Welcome back! Cotter, ahm Ami & AGW

[amicus]

quote]In contradiction to some recent studies, [Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol] finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.[/QUOTE]


Quote:
The percent of emitted carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere has not changed since 1850, nor has it changed in the past five decades… despite the fact that emission of CO2 itself has increased 1,750% during that same period.

Quote:
The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

Quote:
Yes… complex and typically error-riddled and artifactual, if not outright fraudulent climate models.

This pending Armageddon can only be averted one way: By cutting energy production to a tiny fraction of its current level, terminating industry, smashing the looms, and returning to the idylic, pastoral lives we used to lead when there was a world-girdling Earthmother religion, before all those patriarchal, conservative, Republican, Judeo-Christian “penis religions” conquered everything and enslaved the world. This may require reducing the human population from its current six billion to approximately 500 million… but you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few legs.[/QUOTE]

Co2 levels are just 0.0038% of are total atmosphere.

Quote:
Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.


Quote:
People who make the claim that co2 levels increased are being disingenuous. It's no different than a company that makes hard candy saying that they are fat free, or mayonnaise saying on the label that's a carb free food.

In 2009, the CO2 global average concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0387% by volume, or 387 parts per million by volume (ppmv).

Quote:
All of the carbon emissions from human beings since the beginning of the industrial revolution, even if not gradually removed by natural processes would STILL not move the percentage by a noticeable amount. The total mass of the atmosphere is over 5 quadrillion metric tons (that's 5,000,000,000,000,000 TONS!) .038 % of that number is 1,900,000,000,000 TONS (1.9 trillion tons). As you can see, human emissions are barely noticeable when talking about percentage.


Quote:
Carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) is not a greenhouse gas, because of its atomic weight of CO2 is 44 which makes it too heavy to remain in the atmosphere,but there is small percentage like 0.03%.


Question: Content of Atmosphere, 1900


Quote:
Same as today; 79% nitrogen, 20% oxygen, and 1% "everything else", which includes carbon dioxide, various oxides of nitrogen, argon, xenon, radon and assorted other gasses.


Question: Content of Atmosphere, 1850

Quote:
Eco-warriors will be spluttering into their fair trade organic coffee this morning as new research shows that atmospheric levels of CO2 have effectively remained unchanged since the advent of the industrial revolution.

~~~

I watched an old film of late: “In Which We Serve”, 1942, England in World War Two, “There will always be an England”, was a line and a note I took.

I am embarrassed by Oggbashan’s anecdotal recount of the sacrifices of the British people to mediate the perceived Global Warming and compare it to the age of the Third Reich, where similar methods to eliminate the Jews, was so effected when a fallacious philosophy dictated public policy.

“Remains of the Day” Anthony Hopkins amplifies my sad conclusion that the English of yesteryear are but mere shadows of their kinsmen of the past.

One would think that mankind would learn from history that every time a Government dictates the direction of society, be it Eugenics or Genocide or Euthanasia, the sacrifice of the individual for the collective, that bad things become recorded history.

In response to a comment by my youngest daughter, headed for Istanbul to extend her education, I replied, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF ANTHROPOMOPHIC, MAN CAUSED, GLOBAL WARMING!

I offer that statement as valid concerning the conversation here and challenge anyone to refute it.

For the very few here with still open minds: If there is no man caused Global Warming, what then is the motive behind the world wide effort to combat it?

For whoever said there is no negative factor involved in the quest for methods to combat or prevent AGW; if you consider reducing and starving the world's population to five hundred million from the current six billion plus, then I suppose you have a case.

I, on the other hand, hold in the highest regard, human life, each and every one conceived.

Welcome back Amicus

(Yes, I could have documented and provided links to each of the above quotes, you will learn more if you search yourself. Even posing the question on a search engine, "CO2 content, atmosphere, 1950, 1900, 1850..." will provide you with an amusing view of the corruption of internet information by GW fanatics...)

 

[TE999]

quote]In contradiction to some recent studies, [Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol] finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

Quote:
The percent of emitted carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere has not changed since 1850, nor has it changed in the past five decades… despite the fact that emission of CO2 itself has increased 1,750% during that same period.

Quote:
The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

Quote:
Yes… complex and typically error-riddled and artifactual, if not outright fraudulent climate models.

This pending Armageddon can only be averted one way: By cutting energy production to a tiny fraction of its current level, terminating industry, smashing the looms, and returning to the idylic, pastoral lives we used to lead when there was a world-girdling Earthmother religion, before all those patriarchal, conservative, Republican, Judeo-Christian “penis religions” conquered everything and enslaved the world. This may require reducing the human population from its current six billion to approximately 500 million… but you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few legs.[/QUOTE]




Quote:
Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.


Quote:
People who make the claim that co2 levels increased are being disingenuous. It's no different than a company that makes hard candy saying that they are fat free, or mayonnaise saying on the label that's a carb free food.





Quote:
All of the carbon emissions from human beings since the beginning of the industrial revolution, even if not gradually removed by natural processes would STILL not move the percentage by a noticeable amount. The total mass of the atmosphere is over 5 quadrillion metric tons (that's 5,000,000,000,000,000 TONS!) .038 % of that number is 1,900,000,000,000 TONS (1.9 trillion tons). As you can see, human emissions are barely noticeable when talking about percentage.


Quote:
Carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) is not a greenhouse gas, because of its atomic weight of CO2 is 44 which makes it too heavy to remain in the atmosphere,but there is small percentage like 0.03%.


Question: Content of Atmosphere, 1900


Quote:
Same as today; 79% nitrogen, 20% oxygen, and 1% "everything else", which includes carbon dioxide, various oxides of nitrogen, argon, xenon, radon and assorted other gasses.


Question: Content of Atmosphere, 1850

Quote:
Eco-warriors will be spluttering into their fair trade organic coffee this morning as new research shows that atmospheric levels of CO2 have effectively remained unchanged since the advent of the industrial revolution.

