Water-Cooled Global Warming

Really, 134 million pipes fixed in place in the ocean? Don't we lose offshore rigs because of storms? Pipes are supposed to survive? Forgetting that removing a third of CO2 really won't help much, the cost would be astronomical and you'd be raising the acidity of the ocean.

Wouldn't alternative energy be a little easier?

By the way losing off shore rigs due to storms is a very rare occurance. Around the world there are thousands of rigs that have operated for 20-30 plus years with no such problem with thousands and thousands of miles of undersea pipe. For the most part rigs are fixed to the sea floor so they can't float away, it has only been in recent years that drilling and production has moved to deep water and floating rigs such a TLP's have come into vogue.

I am currently working on an FPSO with pumps on the sea bed in deep water, if we can pump oil why not water?

Having said that I agree it is a bad idea, to many variables to consider, and doing something like this has the potential to make one difficult problem into two. Man has proven the law of unintended consequences over and over. But I do like the out of the norm approach to a solution....

Really, then what happened in the gulf two years ago?

Hmmm,

Who said "Nothing says intelligent position like an arbitrary anecdote." I know I have seen that somewhere......

Really, you're just going to ignore the links I provided? Are the facts getting in the way of your delusions?

Here's some reminders since you seem to have a biased memory Steve:

http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/08/31/afx2200323.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/world/americas/25pemex.html

http://www.terradaily.com/news/energy-tech-05zzzzzzp.html

109 platforms in two hurricanes are a "rare occurance". Must be fun to live in your fact free world.

Here the facts on Co2:

Global Warming is suppose to be caused from the massive amount of co2 that is produced by cars, homes, humans and anything involved with technology. Lets see what carbon dioxide really does.

Carbon Dioxide accounts for .037% of the atmosphere.

Carbon Dioxide currently at 370ppm, for it to be dangerous it would have to be at 15,000ppm. This could not be reached even if every fossil fuel was burned.

Thousands and thousands of studies show that higher levels of co2 are good for plants. Many scientists believe plants still aren't getting enough co2.

Tomato farmers using exhaust from electricity to grow their tomatoes. Must Read

Vegetation looses less water under higher co2 levels, meaning vegetation in drought prone areas will live longer and produce more.

Rice (the most eaten food in the world) was shown to increase mass and use less water with higher co2 levels. Meaning the most important food in the world highly benefits from co2 increase. This also means that during times of drought as long as the co2 was high enough there wouldn't be as great of a shortage thanks to the Industrial Revolution.

Science has proven Carbon Dioxide will increase after cold periods in history. There was a little ice age from 1400-1860.

When farmers, scientists, and people who own green houses want to grow larger plants they increase the amount of co2 to the plants.

DON'T take my word for it! Find someone who owns a greenhouse and ask them how important carbon dioxide is. Of course you could just do a google search on greenhouses and how how important carbon dioxide is in one.

Increased co2 has helped farmers cut costs by shortening their season and better crops.

Lettuce has been shown to increase by up to 40% with an increase of carbon dioxide (550ppm), Tomatoes by 29% and the list goes on and on.

Once again don't take my word for it. Take it from someone who specializes in plant growing. Visit http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichment.htm and find out why they sell machines that produce carbon dioxide.

A Russian study from 1961-1998 found that as carbon dioxide increased the forest increased at the same rate.

Pine trees grown for 2 years at 600ppm grow more than 200% faster compared to normal normal rates.

If temperatures and co2 continue to increase Canada would see an increase of corn up to 186% and soybeans up to 157% between 2040-2069.

Increased levels of co2 help plants by reducing dangerous pathogens/diseases.

Cloud coverage affects temperature 100 times more than co2. If co2 doubles, cloud coverage would only have to increase 1% to counter it.

Research

I would encourage everyone to learn more about greenhouses and or join co2science.org You can get a lot of free information there and last time I checked for the premium service it was only $12ish for a whole year. These are real scientits who work 6-7 days a week and usually around 14 hours a day.

It's the displacement of CO2 levels from equilibrium that matter.

