Survivalist Forum banner
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
479 Posts
Actually...I remember reading about a scientist not too long ago...(Don't remember his name...but can probably find it again) that has been saying all along that we were heading into a "mini ice age" and not global warming...:eek: Based on CO2 levels from the last couple hundred thousand years...I'll see if I can find his name again...:confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
We're still going to get a carbon tax shoved down our throat. This issue has more to do with power and control than saving the planet.

BINGO!!

There have been lots of scientists arguing over global warming this whole time. True or false global warming is a way to grab more power and money. After all who is going to argue against giving up a few rights to the government if it’s for saving the planet?


Other than the few people like us that is.
 

·
Maximus
Joined
·
12,320 Posts
Since when did heat travel in a vacuum?

I know infrared and radiation can, but not through heat conduction. I think the study needs to be looked at to see what "heat" they are talking about...

Not defending Global warming or anything. Just saying something smells funny.
 

·
Inglorious Deplorable
Joined
·
21,135 Posts
Since when did heat travel in a vacuum?

I know infrared and radiation can, but not through heat conduction. I think the study needs to be looked at to see what "heat" they are talking about...

Not defending Global warming or anything. Just saying something smells funny.
What?

Or should I sat Wow. That is a good point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,882 Posts
The piece in Forbes was written by James Taylor, a Heartland PR firm hit man. They receive funding from Big Oil to downplay climate concerns.

Do a google on 'climate fraud' and 'James Taylor'. Same for Heartland. They are involved big time in spreading innuendo and false stories questioning climate science. Everyone picks up on these stories and repeats them as gospel.

AGW science is as firm as ever. The atmosphere is warming. We see the effects in the news all the time. Heartland and Taylor want you to really believe it is all a hoax. That word comes up all the time
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,817 Posts
The temperature of space is -455 degrees F, the outer atmosphere is in the boundary of space and subjected to these temps, as the outer atmosphere is cooled by the cold of space as all cold things do they sink, being replaced by warm air rising. This creates a heat convection to space from earth, earth also radiates light radiation which releases heat as well.

I have found this whole global warming thing funny for a long time. it was found twenty years ago that all the planets in our solar system are heating up, while we could and certainly to some degree have affected temps here, we certainly have not caused an increase of temps on the other planets.

I have figured all along it was simply an excuse for the governments to take more and give less in return for it, under the guise of saving our planet....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
989 Posts
Nice to see government giving up on global warming finally. I suppose they saw the opposition to it and moved onto easier methods to bilk us out of money.
 

·
Pass the beans, please
Joined
·
127 Posts
The piece in Forbes was written by James Taylor, a Heartland PR firm hit man. They receive funding from Big Oil to downplay climate concerns.

Do a google on 'climate fraud' and 'James Taylor'. Same for Heartland. They are involved big time in spreading innuendo and false stories questioning climate science. Everyone picks up on these stories and repeats them as gospel.

AGW science is as firm as ever. The atmosphere is warming. We see the effects in the news all the time. Heartland and Taylor want you to really believe it is all a hoax. That word comes up all the time
CO2 does not drive climate change... it lags. CO2 was the stated problem and mankind produces an insignificant amount of it compared to nature. Those are facts.

Like the poster said above.... it's all about political power of the most insidious nature. They want to tax and control your activities and it has nothing to do with "climate". Global warming (did not sell well so now they call it climate change) was simply a vehicle for control and too many people bought into it based on fraudulent models that assumed an outcome and made data to fit it.

A bunch of progressive types in Chicago started the American carbon credit scheme with a progressive bank. That should tell you all you need to know. Carbon credits? Really? How is paying for a credit so you can use more of what is supposedly going to kill us all going to save us? Money to pay taxes is derived from economic activity that uses... gasp....energy!

It's the kind of thinking that gave us the mercury lightbulb that is worse environmentally than the excess energy incandescents use. Energy is the engine of our economy and those who seek to control it want to control you and take your money. Do you deny that AlGore grew his wealth 100 times as the prophet of AGW?

All of the warming alarmist make projections decades into the future. They fail to account for the energy output of the sun, our planets ability to shed excess heat (this article was based on real fact no matter who the guy works for), and admit they don't fully understand the complexity of the earth with their models. Most importantly, they also fail to account for new technology and inventions that will deliver energy more cheaply, efficiently, and cleaner because it is economically beneficial to do so.

You say we see evidence all the time. Bull. We beat the all time record for the latest date to hit 80 degrees this spring where I am at by 6 days! It's cooler here and warmer somewhere else. That is natural and supported by history. Go back and look at the climate predictions made during the last two decades by the alarmists. Please tell me which ones came true.

The climate change preachers want to control you and your money. They want to pick the winners and losers. They want to spend your money on what they deem to be important. They are crooks.
 

