the world makes a fuss: the US wants to keep this ability in their allies ranks. As a danger for world stability the Indian and Pakistani bombs are much more dangerous, as they tend to fight regularly and could end up in wrong hands (the risk of a democracy)

The climate models are quite far evolved now, using real input and all parameters. But as they bring the wrong message some channels claim they are wrong. Anyhow these days the models are able to predict the amount of rain that will fall in our regions, quite impressive. 10 day predictions are even becoming precise, they even tell us when it all can turn the other direction, depending on that butterfly in the amazon region.

__________________
"Here we are now, entertain us"
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
2
Power-User

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: North Carolina, USA
Posts: 423
Good Answers: 9
#27
In reply to #8

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 1:34 PM

Google the phrase "Carbon Dioxide Thermostat" or similar. A post in CR4 a while ago (I wish I had that link) linked to a video presentation by a geologist that describes pretty well how Carbon circulation between the atmosphere and the planet's geologic features seems to be acting as the planetary temperature regulator.

Jerrys seems to be getting caught up in minutia and missing, or denying the big picture. For what it's worth my thought on the big picture is, briefly, that human activity is rapidly releasing the carbon (by burning fossil fuels) that took a very long time to sequester, and that is putting the planetary system out of balance much, much faster than usual. Rising temperatures are one response to that imbalance. Eventually it will reach a new equilibrium, but we as a species probably won't like it.

The implication that the ocean will somehow buffer the increase in carbon without consequence ignores the resulting acidification of the oceans and the damage that will do to our world food supply. Of course the oceans, etc. will eventually reabsorb the excess carbon and more, but we as a species probably won't like the results of that either.

Remember, it only take a tiny amount of extra stuff on one side to put any system out of balance.

Of course, none of us writing here (and maybe not our children) will be around when the system finally starts the reverse swing so we'll miss the worst of the changes, so let's keep on doing what we've always done and let the next generations deal with it.

Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Power-User

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 159
Good Answers: 14
#28
In reply to #27

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 1:58 PM

It's really easy to watch one person's presentation of the subject matter at hand and come away convinced of that person's position, much like Al Hore's video. When you start analyzing individual claims and each individual claim falls apart, obviously the whole is invalidated. It is not an argument in support of something to say that so and so believes this or that. Al Hore was very convincing. He was also very WRONG. This underscores my emphasis on analyzing the SCIENCE behind each claim and, to avoid being further propagandized, just going to the raw science in search of truth. Indeed, every time I do so, the various AGW claims are revealed for the fraud and deception they are, taking into account the part of the science or scientific principle that supports their position and omitting anything that contradicts, much like their fraudulent data sets.

I'm really getting tired of the en masse thinly veiled insults from you folks, claiming I missed the big picture. I didn't miss the big picture. I get the big picture. The big picture is this is a highly politicized issue with govt (CORRUPTION) inserting itself in the middle of it and an OBSCENE amount of money to be made and indeed already being made. My detractors are like a bunch of magicians attempting to use sleight of hand. Stay on target. Just as I piece by piece tore apart the fraud that is AGW, if I'm wrong you arm chair physicists and climatologists should be able to refute the evidence I present instead of attempting to diminish me and, by association, the evidence I present.

Each discussion of global warming on CR4 degrades further with the introduction of more obfuscation from the global warming alarmists. The earth has problems. CO2 level isn't one of them. CO2 is not a climate driver. CO2 is not pollution or an environmental problem unless we have too little CO2, THEN CO2 will be a problem. As we are at historically LOW CO2 levels, it is quite simply beyond LUDICROUS for you alarmists to be claiming levels should be even lower. BTW, that 3% (man's contribution to atmospheric CO2) figure I have quoted repeatedly, that figure is ACCEPTED and indeed bandied about by AGW PROPONENTS. I didn't make it up or get it from some nebulous corner of the internet. ANY ONE of you can do an internet search for corroboration. ANY of you posting a different number is quite simply a bald-faced LIAR. I have found overwhelming corroboration of that figure.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Virginia, Georgia, Idaho
Posts: 1079
Good Answers: 30
#31
In reply to #28

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 2:58 PM

This is not veiled. You don't get the big picture.

There have been conspiracy theorists just like you for as long as I can remember, from Cold War spies to Iraqi weapons, to World trade center demolition, to Obama birthers, to Mcarthy informers. We are going to thank you when all hell breaks loose, aren't we?

394 PPM 2012 This is the highest level in approximately 400,000 years, by over 50%. I tried to find anyone who disputes these numbers, but even the kooks say it's higher, but they say it doesn't matter. Is that what you are saying?

Links to CO2 historic data.

http://co2now.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Past_variation

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-06/01/400-ppm

__________________
PFR Pressure busts pipes. Maybe you need better pipes.
Reply Off Topic (Score 7)
Guru
Panama - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Panama
Posts: 4274
Good Answers: 213
#34
In reply to #31

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 5:11 PM

I was pretty much with you, until you limited your historical record to the last 400,000 years. That represents about 1/10,000 th of the history of the earth, and something on the order of 0.06% of the period of time during which higher life forms have apparently be inhabiting the earth. To consider only the last 400,000 years as establishing any sort of "normal" is really, really stretching things...

Reply Off Topic (Score 3)
Power-User

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 159
Good Answers: 14
#35
In reply to #31

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 5:16 PM

Thank you for revealing yourself as another in a long line of establishment mouthpieces. Now I know to completely disregard anything you have to say. It wouldn't matter to you that Obama and his wife both stated he's from Kenya. It wouldn't matter to you that ANYONE can download that fake long form and enlarge it and see the obvious childish fraud that it is. It wouldn't matter to you the long list of distinguished military OFFICERS who dispute the official 9/11 report and contend the buildings were demolished. I remember how Iraq part I went down. Saddam had his troops massed on the border. April Gillespie, our ambassador to Iraq, went over and told Saddam "the US takes no position in your border dispute with Kuwait;" (public knowledge it was in the papers). Saddam invaded and GW gave his famous line in the sand speech. Not sure what your point is about the Iraqi weapons, everyone knows there were no WMDs. What is your point? You trying to rewrite history?

Your contention that 394 ppm is the highest level in 400,000 years by 50% is patently false. Ernst Georg Beck's work with real-time (not proxy) measurements proved that. And finally, it is completely irrelevant as, once again, (and your AGW scientists confirm this), the effect of co2 is logarithmic and quickly reaches a saturation point beyond which further increase in co2 has no effect as a greenhouse gas. You can't get around that simple fact, and that is just one of many simple facts you and your NWO puppet masters can't get around, try as you might. You can lie, call names, twist facts, lie by omission, manipulate data, "lose" data, whatever. You all are losing this propaganda war because that is all it ever was.

Reply Off Topic (Score 4)
Anonymous Poster #1
#136
In reply to #35

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/15/2012 7:38 AM

Um, Jerry,

"Thank you for revealing yourself as another in a long line of establishment mouthpieces." sounds a lot like an insult to me. Possibly a, "thinly veiled insult."

Looks like your house is made of glass. Maybe you shouldn't be throwing stones.

Reply Off Topic (Score 6)
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tulare, CA
Posts: 1783
Good Answers: 35
#196
In reply to #28

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

09/03/2012 12:54 PM

Does it really matter?

Notice this entire issue was originated by Politicians. It keeps us divided in our thinking.

It really doesn't matter who writes what whether or not it is fact or false. People are only going to accept the information that best fits what they themselves believe and ignore anything that disagrees with them whether it is right or wrong.