Although its a small percentage of the atmosphere, its heavier than air and tends to sit near the surface.

It's true that the natural response is for plants to grow in more thickly, but that small change cannot possibly handle the tons of CO2 that we're adding.

It's dangerous to breath at 15,000ppm. It can cause climate shift at much lower percentages.

If plants don't get enough CO2, they die, so what are you talking about.

In the past million years, CO2 levels haven't exceeded 300 ppm. Right now we're at 380 ppm.

The little ice age of 1400 to 1800 was local to the north atlantic, not global. I was caused most likely by shifting ocean currents in the north atlantic.

Please get a clue, we had this same debate a year ago. At least then you didn't just go by "guest".

apparently you didn't read all the info on the previous post. Co2 is beneficial to plants and were aren't close to damaging Co2 levels, which is in reality is well over 2000 ppm. Currently we are at anywhere from 325 ppm - 412ppm (recorded in the late 70's in England)

"I love the wilderness but I ain't a tree hugger" - Yule Gibbons

Damaging in terms of what. What are you talking about. Here, I'll try to dumb it down for you.

You know when you're care is sitting in the sun, how it gets hot? That's because the class allows Visible light to pass but blocks IR. So when the visible light hits your seats or your dash, it emits IR which gets trapped in the car. Since the IR is trapped in the car, and corresponds to vibational modes of molecules, it is absorbed by the air/seats/dash in the car which leads to increased vibration thus heat. All of that happens because glass is transparent to air and not to IR.

In the same way, CO2, Methane, H2O, and other greenhouse gases are also transparent to visible but not to IR. So visible light that gets absorbed by the ground, ocean etc is reemitted as IR which then is blocked by the CO2, Methane, H2O, etc. Since these gases are heavier than the regular atmosphere, this tends to be a surface effect (only the atmosphere close to the ground is effected). So you see, the more green house gases in the atmosphere, the more heat that is trapped, just like in a car.

I know full well you won't accept that, but that's how it is. Your whole "plants like CO2" argument is just Earths natural feedback mechanism to try and reestablish balance. The problem which you can't get your head around is that extra folilage can handle a little extra CO2, not a 50% increae in 150 years, which being an unnatural perturbation (man caused) is far greater than anything the system can handle. Oh yeah, and by the way, the fact that we're cutting down forests for farmland greatly REDUCES the foilage per square foot.

A 50% increase in Co2 over the last 150 years.?

FIRST - This would mean the Co2 in the atmosphere would be around 185ppm. Rather low to sustain flourishing plant growth don't you think.

SECOND - In 1857 we humans weren't capable of measuring Co2 in the atmosphere. so where is your baseline. We weren't even flying by then. It wasn't until the late 60's when we 1st started testing the atmosphere for Co2. and the methods were flawed and inaccurate.

Keep 'em coming.

I believe they can take reading from ice samples from glaciers at the polar regions, and even get farther back than that.

Oh... I knew someone would fall into this one...

Read the following-

Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2

Statement written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
March 2004

Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
Warsaw, Poland

I am a Professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection (CLOR) in Warsaw, Poland, a governmental institution, involved in environmental studies. CLOR has a "Special Liaison" relationship with the US National Council on Radiological Protection and Measurements (NCRP). In the past, for about ten years, CLOR closely cooperated with the US Environmental Protection Agency, in research on the influence of industry and nuclear explosions on pollution of the global environment and population. I published about 280 scientific papers, among them about 20 on climatic problems. I am the representative of Poland in the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and in 1980-1982 I was the chairman of this Committee.

For the past 40 years I was involved in glacier studies, using snow and ice as a matrix for reconstruction of history of man-made pollution of the global atmosphere. A part of these studies was related to the climatic issues. Ice core records of CO2 have been widely used as a proof that, due to man's activity the current atmospheric level of CO2 is about 25% higher than in the pre-industrial period. These records became the basic input parameters in the models of the global carbon cycle and a cornerstone of the man-made climatic warming hypothesis. These records do not represent the atmospheric reality, as I will try to demonstrate in my statement.