·
Maximus
Joined
·
12,320 Posts
The temperature of space is -455 degrees F, the outer atmosphere is in the boundary of space and subjected to these temps, as the outer atmosphere is cooled by the cold of space as all cold things do they sink, being replaced by warm air rising. This creates a heat convection to space from earth, earth also radiates light radiation which releases heat as well.
...
Ahhh good explanation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,882 Posts
CO2 does not drive climate change... it lags. CO2 was the stated problem and mankind produces an insignificant amount of it compared to nature. Those are facts.

Like the poster said above.... it's all about political power of the most insidious nature. They want to tax and control your activities and it has nothing to do with "climate". Global warming (did not sell well so now they call it climate change) was simply a vehicle for control and too many people bought into it based on fraudulent models that assumed an outcome and made data to fit it.

A bunch of progressive types in Chicago started the American carbon credit scheme with a progressive bank. That should tell you all you need to know. Carbon credits? Really? How is paying for a credit so you can use more of what is supposedly going to kill us all going to save us? Money to pay taxes is derived from economic activity that uses... gasp....energy!

It's the kind of thinking that gave us the mercury lightbulb that is worse environmentally than the excess energy incandescents use. Energy is the engine of our economy and those who seek to control it want to control you and take your money. Do you deny that AlGore grew his wealth 100 times as the prophet of AGW?

All of the warming alarmist make projections decades into the future. They fail to account for the energy output of the sun, our planets ability to shed excess heat (this article was based on real fact no matter who the guy works for), and admit they don't fully understand the complexity of the earth with their models. Most importantly, they also fail to account for new technology and inventions that will deliver energy more cheaply, efficiently, and cleaner because it is economically beneficial to do so.

You say we see evidence all the time. Bull. We beat the all time record for the latest date to hit 80 degrees this spring where I am at by 6 days! It's cooler here and warmer somewhere else. That is natural and supported by history. Go back and look at the climate predictions made during the last two decades by the alarmists. Please tell me which ones came true.

The climate change preachers want to control you and your money. They want to pick the winners and losers. They want to spend your money on what they deem to be important. They are crooks.
Your first paragraph is about science, so I'll answer that one. You say CO2 lags temperature. You know what? I agree with that. The last time we broke out of an ice age, maybe 12,000 years ago, it appears that way in the ice core record from that time. The earth warmed slowly, probably due to the Milankovich cycles, and then at some temperature range CO2 was released back into the atmosphere. All this is observed in the scientific record. It happened.

But there is a second part of the story that no one knows about. CO2 also leads temperature. Once the earth is out an ice age and into a warm period like the modern holocene, the atmosphere arrives at some kind of a pseudo equilibrium. Not a true equilibrium because things still change around very slowly.

There are three main parts to the modern temperature control in the atmosphere. The sun provides the energy at a surprising constant rate. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, trapping heat and preventing it from just radiating away to space. But water vapor has a saturation limit, it precipitates right out of the atmosphere. Enter CO2 into the picture. It is a greenhouse gas which contributes about 9 per cent of the atmospheric warming. As the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapor, allowing water vapor to capture more warmth. So in this way CO2 is the control knob on the warming.

Without the greenhouse gases, the temperature of the earth would be about minus 19 degrees C.

All the rest of your comments are about grand conspiracy. I don't subscribe to that stuff. I could hear the same stuff just by tuning in to a.m. radio or something.
 

·
Pass the beans, please
Joined
·
127 Posts
Your first paragraph is about science, so I'll answer that one. You say CO2 lags temperature. You know what? I agree with that. The last time we broke out of an ice age, maybe 12,000 years ago, it appears that way in the ice core record from that time. The earth warmed slowly, probably due to the Milankovich cycles, and then at some temperature range CO2 was released back into the atmosphere. All this is observed in the scientific record. It happened.

But there is a second part of the story that no one knows about. CO2 also leads temperature. Once the earth is out an ice age and into a warm period like the modern holocene, the atmosphere arrives at some kind of a pseudo equilibrium. Not a true equilibrium because things still change around very slowly.

There are three main parts to the modern temperature control in the atmosphere. The sun provides the energy at a surprising constant rate. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, trapping heat and preventing it from just radiating away to space. But water vapor has a saturation limit, it precipitates right out of the atmosphere. Enter CO2 into the picture. It is a greenhouse gas which contributes about 9 per cent of the atmospheric warming. As the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapor, allowing water vapor to capture more warmth. So in this way CO2 is the control knob on the warming.

Without the greenhouse gases, the temperature of the earth would be about minus 19 degrees C.