__________________
Why is there never enough time to do it right the first time but always enough time to do it over?
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1053
Good Answers: 110
#203
In reply to #196

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

09/03/2012 7:17 PM

Notice this entire issue was originated by Politicians. It keeps us divided in our thinking.


I've been following this issue (if by "this issue" you mean climate change and its causes) for only about 40 years (and would have liked to be around for the earlier discussions, which began in 1896 with calculations of the effects of human-created CO2 and global warming climate change.) I cannot come up the name of any politician who figured prominently in the early research. Who did you have in mind?

As I remember, the relatively modern scientific debate (starting in the late 1960s) began with two main theories: the mainstream one at the time (that the planet would warm from human-generated greenhouse gas effects -- roughly in line with the 1896 calculations) or the alternate, that the planet would cool from the shading effect of polluting particles in the air. As computer models developed, the cooling theory fell by the wayside in the 70's. When the many positive and negative feedbacks are considered (requiring a lot of computing power), the warming theory is much better-supported. Now, of course, the planet is clearly warming, adding further support for the warming theory, and even the main "deniers" (the petroleum companies) have acknowledged that human activities are forcing climate change.

It really doesn't matter who writes what whether or not it is fact or false.

If you are saying that ad-hominem arguments are usually considered flawed, I agree.


People are only going to accept the information that best fits what they themselves believe and ignore anything that disagrees with them whether it is right or wrong.


This is far less true in science than in the culture at large*. Scientists spring from little scientists -- kids who love to experiment, observe, and figure stuff out. Egos cause such people to love to prove others wrong. Science is, as a result, comparatively objective, and conclusions can be supported or rejected on the basis of evidence rather than upon one belief system or another. While it is impossible to say whether Hinduism or Christianity has a better grasp on "truth", but it is possible to say that F=MA, and nearly impossible to present a serious and meaningful challenge to that.


But yes, in the culture at large, it is sadly true that ad-hominem arguments are effective. As Rupert Murdoch and Fox News have demonstrated, large numbers of people can be made to believe almost anything, no matter how patently false. People like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck because they are entertaining. Then, because they like them, they believe the things they say, even though both are clueless re science, economics, etc. There is no logic there, it is purely emotional. I think there are very good reasons for economists studying economics, scientists studying science, doctors studying medicine, and engineers studying engineering. But I am in the minority.


It appears that more than 50% of the US population disagrees with me. Most people look to entertainers for simple (albeit profoundly wrong) answers to complex subjects. It is so much easier and more fun than having to think or study. Global warming science cannot be tweeted, in any meaningful form.

* Even in the culture at large , there are subcultures in which acceptance and embracing the views of others are routinely practiced. In developed countries, many people have been steeped in a post modern period in which "anything goes" and in which change (even dramatic change) is embraced. (Hippies, etc.) But there is now widespread reaction against progressive and post modern thought, because the pendulum has appeared to have swung too far. One obvious result: terrorism. Fundamentalists feel unheard and unappreciated, so we have abortion clinic bombings, 9-11, etc. For small groups, change by peaceful means can seem impossible, so violence becomes the tool. Many people are deeply offended by American cultural spread, and find justification in their great books for violence, just as Europeans did for the Crusades, and as American churches did to favor slavery, segregation, denying women the right to vote, etc.

__________________
Think big. Drive small.
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tulare, CA
Posts: 1783
Good Answers: 35
#217
In reply to #203

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

09/04/2012 11:13 AM

Great Post, thank you.

Aww, you shot down my Hero Rush...Now I'll have to find new ones...I'm thinking Jerry Springer and Geraldo Rivera. haha...

Thank you K, and you're right, true science is objective and non-biased, however the problems we have is people taking that information and molding it to fit their point of views and that is the information, we as the public are bombarded with. It's very much like turning everything into conspiracy theories. What do we believe?

From my point of view, most of the information put out there on Global warming has been used solely for the purpose of getting you to buy products.

__________________
Why is there never enough time to do it right the first time but always enough time to do it over?
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Virginia, Georgia, Idaho
Posts: 1079
Good Answers: 30
#220
In reply to #217

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

09/04/2012 5:45 PM

You are confusing "true science" with the "laws of nature".

True science is a romantic notion of an unattainable state of knowledge that will enable you to postulate only truths. As anyone who has ever done anything remotely difficult knows, it's an uncommon problem that gets solved without many errors in judgement and misplaced diagnostics, formula's and preconceived notions along the way. Bias, if you will, is the director of any good science movie. Scientists do not know the answer, so they take an educated guess. This is how it has always been, but for some of the lunatic fringe, it is now essential to rewrite history, and to insist that science is only real when a fantastically complicated system is fact checked by the armchair politicals. Interpretation of the laws of nature is messy and controversial. The laws themselves are not.

Lifetimes have been spent learning things that turned out to be patently false. That can still be science. I see this same childlike awe in some of these reply's about the Constitution providing an instruction manual for what what our government should be doing. (or not doing) Like the owners manual in your car tells you not to drive if the check engine light is on, The Constitution says that you need to make prosecution of crimes public and involve representation. It does not say much about the internet or global banking, invading a country, or how the tires work, or traction control.

If I thought that global warming (or drastic climate change) were not real, I would be not be buying... what?.... I can't think of anything. I have solar PV because of the environmental benefits reducing pollution, and the adverse geopolitical impact of imported oil, in addition to the nice Return On Investment. What are you referring to? I just bought a beach house, so I'm not afraid of rising sea levels per se. I am going to build it on concrete columns, but that's cause I want to save insurance premium money, not because I'm afraid of sea level rise.

__________________
PFR Pressure busts pipes. Maybe you need better pipes.
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tulare, CA
Posts: 1783
Good Answers: 35
#221
In reply to #220

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

09/04/2012 6:32 PM

I agree with your statement with just one exception:

I am not confusing anything.

Yes we get a lot of people only taking what they have decided agrees with their own ideals and ignoring anything else whether it is right or wrong.

__________________
Why is there never enough time to do it right the first time but always enough time to do it over?
Reply
2
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Out of your mind! Not in sight!
Posts: 4425
Good Answers: 107
#133
In reply to #8

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/15/2012 1:26 AM

FFej,

sorry to disagree with your opinion and if I might add a personal point: you are reading but not thinking.

The so very pushed consensus that CO2 is driving climate is a political one since in fits a scheme. But there has been broad evidence in all the fundamental science that climate is the driver for CO2. And you cant deny the fact that you can not prove one or the other.

I think Jerry added a bit of a overstatement when saying that the question was asked wrong. But in fact he answered the question correctly which by the way was a very easy one to answer. He even admits (later down in his posts) that there is a Green house gas effect of CO2 which should play into a believers hand.

Just take it as a serious engineering statement:

CO2 has very little to do with any warming that is going on on Earth.

The dividing question I am going to ask anyone who claims it has is:

Which is the "biggest" green house gas on Earth?

If you answer CO2 you have not done you research correct as anyone knows it is Water Vapour.

We can waste more time on this or tackle the real global problems.

Its our choice, but I don't want to be on the side where my kids will say: They had the chance but messed it up.

Cheers IS

__________________
Common Sense Dictates
Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
2
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1053
Good Answers: 110
#149
In reply to #133

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/15/2012 12:01 PM

sorry to disagree with your opinion and if I might add a personal point: you are reading but not thinking.


Why the insult? FFEJ is a smart guy who thinks.

Which is the "biggest" green house gas on Earth?

If you answer CO2 you have not done you research correct as anyone knows it is Water Vapour.

I hope you do not think that anyone seriously interested in the causes of global warming and climate change is unaware of this. There is no need to write as if to 5-year-olds. The fact that there are many greenhouse gases does not mean that CO2 has no effect. Are you aware of a climate model that fails to consider the effects of water vapor?