Relevant Background

In order to study the history of industrial pollution of the global atmosphere, between 1972 and 1980, I organized 11 glacier expeditions, which measured natural and man-made pollutants in contemporary and ancient precipitation, preserved in 17 glaciers in Arctic, Antarctic, Alaska, Norway, the Alps, the Himalayas, the Ruwenzori Mountains in Uganda, the Peruvian Andes and in Tatra Mountains in Poland. I also measured long-term changes of dust in the troposphere and stratosphere, and the lead content in humans living in Europe and elsewhere during the past 5000 years. In 1968 I published the first paper on lead content in glacier ice[1]. Later I demonstrated that in pre-industrial period the total flux of lead into the global atmosphere was higher than in the 20th century, that the atmospheric content of lead is dominated by natural sources, and that the lead level in humans in Medieval Ages was 10 to 100 times higher than in the 20th century. In the 1990s I was working in the Norwegian Polar Research Institute in Oslo, and in the Japanese National Institute of Polar Research in Tokyo. In this period I studied the effects of climatic change on polar regions, and the reliability of glacier studies for estimation of CO2 concentration in the ancient atmosphere.

False Low Pre-industrial CO2 in the Atmosphere

Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels. Perusal of these determinations convinced me that glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to -73°C) contains liquid water[2]. More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice[3].

One of these processes is formation of gas hydrates or clathrates. In the highly compressed deep ice all air bubbles disappear, as under the influence of pressure the gases change into the solid clathrates, which are tiny crystals formed by interaction of gas with water molecules. Drilling decompresses cores excavated from deep ice, and contaminates them with the drilling fluid filling the borehole. Decompression leads to dense horizontal cracking of cores, by a well known sheeting process. After decompression of the ice cores, the solid clathrates decompose into a gas form, exploding in the process as if they were microscopic grenades. In the bubble-free ice the explosions form a new gas cavities and new cracks[4]. Through these cracks, and cracks formed by sheeting, a part of gas escapes first into the drilling liquid which fills the borehole, and then at the surface to the atmospheric air. Particular gases, CO2, O2 and N2 trapped in the deep cold ice start to form clathrates, and leave the air bubbles, at different pressures and depth. At the ice temperature of -15°C dissociation pressure for N2 is about 100 bars, for O2 75 bars, and for CO2 5 bars. Formation of CO2 clathrates starts in the ice sheets at about 200 meter depth, and that of O2 and N2 at 600 to 1000 meters. This leads to depletion of CO2 in the gas trapped in the ice sheets. This is why the records of CO2 concentration in the gas inclusions from deep polar ice show the values lower than in the contemporary atmosphere, even for the epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now.



The data from shallow ice cores, such as those from Siple, Antarctica[5, 6], are widely used as a proof of man-made increase of CO2 content in the global atmosphere, notably by IPCC[7]. These data show a clear inverse correlation between the decreasing CO2 concentrations, and the load-pressure increasing with depth (Figure 1 A) . The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was "too high". This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. The CO2 atmospheric concentration of about 328 ppmv was measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii as later as in 1973[8], i.e. 83 years after the ice was deposited at Siple.

An ad hoc assumption, not supported by any factual evidence[3, 9], solved the problem: the average age of air was arbitrary decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. The "corrected" ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record (Figure 1 B) , and reproduced in countless publications as a famous "Siple curve". Only thirteen years later, in 1993, glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the "age assumption"[10], but they failed[9].



The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2) . In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].

Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases. In peer reviewed publications I exposed this misuse of science [3, 9]. Unfortunately, such misuse is not limited to individual publications, but also appears in documents of national and international organizations. For example IPCC not only based its reports on a falsified "Siple curve", but also in its 2001 report[14] used as a flagship the "hockey curve" of temperature, showing that there was no Medieval Warming, and no Little Ice Age, and that the 20th century was unusually warm. The curve was credulously accepted after Mann et al. paper published in NATURE magazine[15]. In a crushing criticism, two independent groups of scientists from disciplines other than climatology [16, 17] (i.e. not supported from the annual pool of many billion "climatic" dollars), convincingly blamed the Mann et al. paper for the improper manipulation and arbitrary rejections of data. The question arises, how such methodically poor paper, contradicting hundreds of excellent studies that demonstrated existence of global range Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, could pass peer review for NATURE? And how could it pass the reviewing process at the IPCC? The apparent scientific weaknesses of IPCC and its lack of impartiality, was diagnosed and criticized in the early 1990s in NATURE editorials [18, 19]. The disease, seems to be persistent.