All the rest of your comments are about grand conspiracy. I don't subscribe to that stuff. I could hear the same stuff just by tuning in to a.m. radio or something.
Gallon - You say CO2 contributes 9% of atmospheric warming? That figure is absolutely subject to debate because it is based on models and theoretical science. It does not drive warming. The sun does. That is the main source of energy and heat in our solar system. Fewer sunspots = less solar radiation = less heat and we don't control the sun. Frankly, we can't even control CO2 in the atmosphere (a trace gas to begin with) as man contributes a negligible amount in comparison to the ocean, volcanic/geothermal, and natural decomposition of biomatter. If your hypothesis was correct why are we encouraging wetlands preservation? Does the sun have a constant output of energy? No. Where does that play in the equation?

Our natural world, from unicellular organisms to the entire ecosystem naturally seeks homeostasis or balance. The beauty of nature. We are continually amazed and shocked by the complexity and simplicity of it all. It is odd to me that so many AGW proponents deny that this mechanism does not apply to the entire system.

This article deals with a legitimate scientific study that shows that the earth radiates heat into space. This is a fact and we don't understand how the mechanism works. It has not been factored into the most popular models. We don't understand with certainty the mechanism for radiation from the earth but the best hypothesis seems to be natural diffusion... a well understood process elsewhere in nature. We acknowledge that this happens in amoeba, the oceans, your bed when you fart at night :D:, and elsewhere in nature. Why does it not happen for the entire planet?

You say that I am a talk radio conspiracy theorists. You are free to have whatever opinion you want about that but I have read numerous books on both sides of the issue and have had a keen interest in it since college and grad school (bio, chemistry, anthropology) a few decades ago. I think for myself and enjoy rational debate about it. I don't have all the answers, you don't, and they don't. But they assume the answers allow them to make trillion dollar decisions.

The AGW argument has many well meaning folks with good intentions but it has been hijacked by the powers that seek to control your life and mine. We don't understand nearly enough and climate science remains in it's infancy dependent on models from both sides of the argument that presume outcomes, have huge gray areas, and are mostly based on faulty or infantile science. The problem is that they are using the argument to put a governor on the world economy and this creates a problem by itself.

I am convinced that wealth is the single best thing for the environment. Wealthy nations are cleaner, preserve and maintain natural resources that allow nature to maintain it's own balance, and we further our own knowledge and understanding of the world in which we live. Poor nations, see Haiti, pollute, ruin their ecosystem, and lack the widespread education and science to find understanding. Read The Skeptical Environmentalist. A refreshing look at the topic with an interesting perspective from a former Greenpeace guy.

Please answer my question. How does giving the idiots in Washington D.C., the UN, or the state capital the right to levy additional taxes on energy (and therefore economic activity) decrease CO2 production when our economic activity is largely derived from the use of energy? It changes nothing.

The warming that we have seen was minimal, far below the projections of two decades ago, and seems to have stopped over 10 years ago. Anecdotally, this was the latest ski season in many decades here in the northwest.

I have an opinion and it's subject to the same old axiom that yours is. I suppose if this beautiful amazing earth continues with us on it we will get much closer to the truth.

Furthermore, why is warming bad? I wish it was warmer here in the northwest this year as my garden is two months behind. I know it's plenty warm in most of the country right now but the winters have also been more extreme. They blame cooler weather on global warming? I remember the south in the late 80's..... that was hot. Same with Europe and I lived in both places.

Warmer = more agricultural production. More CO2 = more vibrant plant life.... we know this is true because we can observe the benefits of additional CO2 in a greenhouse environment on plants. Assuming that you are right and I am wrong..... would a few more degrees really be that bad? Trees are good right?

Realistically, from an anthropological, paleontological, and historical standpoint, history shows us that climate has always been variable.... it warms and it cools.... it's wetter and drier.... a single record of fact such as ice core data is useful but does not apply to the entire system. See Greenland. Travel to Iceland and go their history museums. Go to Asia and Africa and study the histories. Look at the history of the middle east and the historical record of Mesopotamia. All of that changed without the internal combustion engine a few thousand years ago with a much smaller population. Civilization thrives in warmer climates.

I stand by my assertion that climate science today = power. I understand that people want to be environmentally responsible but movements are often hijacked by those with political goals who seek power. Climate science has become a political science and that is a shame because science is all about the factual search for truth. It has resembled a religion for a long time and while people want to preserve the beauty of our planet too many of them only look at one specific field and assume it applies to everything. Science does not work like that.

Again, how does taxing economic activity (requiring energy) make less CO2?

I will anticipate your answer and reply on my own - Capitalism and the free market will always seek more efficient usage of energy because it is profitable to do so. Government does not create anything.... they take, take, take. I can spend my money better than Bush, Obama, Pelosi, or Boehner on things that are important to me. It's my money and I earned it in the free market. They are seeking to change that and this scam has allowed them to take even more money from us but the science is not there my friend.

If America is the main producer of CO2 (we are not anymore... see China) why don't we use thorium reactors for electricity and natural gas for propulsion? There is an endless supply of both and they are thousands of times cleaner and even cheaper.