Here are five statements. With which do you agree?

1. As the earth warms (from whatever cause), additional water vapor enters the atmosphere (tending to cause more warming).

2. As the earth warms (from whatever cause), additional methane is released into the atmosphere (tending to cause more warming).

3. As the earth warms (from whatever cause), additional CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the oceans (tending to cause more warming).

4. These are three of the many positive feedback loops which tend to cause an increase in the rate of global warming.

5. There are negative feedback loops as well.

Although gross oversimplification plays well to the Fox news crowd, it does not play well with those interested in the science. Your argument seems to be "water vapor is a major greenhouse gas, therefore we are wasting time, and should move on to 'real global problems'". What problem do you have in mind?

__________________
Think big. Drive small.
Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Out of your mind! Not in sight!
Posts: 4425
Good Answers: 107
#160
In reply to #149

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/16/2012 2:24 AM

FFey as far as I am concerned stated earlier or later in his posts that he :

I want to understand the mechanism and the general explanation, available in many websites, seems plausible while the data from many studies over the years seems to point in the same direction.

Surely he is putting a lot of effort into reading and all his trust goes to the repeat information that is contained in those websites. We can talk all about how plausible it is that only because we can read it anywhere is it true? Partly this seems to be the reason why thinks get hot in this discussion.

Can you now see why I made my point? And sorry FFey it was not meant to be an insult.

To the 5 year old remark I would say just make a test and ask a few kids what the most effective greenhouse gas is. The answer that comes out from schools is almost criminal since water vapour is not the answer you get from there.

I think that understanding of Water Vapour in the atmosphere is critical to the understanding of the processes that are going on.

To answer the points you are making one by one:

1. This is a moot point as I am pretty sure that if Water vapour remains in the atmosphere and cuts of direct sun light we Will probably see an adverse effect. But it is so unlikely that we fill all the Atmosphere with water vapour and anyway we are not talking about water vapour or are we? Where is the CO2 in this. All I know and feel is that a cloudy night is much warmer than a clear sky night at the same spot the same time of the year. The difference is huge and will overshadow any effect from any other greenhouse gas.

2. Haven't done my homework on Methane so sorry I can not say it will or will not cause warming. But while I am at it. you coming in both earlier points from the premises that the Earth warms already and then the effect is that there is more warming. But where is the warming coming from is the essential question. Right?

3. Now this is a nice point to talk about. If I get you right Oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere when the Atmospheric temperature rises! I am getting this notion: it means Temperature would be the culprit of more CO2 in the atmosphere, rather than the other way around.

4. How far have we established this feedback loop then if we can not predict a clear sky or cloudy weather even over a year. Somebody seen that drought coming in States? Somebody seen the nasty summer start coming in Europe?

5. Since I have not agreed on positive feedback loops I will not agree on negative ones. How about a moving Middle point? It goes up and it goes down.

I don't see Fox so can not talk about this, but there seems to be some statistical information which could or could not be right. Almost like Global Warming Science.

Problem is that we as a whole society can still not see when we are given a run around. Problem is that this is a global scam and problem is that we probably never fully agree with every single one of us having his own opinion. Meanwhile Millions are starving, countries fall into war and people are pressed to move due to social, environmental and political pressure. Are we prepared for any man or natural made disaster, even tough we are talking about what might be the sourec, we might just tweak on the wrong end of society to tackle the problem. What if CO2 is not the problem and it still warms. Are we prepared for this? I think too much effort is spend to research into only one direction.

Coming to think of it: What is the consequence of a negative feed back loop in society? If nobody believes any more what is being said would we stop doing what could prevent us from preventing what we think is going to happen? Shall we just believe and do what we do so at least something is done? Is this the reason for the actionism?

Gosh, need to cut it off! Seems to be a never ending story.

So long

__________________
Common Sense Dictates
Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - Been there, done that. Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 15111
Good Answers: 936
#163
In reply to #160

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/16/2012 9:28 AM

Of course the Earth reaches local limits of water vapour saturation. That's how clouds and storms and formed. Now the pressure and temperature in our atmosphere is nowhere near the triple point for CO2. So clouds and rain or snow of CO2 is not possible. Your observation of the warmth under a cloud bank at night is accurate. You're missing the point that the added CO2 will reduce very slightly the amount of cooling you get when the cloud bank move away.

__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1894
Good Answers: 44
#224
In reply to #163

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

09/05/2012 11:49 AM

If we don't quit pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, will we end up like Venus with over 95% CO2 atmosphere?

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1053
Good Answers: 110
#172
In reply to #160

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/16/2012 7:54 PM

Hi. Thanks for answering my questions.


I've numbered most of my comments to match yours.

1. But it is so unlikely that we fill all the Atmosphere with water vapour and anyway we are not talking about water vapour or are we? Where is the CO2 in this. All I know and feel is that a cloudy night is much warmer than a clear sky night at the same spot the same time of the year.
Clouds and water vapor are two distinct things. Clouds are droplets of liquid water. Water vapor is an invisible gas. Water vapor has long been recognized as a greenhouse gas, and it's effects are included in every modern climate model. Clouds, on the other hand, have a different effect, generally tending to cool things off, by reflecting sunlight.

2. Haven't done my homework on Methane so sorry I can not say it will or will not cause warming.
Yes, it is a much more potent greenhouse gas (but less of it is in the atmosphere) than CO2. That these greenhouse gases (water vapor, CO2, methane, NOx, etc.) act as a mechanism for increasing surface temperature is not in question. One cannot explain actual surface temperatures without taking them all into account.

3. Now this is a nice point to talk about. If I get you right Oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere when the Atmospheric temperature rises! Yes, sort of. It is actually the increase in water temperature that causes the CO2 to come out of solution. This makes man made CO2 a "double whammy." Add a little more CO2, and the balance goes haywire, with even more CO2 being added from the temperature increase. Frozen bogs melt and release methane, exacerbating the problem. Ice melts, reducing reflectance, further exacerbating the problem. Satellite data shows that these effects are happening as expected.

4. How far have we established this feedback loop then if we can not predict a clear sky or cloudy weather even over a year. Somebody seen that drought coming in States? Somebody seen the nasty summer start coming in Europe?
For about 2 decades, it has been broadly recognized that the effects of climate change will be more severe weather: more droughts, more floods, more hurricanes, etc. The data appears to support that such things are happening, with, for example, record high temperatures happening all around the planet. These effects are visible over decades more so than over individual years. Can we say what precisely will happen next year? No. It was in 1996 that BP (the oil company) was the first major player in that notoriously "skeptical" industry, to say words to the effect of "Yes, man made global warming appears to be happening."

5. Since I have not agreed on positive feedback loops I will not agree on negative ones.
I doubt that there is any serious climate scientist who does not recognize that there are positive feedbacks and negative feedbacks. You are welcome to your opinion that everything is random, but few scientists support that position.

re Fox: You are fortunate that you don't watch it. Several studies now have found the same effect.

Problem is that we as a whole society can still not see when we are given a run around.
True. The state of science education is awful in the US, so very few people have anything close to the knowledge and skill to make simple scientific evaluations. In Europe things are not so bad. (It goes beyond science: many Americans cannot even tell you where Chicago is located.) 80% of Americans believe that creation occurred as spelled out in the Christian bible, and less than 1% can describe the creation stories presented in other great religious books.