Conclusion

The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning. The climatically inefficient and economically disastrous Kyoto Protocol, based on IPCC projections, was correctly defined by President George W. Bush as "fatally flawed". This criticism was recently followed by the President of Russia Vladimir V. Putin. I hope that their rational views might save the world from enormous damage that could be induced by implementing recommendations based on distorted science.

I glad I didn't let you down.

It is not an enclosed environment on the samples from Siple.

I'll put even money that 'someone' can find a report that says opposite.

Thank you, for this report, and not trying to imtimidate or belittle me with your views.

My whole point is just this:

We don't have enough qualified information to mandate global "manmade" changes to the environment. An honest look at all the details is really needed. We really don't know to what effect we can have on the environment. I my not saying man has no effect on the earth. Far from it... But for anyone to say Humans are the biggest cause of Global Warming is just morally wrong scientifically. Ice core have some validity. The results have some play in it. Give or take 20-25% (which is unacceptable scientifically) Worse case scenario- Co2 has raised 50% in the last 1000 years. From 250ppm to 375ppm. Let's say we go another 1000 years at this rate. We would be at 562.5 ppm by the year 3007. Whoa! And we want to economically devastate the world economy for this? Sure we can curve a few things as humans, but in reality we can't control global warming in the least.

Thank you, I realize that, trying to get that point across is impossible. because thats not the right answer. There is enough information out there for Global warming yes, global warming no, but there is no room for the people who sees both sides and are if not undecided atleast to keep thier opinion in reserve, which I feel is prudent with out overreacting.

Amen... you said it brother!

I think you're setting some sort of record for saying nothing with the most words possible.

Are you calling him your little apprentice, not that anybody is taking you seriously any more.

You win Pheonix911, I'll quit this debate since no one takes me seriously. When you have a chance, why don't you check out my blog here on CR4 called Roger's Equations.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blog/6/Roger-s-Equations

Best of luck to you Pheonix911.

Roger,

No I didn't win, and I've already seen your link, it is a nice relationship to global warming for probabilities, I've seen that equation before.

A lot of us here can only give opinions on a topic like global warming because that is not our forte.

Pheonix911,

My link had nothing to do with global warming. That was a link on Bayes' Theorem. In it I talk about a classic problem called the three doors problem where a contestant is given the choice of three doors, one of which has a prize behind it. Then the host opens one of the two remaining doors with the rule that he can never open a door with the prize behind it.

So you see, my link had nothing to do with global warming. I said you win. I was providing you a link to check out my blog, that's all.

Roger

Reforestation will be more practical, I think. Everyone is qualified to participate and and we can cover a much wider area at our own pace at any convenient time.

Man didn't cause global warming... So why do we think anything we do could fix it?

Global warming is directly related to the sun get warmer and the level of solar activity rising. The amount of Carbon emissions created by man in our atmosphere is less than 1/100 of a percent. Funny thing here is... Back in the early 70's scientist's believed we were headed for an ice age. Our environments don't change that fast. There have been many studies proving global warming may actually be of great benefit to us. For one- Hurricanes would actually have to much wind shear to grow into large damaging storms. Let me ask you this... What do trees, plants and all living things thrive on? Answer this and you'll see global warming is just another Y2K. Follow the money on Global Warming to find your answers. How many humans are on Mars right now? Then how come Mars' temp's have grown on average over the last 5 years, even warmer than on Earth. What the media isn't telling you... Hmmmmm.

No, it isn't. You don't know what you're talking about.

No it isn't? To what? Nice debate Do some real research next time you want to debate a point. I don't know what I'm talking about... Thank's Einstein!