By the way, I am an organic gardener who uses wastes that you would detest in an environmentally friendly way to garden. I make rich vibrant soil out of wastes for my garden. I love energy efficiency because it saves me money.... higher mileage is better, more efficient appliances, and less garbage are all things that I practice. I volunteer my time in local and state parks because I love the pristine beauty of the creation we are blessed with. Two decades ago I worked to monitor and clean up the Pigeon River in Tennessee where a paper company destroyed a river with pollution. Interestingly, you can look this up for yourself... guess who never mentioned it? The Senator from the great state of Tennessee.... AlGore. A marginal college student who almost became President and has become very wealthy as the chief priest of AGW. Look it up.... the Champion paper company were one of his biggest campaign donors at the time. This river flows through one of the most amazing biospheres on earth - the Great Smoky Mountains. AlGore is a fraud.

I have a God-given right to make my own choices based on my own beliefs and teach those to my children. The government that can't even balance their own checkbook wants to take this away from me and you using AGW to justify it. Environmentalism should promote smart and efficient living but the environmental movement today has been hijacked by people who tell us the answer is to give them the right to control the fruits of our labor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
989 Posts
There are three main parts to the modern temperature control in the atmosphere. The sun provides the energy at a surprising constant rate.
You said something similar in the other thread, but here you were a bit more concert in your statement that the sun radiates heat at a constat rate. This is simply not true and here is a NASA paper backing this up http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/17jan_solcon/ Here is a relevant excerpt:

For example, between 1645 and 1715 (a period astronomers call the "Maunder Minimum") the sunspot cycle stopped; the face of the Sun was nearly blank for 70 years. At the same time Europe was hit by an extraordinary cold spell: the Thames River in London froze, glaciers advanced in the Alps, and northern sea ice increased. An earlier centuries-long surge in solar activity (inferred from studies of tree rings) had the opposite effect: Vikings were able to settle the thawed-out coast of Greenland in the 980s, and even grow enough wheat there to export the surplus to Scandinavia.
 

·
Pass the beans, please
Joined
·
127 Posts
It's not fair that there are two threads going about AGW. I do enjoy the debate but I gotta head out to the sustainable living expo at the fairgrounds today. Good place to find my next project! :D:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,817 Posts
Just to inject a point cooler winters can be caused by global warming of the poles. I have been saying for years now that even a portion of a degree in annual change in polar regions will impart a huge amount of energy to it's weather systems.

The more energy those weather systems have the further south they will be able to push. Even if the polar caps are heating up and losing ice that cold temp has to go somewhere. The poles are like a refrigerator with x amount of cooling energy, we are moving warmth to the poles and removing some of that cold sink.

I found it rather satisfying when I read an article in Science Daily two weeks ago stateing this same scientific principle.

Personally I think humans would be better served in finding ways to deal with a warmer climate right now. I am completely against what we have done to our planet we have poisoned and destroyed so much of it there is nothing we can do to repair the damage we have caused at this juncture.

I think humans have helped to warm the planet, and I think we have no real idea of the most major things that happen because of it.

Just a thought I have had for years now, if you raise the surface temp of the earth by 1 degree how much energy is that total? It is well beyond the level of power of all the worlds nukes added together. The sun is not the only source of heat for this planet, the core of the earth also heats the surface of the earth, what happens when you put a blanket on a heater, obviously you trap heat. What happens when we raise the surface temp 1 degree, a phenominal amount of energy which in turn slows down how fast heat escapes from inside the earth? Could this amount of energy cause more geologic activity?

We are so concerned about CO2, has anyone ever calculated the btu's of heat we release from our burning of fossil fuels , forests and nuclear fuel, this translates directly into heat into the atmosphere, guaranteed to be an amount that is far beyond our nuclear capabilities to produce as well.

At this point I think humans should concentrate on survival and learn a lesson while trying to survive.

Modern science seems to be overwhelmed with the scope of things that effect the equilibrium of this planet.

This planet has been much hotter in the past than it is now, and has been much cooler than it is now, niether of those events were created by man, whether this one is or not these changes of world climate lead into the extinction of many species, I don't like the idea of my species being one of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
989 Posts
This planet has been much hotter in the past than it is now, and has been much cooler than it is now, niether of those events were created by man, whether this one is or not these changes of world climate lead into the extinction of many species, I don't like the idea of my species being one of them.
Hence the debate. Humans are very adaptable to a wide range of temperatures, even without our technology. A 1 degree change (or a 10 degree change for that matter) is not something outside of our capabilities to adapt to.

We're not capable of stopping the world from spinning or blocking out the sun to stop it from heating up the planet either. We need to pick the right battles to fight. If someone lives in a flood plain or next to an active volcano, sometimes the best option is to move, rather than attempt to control nature. The same is true for global warming. We need to adapt to the warmer summers and enjoy the warmer winters and longer growing seasons.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top