Coming to think of it: What is the consequence of a negative feed back loop in society? If nobody believes any more what is being said would we stop doing what could prevent us from preventing what we think is going to happen?
Yes. The economic power of the companies with a stake in maintaining the status quo (using large amounts of gasoline, coal and natural gas, buying large profitable cars instead of small more efficient and less profitable ones, buying huge TV sets, building huge houses) is staggeringly high. The power of a few thousand climate scientists, most of whom are completely unknown to the mainstream press, is utterly insignificant.

Even climate scientists have become discouraged and apathetic. The models (of which there are now about 40 "big" ones) are increasingly in agreement, but that message does not get out. Using less of everything, the obvious solution to many woes -- personal financial strain, environmental destruction and resource depletion, pollution generation, human and economic cost of securing oil access, greenhouse gas generation, increased food prices, etc. -- is also the least palatable solution for capitalism: we need continuous growth for the stock market to flourish, and need people to buy lots of useless stuff to pull out of the recession. No one has a workable solution to ameliorate the effects of CO2 and virtually every large industry has clear reasons for resisting anything that would reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Imagine what a disaster it would be if we started to only buy the stuff we really need. The average car cost would be cut in half, and we'd buy cars half as often. The auto industry would collapse, shrinking to 25% of current size. Hundreds of thousands of workers would be laid off in the US alone. Imagine if we saved money like our grand parents told us to. The entire economy would tank, worldwide.


When I am not driving my Zing prototype, I drive a 2004 Honda Accord (the cheapest version available at the time) and with 120,000 miles on it it runs like new. I will certainly still be driving it for another 9 years. If lots of people followed in my footsteps, we'd have an economic disaster on our hands.


Having no obvious solutions is not a good reason to deny the problem, however.

__________________
Think big. Drive small.
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Out of your mind! Not in sight!
Posts: 4425
Good Answers: 107
#265
In reply to #172

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/13/2014 12:17 AM

I am just taking your last point.

Its been a while but I think you deserve an answer:

All I see in this global warming/ climate change actions and talks and whatever is
... we actually provide solutions for a problem that we have not even found the reason for nor do we even know it exists ...

Why on Earth are we not taking the problems that we do know exist and tackle them?

Give me one reason why we can not agree to drive a car that takes less fuel just because it takes less fuel?

I just bought a big car which takes less fuel than the old one. I should be on the right track!

__________________
Common Sense Dictates
Reply
3
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sebastopol, California
Posts: 1062
Good Answers: 48
#144
In reply to #8

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/15/2012 11:13 AM

Ok, so the car is sensitive to movement of the steering wheel. What DRIVES the car? What is the energy output of the Sun and what has it been up to?

What if the Sun were experiencing an extended solar minimum and things were cooling down? Would we be arguing about increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses to "fix" it?

__________________
Most people are mostly good most of the time.
Reply Good Answer (Score 3)
3
Guru

Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 677
Good Answers: 8
#12
In reply to #6

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 2:30 AM

WHERE is this guy getting his 3% from? How can it be 3% when we drove up the CO2 levels from about 280 ppm to 390 ppm in just over a hundred years?

As jerrys would say 390 divided by 280 is 3%

O, hang on a minute, it actually isn't.

And if his figure is pure fantasy why is he even allowed to post?

That is a serious question by the way. Shouldn't there be a "sin bin" for those that post stuff like 3% and those with the mathematical competence to actually give a "good answer" for a post that contains such a gigantic error? Surely Jerry's deserve a year's vacation from CR4 for the continued 3% quotation?

If you don't have rules, it becomes survival of the dumbest. (But that will only apply to those who linger on here). Because quite honestly, wading through bull crap is not worth the effort.

You are destroying the integrity of CR4 by continuing to allow stupid stuff to be posted.

Reply Good Answer (Score 3)
Power-User

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 159
Good Answers: 14
#15
In reply to #12

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 2:52 AM

Your stupidity is showing. The oceans store huge amounts of carbon dioxide in their depths. COLD water holds more CO2 than warm water. The SUN warms up the earths surface and the surface waters of the oceans (you might want to look up stratification of the water in the oceans and contemplate more and insult less). The reason there is a lag between temperature increase and CO2 level increase is because the warm surface waters must first mingle with the waters in the ocean depths before the CO2 is released (warmer water holds less CO2). Still with me, genius? Nature puts 97% of the co2 in the atmosphere. IT IS AN ONGOING THING, the same as mankind's 3%. The oceans sink carbon, plants sink carbon. CO2 goes into the atmosphere and CO2 is removed from the atmosphere.

Geez, I can't believe I have to point this out. Maybe YOU should take a few years off and go back to high school and actually enroll in and finish physics class and math class, THEN (if you can handle it) some college level courses. You are, frankly, just another intellectually stunted individual with nothing to contribute but insults.

Your problem is you have no idea what you are talking about. The last geologic time period with CO2 levels this LOW was 300 MILLION YEARS AGO. Levels have been more than 25 times present level. The mean (or average) level is 1500 ppm. Man didn't create these high co2 levels. Trying to claim that THIS time is different is completely bogus. The ONLY thing different this time is the lies, spin, and money to be made.

Reply Off Topic (Score 4)
Guru
Belgium - Member - New Member APIX Pilot Plant Design Project - Member - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Glabbeek, Belgium
Posts: 1481
Good Answers: 28
#18
In reply to #15

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 3:25 AM

The ocean's ability to store CO2 is complete, it is already killing fragile structures.

The warming of the water will release it again, same for the vast amounts of methane that are stored in the depts.

Check some information on killing lakes: they are fed from below with volcanic CO2, from time to time it releases in one event (earthslide or so) and kills thousands round the shores.

__________________
"Here we are now, entertain us"
Reply
Power-User

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 159
Good Answers: 14
#29
In reply to #18

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 2:09 PM

the miniscule change in pH isn't damaging fragile ecosystems. OBVIOUSLY, with variations in CO2 level up to 25 times greater than present level in earth's past, if those "fragile" ecosystems survived that, they will survive this present day extremely LOW level of atmospheric CO2. BTW, for all you tree huggers, controlled laboratory tests tell a different story. The (ocean reef) life adapted to a more dramatic change in pH under controlled laboratory conditions and indeed came back stronger after a brief period of adaptation. These nonsense stories about the dying coral reefs have been circulated for decades. Actual real world measurements of the reefs tell a different story. I have seen some anecdotal evidence that people frequenting the coral reefs are negatively impacting them, but that is an entirely different matter. Much like your CLAIMED causal relationship between co2 levels and temperature increase (it's summer), you have to establish that the reefs are having serious problems from ocean acidification (they aren't) and then PROVE, PROVE CO2 is the culprit (which you obviously cannot without rewriting history). That's really the problem for you alarmists. You can't undo history, even though your bought off "scientists" just bursting with integrity have attempted to do so with their en-masse data falsification and manipulation.

Reply
Guru
Belgium - Member - New Member APIX Pilot Plant Design Project - Member - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Glabbeek, Belgium
Posts: 1481
Good Answers: 28
#36
In reply to #29

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/10/2012 5:18 AM

??

Where did I claim the causal relation between CO2 and the actual temperatures?

Summer here is cold, colder than normal.

There is a causal relation between climate change and human activities.

CO2 in the atmosphere is just one of the parameters we can measure and can manipulate.

Don't let you be fooled by hard yeller that claim that the renewed scientists are wrong based on last year average temperature.

Climate is a period of 30 years: clearly longer than 2 solar cycles, clearly longer than most people can evaluate on their memories.

I accept that I don't have the knowledge and data to do the analysis myself, so I analyse the documents created by others. I had to come to a conclusion that the people who are giving the best documentation on their scientific approach and who are the most open on the results they publish tend to warn on the future.