I don't debate people when they say 2+2=3, I tell them to buy a math book. Not everything is a debate. Sometimes things are just ignorance.

Hmmm, that is pretty much what the Roman Catholic church told Galileo about planetary motion. Ptolmey's model had been good for a couple thousand years...

Saying there is no room for debate on global warming is a bit premature I think...

There is plenty of room for debate regarding global warming. You could debate the rate a which it's occurring. You can debate what its effects will be on wildlife. You can even debate what countries should have rights to previously unreachable natural resources at the north pole.

What can't be reasonably debated is that man is the cause of global warming. That is an established fact. Not only is it a fact, but global warming was PREDICTED based on CO₂ emissions.

I'll never stop being amazed by the power of denial. You put all this extra CO₂ in the atmosphere and what, there's no effect? Meanwhile there is a drastic and statistically significant shift in the climate along with a rise of the pH of the surface water in the ocean and what, they're not related to increased CO₂ in the air?

I want to be absolutely clear about this. I'm sure you guys who believe that the jury is still out are reasonable, intelligent people, but on this one issue, you are absolutely, positively, in the dark.

PS. I like your avatar. I really wish I could be nicer about this, but I think there is a problem in this country where sometimes we sacrifice truth and science in the name of politeness.

If you'll go back and look, you will notice that I never said that I personally did not believe in global warming.

So for the record:

I do belive that global temps and CO2 concentrations have increased

I do believe the activities of man have indeed influenced that

I do think that rates are debatable

I do think that the effects are debatable

I do think Al Gore's prognotication of the future is debatable

I do think that "established facts" have been prove wrong before (back to Galilleo).

I do think that climate models could be wrong

I do think there may well be natural factors that have not been fully accounted for

I do think that there is wisdom is trying to solve the engineering problem.

I do think that there is a reasonable, and economical solution to the engineering problem.

On the other hand

I do not think it is time to panic

I do not think it is too late to mitigate the effects

I do not think "its the end of the world as we know it" and quite frankly I feel fine.

I do not think it is healthy to try and sqash debate on the subject (AKA you and Al Gore and you're "its not debatable")

and finally

I do think that non obvious solutions to problems often come out of vigerous debate and it is worth debating for no other reason than that.

Look Steve, here's how it is.

Global Warming is real (You know this, good for you)

Excess CO2 emissions have caused it

Man is responsible for the excess CO2 emissions

CO2 atmospheric levels are the highest they've been in at least 1 million years

Currently the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere is increasing

Most of the excess heat is absorbed by the ocean and melting ice. The less melting ice there is, the faster the heat will warm the oceans. The higher the ocean temp, the higher the temp on land.

Al Gore says he loves you and you should stop fighting your feelings.

Steve,

Ok, oil guy. You say I'm crazy or religious because I say Global Warming is real and is caused by man-made CO2 emissions and note that the heat capacity of water and the latent heat of ice is much higher than that of land.

I say you're just some shady oil guy trying to create a debate where none exists.

Roger

Please don't say it is so. We don't have enough evidence to scientifically support the Global Warming "fact", and fund more "scientist". Global warming must be true, and we have to be the cause. Didn't some people in Stockholm just give one of the most prolific and esteemed minds of the modern age an award based on his work on Global Warming. I know Al can not be wrong, after all he invented the internet too. It must be a fact.

All i can say is, i am glad maxwells theories were not developed utilizing the level of scientific study that global warming theories are based on.

Yes...whatever it is we must be causing it. Al Gore would not lie to us, would he? The good news is that he has offered us an out. If we all just buy Carbon Credits from Al Gore, we can all be saved.

I don't know if any of you have ever heard of John Coleman. He used to be a TV Weatherman here in Chicago. I heard him on the radio yesterday talking about Global Warming and CO2. He basically said that Al Gore should be arrested and charged with fraud for selling Carbon Credits, when he clearly knows that Global Warming is a hoax.