~~~

I watched an old film of late: “In Which We Serve”, 1942, England in World War Two, “There will always be an England”, was a line and a note I took.

I am embarrassed by Oggbashan’s anecdotal recount of the sacrifices of the British people to mediate the perceived Global Warming and compare it to the age of the Third Reich, where similar methods to eliminate the Jews, was so effected when a fallacious philosophy dictated public policy.

“Remains of the Day” Anthony Hopkins amplifies my sad conclusion that the English of yesteryear are but mere shadows of their kinsmen of the past.

One would think that mankind would learn from history that every time a Government dictates the direction of society, be it Eugenics or Genocide or Euthanasia, the sacrifice of the individual for the collective, that bad things become recorded history.

In response to a comment by my youngest daughter, headed for Istanbul to extend her education, I replied, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF ANTHROPOMOPHIC, MAN CAUSED, GLOBAL WARMING!

I offer that statement as valid concerning the conversation here and challenge anyone to refute it.

For the very few here with still open minds: If there is no man caused Global Warming, what then is the motive behind the world wide effort to combat it?

For whoever said there is no negative factor involved in the quest for methods to combat or prevent AGW; if you consider reducing and starving the world's population to five hundred million from the current six billion plus, then I suppose you have a case.

I, on the other hand, hold in the highest regard, human life, each and every one conceived.

Welcome back Amicus

(Yes, I could have documented and provided links to each of the above quotes, you will learn more if you search yourself. Even posing the question on a search engine, "CO2 content, atmosphere, 1950, 1900, 1850..." will provide you with an amusing view of the corruption of internet information by GW fanatics...)

Hey! Hey! Hey! Welcome back Ami! :grin: Nice broadside!

Don't confuse the AGW crowd with facts. Their mind's are made up. It's Crap and Trade, driving Priuses, Claritys, Insights, Volts and other weeniemobiles, taking public transit everywhere and having solar panels and windmills on every roof to generate your own power before we can breathe easier again.

AGW has become a religion with it's dogma, absolutism, prophets, acolytes, warriors of the true faith and unquestioning followers...with a little Gaea and Druidisim thrown in for good measure.

The Crap-out in Copenhagen set the entire movement into chaos, but they don't give up easily.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Huh! Welcoming yourself back, since no one else will. Now that's Ayn Rand's self-sufficiency in action.

I can imagine you blowing up your own balloons, baking your own cake, lighting your own candles, hitching your own mule to the welcome wagon which you built yourself.

Good job, o Great man!

 

[cloudy]

Straight into Godwin's Law in the first post - and your own damn post, no less.

You lose.

 

[amicus]

I note the content of your posts remains trivial and washerwoman style without content. Thus I will continue as before and not notice you.

Amicus

 

[cloudy]

Keep "not answering" me, too...just like that.

It just makes you look rather silly....but then, you've always seemed that way to most of us.

 

[amicus]

Hello again, Tom, and thank you. You, as well, painted an accurate portrait of the 'believers', for certainly they offer no factual evidence. A note of encouragement in the shift in public opinion, that fewer and fewer are being taken in by the alarmists.

regards...

ami

 

[amicus]

Ah, Cloudy, you never fail to ring true to your belief's and hatreds.

For those who may not:

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches

It is so oft used, m'dear, because Nazi's and Communists are apt analogies for man's inhumanity to man.