Most of them even reduce what they really conclude as nobody would believe it, they present the lowest possible result as the potential risk we face.

As soon as the funding of an organisation is not clear, you have to pay attention on the results shown.

It is as in crime: follow the money.

__________________
"Here we are now, entertain us"
Reply
Commentator

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 63
Good Answers: 1
#117
In reply to #29

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/14/2012 2:53 PM

calm down man!

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1064
Good Answers: 92
#129
In reply to #12

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/14/2012 10:54 PM

WHERE is this guy getting his 3% from? How can it be 3% when we drove up the CO2 levels from about 280 ppm to 390 ppm in just over a hundred years?

i know this is probably way off topic, but has anyone ever looked at the effect this has on plant life? is photosynthesis an equilibrium reaction, that would accelerate with the higher partial pressure of CO2? if so, maybe the rain forests matter more than the chimney forests! anyone know?

Reply Off Topic (Score 4)
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: West Coxsackie, NY
Posts: 533
Good Answers: 10
#7

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/08/2012 11:53 PM

We can agree to a friendly disagree as we sort out the particulars as to what we are experiencing and figure out what is exactly happening with out our emotions and just plain science. Now we know July was the hottest on record since records have been recorded for the US. What this means is unknown at present time. Have we hit the tipping point? More tests need to be performed, more information is required. Is this a cyclicyclical planet event? More time and tests to be recorded. We know Earth has had many intervals of extinctions over the past millions of years, ice ages, extreme heat issues so it has to be all put together as to what is mother earth up to now. We also know man has decimated mother earth in many ways and we have and will suffer for what we have done to this planet we live on. Maybe she is pissed at us and having a hissy fit at the moment. One thing for sure is with the droughts in the west, farms in the us unable to supply foods that we need, will this impact the food industry? Restaurants, fast food joints, your favorite diner, and the grocery store? Only time will tell... We just have to wait and see.

Till then, start planting your own gardens.

__________________
"Real Bass Players" do not use picks
Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 182
Good Answers: 9
#13
In reply to #7

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 2:33 AM

According to my weatherman, it was the hottest July in history. It was 2 tenths of one degree hotter that it was during a July in the 1930's (1932 I believe was the exact year)

Since he is quite (passionately) involved in the global warming controversy, I'll have to email this blog to him.

Personally, this is waaaaay over my head, and I'm just waiting around to see if we make it through the Mayan calender in December. (or not)

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
10
Guru
Panama - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Panama
Posts: 4274
Good Answers: 213
#11

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 2:04 AM

Here is a chart, downloaded from a US Government website, suggesting that, at least as recently as 2004, earth's temperature was still somewhat below the "Global Optimum", however that has been determined:

One can zoom this graph on the original web site to look further into the past:

What one should pay attention to here is that the past 10,000 years or so have experienced an UNCOMMON temperature stability. What is so special about the last 10,000 years? Humans began massive land clearing projects to create space for their blooming agricultural technology. If you want a stable climate, you should let humans do what they do.

The question should not be, is human activity the cause of global warming?, but rather, should we be squandering scarce resources chasing this "crisis" when we have far more pressing concerns that need to be addressed? Things like the impact of growing urbanization and the threat to human health and well-being. Things like the lack of potable water supplies. The list goes on, and the interesting thing about spending money on the other problems is that, one might actually achieve positive results.

Now, it is clear that we do not fully understand the mechanisms driving the climate. It is also becoming more and more recognized that colder spells result in more famines, wars and other unpleasant things. Now, if we start tweaking a chaotic system that we do not understand, and we have one of our famous "OOPS!" moments and induce a new ice age, I think everyone would agree that this would not be in our best interest...

Best not to mess with Mother Nature- let's spend our tax dollars on problems that we might have a small chance of actually solving...

Reply Good Answer (Score 10)
Guru
United Kingdom - Member - Indeterminate Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: In the bothy, 7 chains down the line from Dodman's Lane level crossing, in the nation formerly known as Great Britain. Kettle's on.
Posts: 30315
Good Answers: 817
#20
In reply to #11

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 4:17 AM

Homo Sapiens has developed to the point where it has the ability to study, consider and evaluate all avenues that might lead to its demise and do something about avoiding them. That in itself is a major achievement for any species.

__________________
"Did you get my e-mail?" - "The biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" - George Bernard Shaw, 1856
Reply
2
Active Contributor

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 15
Good Answers: 1
#19

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 4:07 AM

Global warming, earth cooling, man effecting it,

Is it good or bad for the earth?

Well the earth will be still here, we might not.

The real question should be how are our effects on the earth going to affect how we as a human race going to survive?

Of all the creatures on this planet, apart from Humans I cant think of one that takes more than it needs and destroys its own environment without thought.

We need to think more of what effects we have on things and try to limit them so we don't exhaust all the recourses,
If we don't as a human race will change, as there wont be any thing left for us to live on.

So to me at least, its fairly irrelevant if the planet is warming or cooling, as at current rate I can see the human race becoming extinct or at least a global mass reduction in population.

So, ice caps melt, areas flood, weather patterns change, droughts famines, animals and plants die, maybe or may not be because of what we do,

But taking more than you need and destroying our environment can only lead to one end.

Umm, with that happy thought, have a good day.

Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru
Panama - Member - New Member Hobbies - CNC - New Member Engineering Fields - Marine Engineering - New Member Engineering Fields - Retired Engineers / Mentors - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Panama
Posts: 4274
Good Answers: 213
#32
In reply to #19

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 4:56 PM

"...Of all the creatures on this planet, apart from Humans I cant [sic] think of one that takes more than it needs and destroys its own environment without thought..."

Unfortunately, this homocentric viewpoint is upside down. EVERY species that exists, left unconstrained by parasites, disease, predators, etc., will reproduce until they have exceeded the carrying capacity of the environment. Without thinking about it. Furthermore, EVERY species that exists excretes waste into the environment, and will eventually render the environment uninhabitable for that particular species (think of the original anaerobic lifeforms that originally rendered much of the earth uninhabitable for their species by excreting too much oxygen). Without thinking about it.

Humans are the only species I know of that actually THINK about the impact on the environment as they continue to destroy it...

Reply
4
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - Been there, done that. Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 15111
Good Answers: 936
#30

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 2:13 PM

Well Larry, I think that you have your answer right here in this little forum. People cannot even agree what you asked here. As you can also see, citations of peer reviewed scientific measurements and analysis are shunned as propaganda reports. There has been a few well intended simplification articles offered as proof of fact. However, none of these articles actually address your question.

To answer your specific question, carbon dioxide does absorb some electromagnetic radiation from the sun and any other source. (I hope to assemble a clearer, more in-depth reply with scientific citations this evening.)

__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
Reply Good Answer (Score 4)
Power-User

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 159
Good Answers: 14
#33
In reply to #30

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/09/2012 5:04 PM

CO2's spectral absorption is not of direct sunlight. AGAIN, the sunlight strikes the earth's surface, warming it, which leads to emission of longer wave energy of lower energy photons. These photons radiated from the earth's surface are the ones that interact with the gases in the atmosphere, resulting in the greenhouse phenomenon.

Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: La Crescent, MN
Posts: 152
#37

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/10/2012 9:42 AM

First, thanks to all providing comments. Myself and others are becoming more educated on a very important topic. It is this high level of importance that brings out the emotions that will always be a part of this issue.

So, with the uncertainity of (the magnitude of) global warming and a higher level of uncertainty whether there is any change in the climate due to manmade GWGs, and the magnitude (and wide range) of possible impacts on our planet, and the current state of our economies.... What, if any, prudent/obvious actions should we (inhabitants of this planet) be taking?