Here is a site that link's to John Coleman's original comments about the Global Warming Hoax.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

Dick Hourigan
Visit
www.RichardHouriganInc.com

The US. Goverment just completed a 13 million dollar study of the #1 cause of Co2 in our atomshpere. Livestock throughout the world are the #1 cause of high Co2 emmisions. More than all the factories and cars put together.

We all agree that earth is getting warmer. What isn't agreed is the effect of man on global warming. Again, the global surveyor on mars has documented higher temp changes than earths. The sun is getting hotter!

Follow the money trail... The UN is trying to establish a global carbon tax based on measured emmissions of Co2 from each country.

Boy this would be great for the economy! $7.00 a gal for gas. $9.00 for gal of milk. The cost of building material would be off the charts. Forget about buying a house. This is in the US. What would the rest of the world be like.

I guess it would force a global economy as the only viable way of affordable resources. We all know a global economy is best right?

Who's voting for Hillary?

Give me a flipping break people!!!

Dear Guest,

You are completely wrong. Your facts are wrong, your conclusions are wrong, you are wrong.

It's true methane is a much more effective greenhouse gas, however the quantity as compared to CO2 is tiny. Please stop recycling these misconceptions and lies about the sun warming, animal waste and whatever else is in fashion to you nuts.

Roger

PS. It's funny how a couple of years ago none of you believed in warming. Now you all believe in warming but are unconvinced that its caused by CO2 emissions.

Wrong is wrong man, I'm sorry I can't soften it up for you.

It's all changed in 30 years?

The big freeze wasn't a consensus of scientific opinion. Nice try though.

Neither is Global Warming ... Global warming a scientific concensus? In who's book?

Y2k was a concensus. Beleive what you want. You take facts and ignore them. Al Gore, your global warming king has stated that the oceans will rise by 23ft on average. Why then did he buy a $1.3 million dollar waterfront condo on the SF. Bay 2nd floor by the way. What is gore going drive his boat to buy his Latte.

"Global Warming a scientific consensus?"

Here's a link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

wikipedia needs to be challenged Roger, some colleges are banning it, unfortunately because its written by hundreds of volunteers and subject to mistakes and sometimes deliberate falsehoods.

very unfortunate.

How about Science Magazine,

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

It says "In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations"

Hows this source? Is it ok for you guys? What's your opinion on the fact that the majority of the worlds scientists in the area of global climate disagree with you? Does that sting a little, or does your blind denial shield you from the writing on the wall?

does not sting at all roger, Trying to get information that is questionable is difficult though, And how can the majority of scientist disagree with me, initially I tried to be undecided, but if there seems that there is no one on this site, that can reasonable debate this issue, you seem knowledgeable after cutting through your anger, as well as you presentations.

It has nothing to do with politeness, more of lack of respect. and the only reason why I am still posted to you Roger, is Rogers Equations. any one else, I question.

But that is only out of respect

The cause of global warming is immaterial (the banks will not change the status quo until they can profit from it)

Politics is the forum of persuasion not wasting your energy here and even you only have so much energy.

I predicted mad cow diseases or something similar would happen and got laughed at (I was 9).

Global warming is evident by looking at the environment. We had car races on the lake in winter when I was little, now it doesn't freeze over.

The true cause of global warming is known and the percentages. The political spin of the financially controlled governments are the problem not your peers.

Emotions override common sense, and confrontation sets others resolve.

Your heart is in the right place, your actions are driven by frustration. Consider your goal and act accordingly, not react emotionally.

Brad

For 20 years we've sacrificed truth for politeness and where has it gotten us? No, I won't play nice. I know what I'm talking about, they don't. I've spent the years studying, they haven't. Coddling them is not the answer. I no particular problem with these guys, but when it comes to this issue, they're dummies, and someone needs to tell them.

So Brad you see, I'm not frustrated, I just don't believe in the idea that we should sacrifice truth on the alter of politeness. Hell and good intentions, you know, that sort of thing.

One last thing Brad. You seem to believe that since you know, nobody else needs convincing, but there is a whole middle that doesn't know what to believe and our silence is deafening.

No I choose to spend my energies where ther are more productive.

Codding is for the infirm. You use truth for a sword and embitter those you wish to help

You justify your actions to berate others by using the truth.