You may not, but civilized people do, commemorate December 7, 1941, and earlier, the German invasion of Poland; D-Day, VE day and VJ day, as a reminder of the evil of collectivism, Fascism and its' sister, Communism, of the depths to which men can fall when they follow a false religion, aka AGW.

We remember those atrocities and put name to them to remind us that human individual freedom is rare and fragile and must always be defended against those who would sacrifice the individual to the greater good.

I may create another thread concerning the faults of scientists and science in general and the glaring disregard for factual evidence and peer review concerning not just Global Climate Change, but the 'science' of the German's concerning the most efficient means by which to kill.

The 'Union of Concerned Scientist's' offers fertile ground as that group is still apologizing for the invention of atomic technology.

Amicus

 

[JackLuis]

Welcome back Ami.

It has been just too calm around here since you left.

Did you finish the children's book?

 

[amicus]

Welcome back Ami.

It has been just too calm around here since you left.

Did you finish the children's book?[/QUOTE]

~~~

Hello, JackLuis, and thank you. Yes, I scanned the forum a couple times a week and found it dull, but felt a need to even the scale on the climate controversy.

The Children's books are still awaiting illustration, although there may be a way to go and you are very kind to ask.

regards...

ami

 

[jomar]

Welcome back, Ami. Glad your well and feisty.

 

[amicus]

Thank you, Jomar, I missed the give and take of the forum and it is a pleasure to return...trust your New Year has begun well....


ami

 

[jomar]

Thank you, Jomar, I missed the give and take of the forum and it is a pleasure to return...trust your New Year has begun well....


ami

It has, thanks, family and friends. Yours too I hope.

 

[driphoney]

I'm not sure, but did you just say we're boring without you here?

 

[amicus]

I'm not sure, but did you just say we're boring without you here?[/QUOTE]

~~~

Essentially, yes.

I do not partake in backyard gossip nor drama queen performances. There have been but a handful of knowledgeable and able to communicate posters on this forum for years and I note they too, are in absentia.

Amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm not sure, but did you just say we're boring without you here?[/QUOTE]

~~~

Essentially, yes.

I do not partake in backyard gossip nor drama queen performances. There have been but a handful of knowledgeable and able to communicate posters on this forum for years and I note they too, are in absentia.

Amicus...

QED.

 

[oggbashan]

According to Amicus we are to throw out any evidence that Global Warming/Climate Change exists because one paper from Bristol University suggests that the airborne fraction of Carbon Dioxide might not have changed.

That paper might be right, given the data sets the researcher used. But other research suggests that Climate Change is occurring and has occurred. Which do I believe? The name of Bristol University doesn't inspire me with confidence as challengers for scientific truth. An analogy might be a small town's high school against the Chicago Bulls.

Am I wrong to reduce my energy bills? Should I pay more than I need to pay? Why shouldn't I produce my own electricity? What is wrong with that?

Yes, my government, and the governments of Europe produce propaganda about energy consumption. Most governments produce propaganda. Remember the gallant CIA-supported Taliban fighting the Red colossus? Or CIA-supported Saddam Hussein fighting the terrorist state of Iran? By comparison, suggesting that consumers can cut their fuel use and helping them to cut back seems benign. Whether climate change is happening or not, reducing use of fossil fuels is a sensible course.

Believing Amicus? That seems as sensible as the Flat Earth Society and even they now admit that the Earth can appear curved from some angles...

Og

 

[driphoney]

I'm not sure, but did you just say we're boring without you here?[/QUOTE]

~~~

Essentially, yes.

I do not partake in backyard gossip nor drama queen performances. There have been but a handful of knowledgeable and able to communicate posters on this forum for years and I note they too, are in absentia.

Amicus...

Then I'm confused as to why you have decided to rejoin and carry on your conversation with the boring subset of leftovers. Surely we're not worthy of the time or effort it takes to twinkle your fingers across the keyboard?

I know it's a lower-level thought, but have you ever considered that if you did partake in some of that backyard gossip, you might gain friendships, and in that, a level of respect that would gain you the hearing you so desire? As it is, it appears to me you are no more effective in your arguing than if you were to be proclaiming it in Swahili.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

According to Amicus we are to throw out any evidence that Global Warming/Climate Change exists because one paper from Bristol University suggests that the airborne fraction of Carbon Dioxide might not have changed.

That paper might be right, given the data sets the researcher used. But other research suggests that Climate Change is occurring and has occurred. Which do I believe? The name of Bristol University doesn't inspire me with confidence as challengers for scientific truth. An analogy might be a small town's high school against the Chicago Bulls.

Am I wrong to reduce my energy bills? Should I pay more than I need to pay? Why shouldn't I produce my own electricity? What is wrong with that?