Larry

Reply
2
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11112
Good Answers: 918
#38
In reply to #37

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/10/2012 10:04 AM

You forgot to add to that, what percentage of any change is actually anthropogenic.

What do I think? I think we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
2
Power-User

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 159
Good Answers: 14
#39
In reply to #37

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/10/2012 2:34 PM

Regarding global warming, nothing. Regarding pollution? Everything you can, and the deck is stacked against us. We don't have a water shortage and we don't have (and never had) an energy crisis. We have mismanagement of resources. For example, all the water we use in our homes goes into the sewer system. Grey water should be separated from sewage and used on the spot for irrigation. I read decades ago that the City of LA has (had?) something like six multi-thousand horsepower diesel engines that ran off the methane from their sewage plant. Corporate farms and monocrop agriculture are destroying our arable farm land and they do it in 2 to 7 years, completely destroying the topsoil which blows away. Family farms take way better care of the environment, but are a threatened species because of govt. I read of a hog farmer in South Africa (this was decades ago) who had a high diesel bill because SA never had a rural electrification program. He built a methane digester and ran all the hog feces through it and use the methane to power his generator and cut his diesel bill by more than 90%. He put the methane generator on the worst land he had and the effluent from the digester (a near perfect hydroponic fertilizer) caused the grass to grow so high it bent over of its own weight. There is someone who took a pollution problem (sewage) and not only got rid of the pollution, but saved energy in the process. Imagine the money saved and the farmland saved and the healthier food available to us if the methane digesters were widespread. It takes NATURAL fertilizer to hold the top soil together. It's called humus. I learned this in grade school science class. This isn't esoteric knowledge. humus is in natural fertilizers. Smart farmers, small family farmers, use natural fertilizer.

A huge factor that is never considered is the impact taking us off the gold standard had on pollution. WHAT!!!! R U CRAZY!. No, not really... Taking us off the gold standard (in 1971, thanks Nixon) had many negative effects and none positive for the world at large; the US benefitted for a few decades and now we are paying the price in economic chaos and ever-increasing poverty. One of these effects was consumerism. It led to a throwaway society. People used to buy QUALITY items with their hard-earned money, quality items that lasted for decades. Now? who doesn't replace their computer and cell phone every few years? New car every couple of years? The fiat currency system managed by central banks causes, maybe even requires, monetary velocity to survive and an ever-expanding monetary base that slowly but surely steals wealth from those who earn it and deposits said wealth into the hands of the ones with the power to create that money to begin with, the owners of the banks that own the Federal Reserve. People need their personal wealth intact to be able to personally make the buying decisions that will make a difference. The govt is not going to solve any problems. The govt IS the problem. Poor people cannot afford quality products that last for years. One of the first bad things to happen as a result of going fiat in 1971 was unhealthy food. Inflation took hold and, as a means to cut costs and hold down prices, manufacturers of food products replaced sugar with high fructose corn syrup which led to a myriad of health problems for society at large. Poor people? They eat incredibly unhealthy food now compared to a generation or two ago.

The root cause of our problems in every sector is govt corruption. Until that particular problem is addressed, trying to solve environmental and social problems is going to be an uphill battle with an extremely steep slope. The EPA has gone completely insane to the point it would be best if it was disbanded. Declaring CO2 a pollutant and wanting to tax cow farts are two grand examples. The AGW agenda, peel back the layers, delve into the history of the AGW movement, and you'll see that it was never about improving the planet. There is nothing benevolent about it. Taxing carbon (the major constituent of life) is even more insane than taxing cow farts. AGW leads to the carbon tax leads to the UN's Agenda 21. Spare me the tin foil hat comments. Agenda 21 is on the UN's website. It's hardly a secret. In closing, I repeat, you can try to work around govt insanity, but until govt insanity is addressed, solving our other social ills is going to prove extremely difficult. WHo knows, maybe once govt insanity is dealt with, the other problems will practically take care of themselves.

Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sebastopol, California
Posts: 1062
Good Answers: 48
#145
In reply to #39

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/15/2012 11:17 AM

My wife is a CPA and we have had the discussion about the "velocity" of money. You are right, fiat money DOES require velocity and the effects of it on the environment have been horrible.

Bravo. Sound Money is safer for the environment!

__________________
Most people are mostly good most of the time.
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Power-User

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 159
Good Answers: 14
#40
In reply to #37

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/10/2012 3:09 PM

CR4 ADMIN: Deleted Post

Politics/Religion: This post was deleted because it was overly religious or political. While each user is entitled to his or her own opinion on these topics, CR4 is not the place for discussion about them. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

Reply Off Topic (Score 7)
Guru

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Virginia, Georgia, Idaho
Posts: 1079
Good Answers: 30
#41
In reply to #40

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/10/2012 3:26 PM

CR4 ADMIN: Deleted Post

Politics/Religion: This post was deleted because it was overly religious or political. While each user is entitled to his or her own opinion on these topics, CR4 is not the place for discussion about them. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

__________________
PFR Pressure busts pipes. Maybe you need better pipes.
Reply Off Topic (Score 7)
Power-User

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 159
Good Answers: 14
#42
In reply to #41

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/10/2012 4:29 PM

CR4 ADMIN: Deleted Post

Politics/Religion: This post was deleted because it was overly religious or political. While each user is entitled to his or her own opinion on these topics, CR4 is not the place for discussion about them. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

Reply Off Topic (Score 4)
Power-User

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 159
Good Answers: 14
#58
In reply to #40

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/11/2012 11:33 PM

CR4 ADMIN: Deleted Post

Politics/Religion: This post was deleted because it was overly religious or political. While each user is entitled to his or her own opinion on these topics, CR4 is not the place for discussion about them. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

Reply Off Topic (Score 6)
6
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1053
Good Answers: 110
#43

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/10/2012 4:32 PM

I ask our knowledgeable readers about a point mentioned in the above article.... and one that I have not received a clear answer on...isn't it a fact (e.g. physics?) that carbon dioxide absorbs solar radiation?

Yes, CO2 absorbs solar radiation and re-emits IR. This is what makes it a "greenhouse gas". About this simple fact there is no debate (other than that perpetrated by conspiracy theorists, who see scientists as somehow taking over the world and profiting from their studies).

CR4 is not a good place for informed discussion on global warming and climate change, as you have already seen. The "discussions" tend to be overrun by people like jerrys, who do not supply data or links to valid studies, who propose ludicrous distortions of easily verifiable facts (such as the birthplace of the US President) and put forth one conspiracy theory after another (such as his theory that the events of 9/11 were a demolition). Does 9/11 have something to do with your question? Only in the minds of the jerrys's of this world.

Better to go to Wikipedia for your research, because Wikipedia articles are supplied with loads of footnotes, hyperlinks, and references. CR4 members who try to help others to understand science and physics frequently refer to Wikipedia articles because they are generally quite good. This is because they can be updated by anyone, and (for the most part) the people who care enough to update scientific articles know about science and the importance of supplying references. When ludicrous assertions make their way into Wikipedia articles, they are quickly edited out by people who know the subject matter and who can back up their writing with relevant references.

The relevant Wikipedia articles are here and here.

(Of course there are many other sources. Anyone interested in climate change and its causes must read at least the "physical basis" report from the IPCC AR4. Certainly the other reports are worth reading too.)

In the days before Wikipedia, it would be harder to evaluate some of jerrys's statements: maybe the odd things he says could appear true. But today, it is easy to verify that what he says is often completely wrong: no, Obama was not born in Kenya; no, the World Trade center was not demolished by explosives. If he is confused on these simple issues, imagine how confused he must be on complex science.