Debate if you wish, I'll educate. Waste not your pearls on the swine, its a waste of pearls and annoys the swine. (and no our peers are not swine nor are you)

I see how well you convince others. I learn from others mistakes.

Use some root cause analysis on the issue and follow the money.

Don't waste your breath I've wasted enough of my time on you and won't reply

Brad

So your're just choosing to ignore the Science article I've posted, right? Here it is again:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

As for my being a dumbass, maybe, but not about this.

Alrighty then... WE ALL AGREE...Global warming is in effect.

900+ papers of whomever they could find agree with them.

What are their credentials? There are many more than 900 scientist's in the world and most of them have said "the man is to blame theory" is not conclusive. There isn't enough carbon finger prints to prove that within the .037 ppm in our current atmosphere that man is the majority of fault. Studies have mathematically estimated that the human factor is only .001358. I would guess this is pretty hard to qualify. This is why so many people, yes people have such hard time trusting a unprovable theory. To many variables and not enough places on earth have been tested.

If man was the cause of global warming why isn't this such a slam dunk?

Did you notice the UN in there. Refer to my previous post about the UN and and The Global Carbon Tax. FOLLOW THE MONEY!

It comes down to which side of the fence your on. even though these magazines such as TIME should be unbias and reporting scientific results.

One tends to think that its political using minions to try to force it down peoples throat.

I posted in another blog, 40 years from now, whats the new crisis that would replace global warming?

Hey, everyone's here! Yeaaahhhh!

Pheonix911, SteveS, The "the plants like CO2" guy.

Good to have you guys. Hey, lets make a bet. I bet 10 years ago, not one of you believed in global warming. Am I right? C'mon, I'm right, right? We're talking 1997.

You guys are nuts. You do realize it right? I mean, you believe its a conspiracy. You believe the news lies to you. You think that a scientific consensus is irrelevant and quote cranks and oil company "info-pages".

are you ok roger?

I'm not sure, I was looking for that fence you were talking about, but it seems it was torn down 20 years ago. Apparently everyone knows this except for you some of the other "denial allstars".

This just in... Global warming causes engineering types to think they know it all and can't be wrong. Good thing we are in the presence of Genius.

I hear a Budweiser commercial starting-

Thanks to you "global warming genius, everyone else is wrong guy" we can drive our hybrid Tahoe to pick up a 6 pack of Bud! " (song playing) REAL MEAN OF GENIUS

It doesn't take a genius to understand this, it just seems that way to you.

I agree with your first comment, but in regards to GW, Mars would be expected to be much more effected since I'm told the atmosphere is primarilty CO2.

"There have been many studies proving global warming may actually be of great benefit to us. For one- Hurricanes would actually have to much wind shear to grow into large damaging storms."

What do you mean by these statements?

Large damaging storms become beneficial to mankind???

How and in what way?

Already explained in the previous post.

Hello Guest

"Global warming is directly related to the sun get warmer and the level of solar activity rising. The amount of Carbon emissions created by man in our atmosphere is less than 1/100 of a percent. "

Where to you get this information from?

One thing about this planet I have learned or atleast is taught, is that this planet is in a rather delicate balance, this being; location from, having a moon among other things to keep it stable, Having an Ice Pack and the poles.

And my opinion that Carbon emissions as little as 1/100% may create an impact.

And your comment;

"Back in the early 70's scientist's believed we were headed for an ice age. "

I recall that as well as polution in the great lakes.

"There have been many studies proving global warming may actually be of great benefit to us. "

I would not go quite that far with that because with each benefit that is realized, It is actually may be taking away from something else. As far as studies are concerned,

There are (3) types of people whether you believe in global warming or against it, or undecided, there seems to be studies from all sides backing up as well as rebutting thier beliefs.

It seems to be the fanatics that are hard to debate with because their first reponse is to attack the critizer.

No! Everything in this statement is wrong.