I don't mean to pick on jerrys: I am using him as an exemplar of a certain type that shows up in these discussions at CR4 and in other places where people are not versed in the science involved. It is possible that he actually believes much of what he writes. But in scientific matters, for those of us who are not actively engaged in climate studies, it makes sense to rely on the experts, the climate scientists, who concur that yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that human activities are influencing climate change. The Wikipedia articles provide abundant references to support those views.

"Conspirituality" comes into play in these discussions here and elsewhere where people are skeptical of science. Conspirituality is a philosophy rooted in these convictions: 1) a secret group covertly controls, or is trying to control, the political and social order, and 2) humanity is undergoing a 'paradigm shift' in consciousness. Proponents believe that the best strategy for dealing with the threat of a totalitarian 'new world order' is to act in accordance with an awakened 'new paradigm' worldview.

At the other end of the spectrum is the scientific view. This scientific view on climate change is was copied from the Wikipedia article :

  • The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewedpublications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.
__________________
Think big. Drive small.
Reply Good Answer (Score 6)
Power-User

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 159
Good Answers: 14
#44
In reply to #43

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/10/2012 4:37 PM

YOU brought up 9/11, not me. YOU brought up the birth certificate, not me. And YOU ARE WRONG still about co2. I'll clarify a THIRD time. the sunlight/solar radiation strikes the earth's surface is absorbed, and RE-EMITTED as longer wave energy comprised of lower power photons. This RE-EMITTED energy is what interacts with the various gasses of the atmosphere, causing the greenhouse effect. You are getting increasingly desperate, relying more and more on insults and even less on refutation of the claims made of any person who dares contradict your AGW religion. Give it a rest. From climategate to the data falsification to the models that don't work to the retiring scientists speaking out, this AGW dog don't hunt. Your weak attempts at propaganda get you nowhere.

CR4 ADMIN: Modified Post

Abuse/Attack: This post was modified because it was an attack on another user. Please review the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

Reply Off Topic (Score 4)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - Been there, done that. Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 15111
Good Answers: 936
#46
In reply to #44

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/10/2012 4:55 PM

No, jerrys. You brought up the absurd conspiracy theory of 9/11 in post #39. K Fry post is #43. 39 is less than 43. You brought this absurd conspiracy theory up first. I do not know why you continue to push a political agenda to clearly false extremes. Making such easily proven false claims just undermines any truth to your comments.

__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1053
Good Answers: 110
#49
In reply to #44

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/10/2012 5:59 PM

Hey, donkey's behind, YOU brought up 9/11, not me. YOU brought up the birth certificate, not me.


Are there 2 people using your CR4 name, "jerrys"? In post number 35 you wrote this:

  • It wouldn't matter to you that Obama and his wife both stated he's from Kenya. It wouldn't matter to you that ANYONE can download that fake long form and enlarge it and see the obvious childish fraud that it is. It wouldn't matter to you the long list of distinguished military OFFICERS who dispute the official 9/11 report and contend the buildings were demolished.

So which is it? Are you lying when you deny having brought up 9/11 (etc. etc.) or are there 2 different people who are "jerrys"?

You seem a little rattled here, going on attack with terms like "donkey's behind," "retard," "nut job". I hope you did not take my post as an attack on you. I was only using you as an example of a conspiracy theorist. Is it the other jerrys who is the conspiracy theorist?

And YOU ARE WRONG still about co2. I'll clarify a THIRD time.
I wonder if you are imagining that we have discussed this before. You are replying to my first post in this thread. I think your understanding of the greenhouse effect, as you've presented it in this most recent post, is OK. It seems to align with the standard explanation, as seen in Wikipedia:

  • The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases.[1][2]

Perhaps you were confused by my assertion (in response to the OP's question "isn't it a fact (e.g. physics?) that carbon dioxide absorbs solar radiation") that CO2 absorbs solar radiation. It does, especially in the IR region of the spectrum. You may have thought I was explaining the whole greenhouse process, but I was not.

You AGW nut jobs are getting increasingly desperate,

If we have "AGW nut jobs" on one side, and "flat-earth anti-science morons" (we'll say, for the sake of argument) on the other, it seems that the former are not increasingly desperate as compared to the latter. Here is an article supporting my case: Scientific Consensus on Global Warming You will note that the language is not insulting (as is yours and mine) nor is it desperate sounding. There are hundreds of articles supporting the notion that the consensus has grown over time.

I've made one post here, to which you respond with name calling. Is that the behavior of someone who is confident in his facts?

__________________
Think big. Drive small.
Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Power-User

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 159
Good Answers: 14
#60
In reply to #49

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/11/2012 11:56 PM

There is no consensus and there never was. Simply another in a long string of lies your team tells, thinking that if you repeat it enough it will magically become so. Your team has had an ever-increasing exodus of scientists departing it and you counter with ONE guy who supposedly switched from skeptic to believer. You claims consensus and a list appears of 30,000+ scientists who disagree. Your counter to that? Oh, that list is bogus. Or that list only represents a fraction of the scientists in the world. ALL OF it is a distraction. The SCIENCE either stands on its own or it does not, regardless of who supports it. If you cowards want to hide behind skirts rather than debate the SCIENCE, be my guest. You aren't fooling anyone. AGW is a carefully crafted house of cards. An analogy can be made to Jesus's description of the Pharisees when he compared them to tombs, whitewashed on the outside, inside a rotting corpse. That's all AGW is, rotten science, a really ugly broad in a pretty dress. No amount of window dressing, misdirection, deceit, obfuscation, lies, etc., is going to change that. Quit being wussies, debate the science IF YOU CAN.

Reply Off Topic (Score 6)
Power-User

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 159
Good Answers: 14
#70
In reply to #49

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/12/2012 7:43 PM

That's right, that post was written in REPLY to a poster who brought those topics up. I didn't bring them up. I responded to them. And it clearly demonstrates my point. When AGW proponents are losing, they resort to dirty tactics designed to diminish and ridicule the person posting the facts they find threatening. You are guilty as charged.

YOU did state co2 absorbs SOLAR radiation. it isn't SOLAR radiation. The SOLAR radiation strikes the earth, warms the earth and the EARTH RADIATES HEAT ENERGY (PHOTONS) which do interact with the greenhouse gases. This will be the FOURTH time I have clarified that erroneous statement made by you and others.

Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 999
Good Answers: 23
#53
In reply to #44

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/11/2012 4:51 PM

Alright kiddos, the Admins are here. If you want to discuss, that's fine, but don't insult one another, and give respect towards other peoples opinions even if they seem wrong to you. :)

__________________
The first law of thermodynamics is you do NOT talk about thermodynamics.
Reply
Guru

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Virginia, Georgia, Idaho
Posts: 1079
Good Answers: 30
#45
In reply to #43

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/10/2012 4:53 PM

Outstanding analysis of the typical CR4 reader, like me. I have learned a tremendous amount on CR4. I've taught people a few things. It seems that most here are confident in the future of science and those who practice it, and enjoy the nuances in the laws of nature.

Thanks, K Fry. very good answer

__________________
PFR Pressure busts pipes. Maybe you need better pipes.
Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - Been there, done that. Engineering Fields - Control Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 15111
Good Answers: 936
#47
In reply to #45

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/10/2012 5:01 PM

Yes, K Fry made a very good presentation.

I still will try to make a more complete explanation to answer Larry's question on CO2 absorption and why it is relevant to global warming. I probably won't get to it until the weekend but I hope to match the effort I made on Larry's other GW thread.

__________________
"Don't disturb my circles." translation of Archimedes last words
Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: La Crescent, MN
Posts: 152
#48
In reply to #43

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/10/2012 5:18 PM

Thanks K Fry. I'm an underutilizer of Wikipedia but that is changing.

Reply
Power-User

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 159
Good Answers: 14
#59
In reply to #43

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/11/2012 11:40 PM

CR4 ADMIN: Deleted Post

Abuse/Attack: This post was deleted because it was an attack on another user. Please review the CR4 Site FAQ and the CR4 Rules of Conduct.

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 999
Good Answers: 23
#61
In reply to #59

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/11/2012 11:59 PM

Last warning, any more "name calling" from any of you will result in a vacation to the naughty step.

__________________
The first law of thermodynamics is you do NOT talk about thermodynamics.
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
3
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11112
Good Answers: 918
#50

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/10/2012 7:02 PM

After seeing some of these posts I am becoming more of a believer that it is the heated arguments that are actually driving the warming of the planet.

Though you guys needed some levity.

Reply Good Answer (Score 3)
Guru
Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - New Member Engineering Fields - Nuclear Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: No. VA, USA (No, it does NOTu mean "won't go"!)
Posts: 1791
Good Answers: 75
#137
In reply to #50

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/15/2012 7:50 AM

Heated arguments? My brother, who lives in Oregon, suggested that the reason it is always about 8 degrees warmer (f) in Washington, DC, than it is in Fairfax, VA (just 10 miles away) is all the hot air Congress generates. maybe it is Congress that causes Global Warming? We ALL know Al Gore was (is?) a major contributor.

__________________
Been away a while. Miss all my old friends. Some of you I KNOW are still around. Where are the rest?
Reply
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22643
Good Answers: 410
#51

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/10/2012 7:07 PM

I need to get some sleep so I tuned into this gw thread........ I knew I wouldn't be disappoi.....zzzzzzz

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Reply
6
Guru
Hobbies - Fishing - New Member

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC USA
Posts: 13529
Good Answers: 467
#52

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

08/10/2012 10:55 PM

I, for one, would like to know the answers.

It's a shame that certain political factions have subjugated the debate, to further profit and political power.

Unlike the facts over gobal warming, the people that seek to benefit from it, are front and center. Their motives are crystal clear................and it ain't about saving the planet.

__________________
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin
Reply Good Answer (Score 6)
Guru
Belgium - Member - New Member APIX Pilot Plant Design Project - Member - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Glabbeek, Belgium
Posts: 1481
Good Answers: 28
#192
In reply to #52

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

09/03/2012 5:41 AM

Here you tickle a real painpoint: we will not know the undisputable answer before it is really to late.

This is used by a shinking amount of people to claim that is is a govmt scam and a big lie.

I would propose that they all move to a region without a government: Somalia, central Congo, rural Afganistan ... life is really better there.

Strangely everyone wants the government to take care of all the spending but none of them want's to pay for it.

__________________
"Here we are now, entertain us"
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Fans of Old Computers - ZX-81 - New Member

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: 18N 65W o
Posts: 952
Good Answers: 27
#193
In reply to #192

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

09/03/2012 9:54 AM

Really? Have you any proof to back up your statement? Here in the US of A we have this thingy called a Constitution, it specifically lays out the functions of the Federal Government, no where does it state that "taxes are to be levied, and then distributed to private citizens." This is true regardless of the holiness of the intentions.

Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22643
Good Answers: 410
#194
In reply to #193

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

09/03/2012 12:15 PM

This is getting offtopic, and the current administration is challenging from you post.

Here in the US of A we have this thingy called a Constitution, it specifically lays out the functions of the Federal Government, no where does it state that "taxes are to be levied, and then distributed to private citizens." This is true regardless of the holiness of the intentions.

Obamacare (healthcare) was sold that It is not a tax, It was challenged and the Supreme court stated that it is constitutional........"as a tax". which brings up a whole other problems on how it was push through.

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11112
Good Answers: 918
#198
In reply to #194

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

09/03/2012 5:20 PM

That's easy. First, you deem it passed in the House and then you schedule the vote in the Senate before it can be read.

Reply Off Topic (Score 4)
Guru
Belgium - Member - New Member APIX Pilot Plant Design Project - Member - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Glabbeek, Belgium
Posts: 1481
Good Answers: 28
#205
In reply to #194

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

09/04/2012 2:58 AM

You bluntly stepped into the trap and proved my statement.

Scrap all the taxes and fire all police officers, the military, NASA, and replace it with what people personally want to pay for.

You can be sure that you will not be bothered with Climate Change alarms, as there will be no radio, no internet, ...

But you will have to pay for each road you want to walk on, every day you will have to take guard to keep gangs of your property. (or pay a private organisation to do it for you, you can pay them with deer skins)

That is what a state does: creating an environment that enables the inhabitants to live the live they want.

Twiggle and turn it how you want: it costs money and some boundaries have to be set.

__________________
"Here we are now, entertain us"
Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Hobbies - DIY Welding - New Member Engineering Fields - Electromechanical Engineering - New Member

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22643
Good Answers: 410
#207
In reply to #205

Re: Global Warming - Can We Agree on Something

09/04/2012 8:10 AM

You bluntly stepped into the trap and proved my statement.

Scrap all the taxes and fire all police officers, the military, NASA, and replace it with what people personally want to pay for.

What are you talking about. the cost for the goes through the proper channels, which the biggest is the 'Ways and Means' committee.

As for as Obamacare, thats basically a blank check with no known or even type of service.

At least in the military, you have an idea of what you are getting, such as B1 bomber, fighter jet, LCS.

And as far as police, that is state affairs not federal.

Twiggle and turn it how you want: it costs money and some boundaries have to be set.

Again where are you coming from?

Your last section seems to counterdict you the first section of your post.

As some poster would state, from you post, What is your claim?

Such as Obamacare no boundraies where set. I believe in public sector services and infrastructure, but I don't believe in spending money first, before I know what the product is, until two years after its implemented.

To bring this back on topic, are you saying about GW is that we should do something, but you do not know what, but something should get done, so throw money at it?

Like infrastruture, you have to atleast have an idea of risk/benefit to atleast know what we are doing is somewhat effective. And even in GW, there is some things the we can do and are, but a blank check is at the very least imprudent without some type of plan to atleast gauge success/failure.

It's my opinion is that doesn't really exist.

__________________
“ When people get what they want, they are often surprised when they get what they deserve " - James Wood
Reply Off Topic (Score 6)
Reply to Blog Entry Page 1 of 3: « First 1 2 3 Next > Last »
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

Ace Boeringa (1); Anonymous Hero (35); Anonymous Poster (1); cbob12 (7); cuba_pete (2); cwarner7_11 (3); Deefburger (3); Envelope Guy (2); evaluator (5); ffej (3); Fredski (1); gaiatechnician (2); Gwen.Stouthuysen (10); IdeaSmith (5); Janissaries (6); JBTardis (1); jerrys (25); Jimh77 (2); JNB (2); JRiversW (3); JWthetech (8); K_Fry (21); kramarat (10); larhere (2); lyn (11); MaxT (6); micahd02 (1); Mizuti (6); ormondotvos (2); ozzb (1); passingtongreen (1); PFR (15); phoenix911 (17); pnaban (6); PWSlack (1); redfred (22); ronwagn (11); SavvyExacta (3); sloopster3 (1); SolarEagle (1); tcmtech (1); Tom_Consulting (1); vitessees (1); yamdankee (1)

Previous in Blog: The Real Truth About Global Warming   Next in Blog: Say It Isn't True!! - A Real Corrosion Story

Advertisement