1. First cold water goes down not up
2. If the cold deep water would rise, it would not need pipes to do it.
3. Pipes don't float
4. The problem is in the arctic not the tropics. The increased exposure of water from under the ice allows the water to absorb more heat from the sun
5. Normally the sun only heats up approximately the top 60 feet (20M) of water. deaper water is cold only because the sun does not reach there. To recirculate and mix the warm water from the surface would only help warm up the deap water.
6. To cool gulf waters would kill off most of the sea life
7. etc etc etc

True,

And does it not effect the thermal convey belt in the oceans that circulate between the poles and the equator.

'environmentalists' wont even allow offshore windfarms to generate power- at least not in MA, you think they will honestly allow 134 million pipes placed in the ocean... ha!

"'environmentalists' wont even allow offshore windfarms to generate power- at least not in MA"

Nothing says intelligent position like an arbitrary anecdote.

Regardless of cause, 134 million pipes pumping cold up from the deep ocean would most likely:

cause major shifts in ocean currents;

cool the atmosphere by heating the ocean;

Amplify the speed of sea level rise;

cause long term problems we have no knowledge of as yet.

Could cost more than pumping heat into a container and shipping it of planet

Another case of short term gains at the cost of long term sustainability.

Brad

Exactly right Brad, unintended consequences are the problem...

I thought this word was reserved for Grouches and Nonbelievers on Christmas. It is now most appropriate to utter this word for this theory.

BAAH HUMBUG.

Regards;

Nadeem Butt

11062007

Can we agree that it is the thermal gradient between the equator and poles that drives the atmospheric and ocean "heat engine"? That it is this "heat engine" that serves to distribute the disproportionate energy input from the sun near the equator and distributes it to the northern climes?

Disregarding the "cause" of the increase in the planets equilibrium temperature, can we agree that as this temperature increases the amount of H2O vapor in the atmosphere will increase and that this will further increase the equilibrium temperature?

Will this increasing equilibrium temperature translate to an increase or decrease in thermal gradient between the equator and polar regions?

What effect will this have on the rate of the hydrologic cycle?

Are we considering all of the variables?

What affect could one major volcanic event have on this whole debate?

What if the relative velocity between Earth and Apophis in the 2029 close approach is less than the escape velocity at the range of passing? What affect would that have on this whole debate? ( I just had to slip this in here.)

How can we separate the debate about the carbon footprint of the species without first asking if we are far enough removed from the cave to solve an issue that is more about base instinct than technology? How do we address the problem of instinctual greed when it revealates in our technology; and our technology to the health of our little space ship? If the issue is indeed solely based on technology, will not failure to act be self correcting in the long term?

As unpalatable as it may seem, perhaps our concern should be with planned mitigation instead of prevention. Historically, hasn't there been too little altruistic collective action to believe it possible that our species could act as a common civilization in pulling so many pigs from the trough? Who will be the first to sacrifice? My pig? Your pig? the other guys pig?

Does the physics of all this interest me? Certainly, but it doesn't concern me nearly as much as what evil men may do to influence the outcome. The power base on this planet has devolved to such a low form that it is not inconceivable that a few would take horrific action to protect their trough. What reduction in human population would be required to balance the CO2 cycle? Could there exist a power elite that would consider a solution as a simple matter of recombining the 1918 flu virus with a easily vectored form and vaccinate the chosen few? If I were among the chosen few could I still remain at my trough?

Before we can act to control our natural environment we must first be able to effectively control instinctual human nature as it relates to economic/political power. Realizing first that the centralization of that power may be a greater threat to the long term health of our planet and survival of our species as any collective technological action we may or may not take to alter our environment.

Gavilan

When it comes to power, men are capable of any conceivable action.

........physics is ok you cool hotter parts with cold water through radiation...but geography...earth is not a stable planet lots of activities happen every movements some relate to climate change you change air currents abruptly with your cooling system and some other part of earth gets drought , floods ,hurricanes ,tornados and likes .where do you put captured CO2 and that heat , in space , doesn`t rain bring enough CO2 to ground , this is like putting airconditioner in a closed room with blower and exhaust in unpartitioned form and expecting to cool .....

DDUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

There is a reason that the colder (denser) water is deep below the warmer surface water.