Yes, my government, and the governments of Europe produce propaganda about energy consumption. Most governments produce propaganda. Remember the gallant CIA-supported Taliban fighting the Red colossus? Or CIA-supported Saddam Hussein fighting the terrorist state of Iran? By comparison, suggesting that consumers can cut their fuel use and helping them to cut back seems benign. Whether climate change is happening or not, reducing use of fossil fuels is a sensible course.

Believing Amicus? That seems as sensible as the Flat Earth Society and even they now admit that the Earth can appear curved from some angles...

Og

Og, my friend, anyone would be stupid to squander their energy just to pay a highter bill. For the sake of our pocket books, wveryone needs to conserve.

But conservation and global warming don't necessarily go hand in hand. It's been shown that the "scientists" who study glabal warming simply made up results that proved their theorys when the real evidence did not. Does that mean conservation is not a good thing or that global warming does not exist?

Unfortunately the integrety of the scientists on the side of glabal warming leaves much to be desired. This has given the opposition a fingerhold with which to attack them and confuse the issue in such a way that we will not have a difinitive answer on global warming for years to come.

 

[oggbashan]

Unfortunately the integrity of some "scientists" on both sides of the discussion is questionable. Some of them don't seem to recognise the sort of scientific methodology that I was taught.

Some don't seem to be able to use statistics in a way that I would believe is a valid use of statistical method.

As far as I am concerned, personally, the crunch is this:

If some scientists saying that global warming is happening are wrong, and some scientists saying that global warming is NOT happening are right and yet we do something to reduce emissions and reduce our energy needs, the downside is that we save energy and put research into controlling climate change that is possibly unnecessary.

If the converse is true and global warming IS happening and yet we do nothing, we risk a major disaster for many parts of the world.

Doing something could be unnecessary; doing nothing could be disastrous.
Og

 

[Pure]

it's silly

to mix it up with the antiwarming 'truthers'. ami supplies no references and it's not possible to see WHO he's quoting. ann coulter? Randist Anti-looter Monthly? no urll's. ami misrepresents the study, except in one line:

The percent of emitted carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere has not changed since 1850, nor has it changed in the past five decades… despite the fact that emission of CO2 itself has increased 1,750% during that same period.

IOW the percent of CO2 that is sequestered in trees, oceans, rocks, etc is approxiamtely remaining constant.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
Wolfgang Knorr
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.
Knorr: What Dr. Rabett Said
Everything Dr. Rabett said about the Knorr paper, with the exception of how to spell Dr. Canadell's name, is altogether right and true and clear and proper. This is not my opinion so much as it is settled scientific consensus that there is a controversy. It is a closed question that there is an open question. To wit:


http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/01/knorr-what-dr-rabett-said.html

There is a very simple way to put it:

We know the amount of CO2 emitted by us per year (pretty well) Call it X.

We know the amount of this CO2 that stays in the atmosphere (the rest goes into the oceans and the biological bits of the land). That is, for reasonable purposes X/2 or 50%.

That means that 50% of the CO2 that we emitted each year remains in the atmosphere.

The question is whether the fraction is changing. Maybe only 48% is absorbed and 52% remains in the atmosphere.

Knorr says the fraction is not changing. Canadell says the fraction remaining in the atmosphere is increasing.

Canadell is really serious trouble. Knorr is only serious trouble.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Og, my friend, anyone would be stupid to squander their energy just to pay a highter bill. For the sake of our pocket books, wveryone needs to conserve.

But Og isn't only talking about conserving energy ,he's talking about replacing his energy sources by means of an initial financial outlay. These replacement sources, according to some of our other members, are impossible and too expensive and don't work and, and, and... However, og's community does use them, they do work. In fact, he could potentially sell extra energy back to his community.

But conservation and global warming don't necessarily go hand in hand. It's been shown that the "scientists" who study glabal warming simply made up results that proved their theorys when the real evidence did not. Does that mean conservation is not a good thing or that global warming does not exist?

Neither, really. it may prove, if your assertoin is correct, that some scientists are more interested in pretending to have a proven theory than in actually having one-- happens all the time, sadly. This is why we have peer review, and insist on replicable results. But even if ALL the scientists who are sure that we are approaching a problem falsified their results it still does not mean that Global warming does not exist-- it might mean that the scientists who are looking at it haven't yet hit the right avenue of inquiry.

Unfortunately the integrety of the scientists on the side of glabal warming leaves much to be desired. This has given the opposition a fingerhold with which to attack them and confuse the issue in such a way that we will not have a difinitive answer on global warming for years to come.

Unfortunately, the way the opposition has attacked global warming is to claim that the scientists who are working on the problem have no integrity. Since we know that GW opponents have huge interests in; making money, selling oil, selling SUVs, selling air conditioners-- etc, I have to ask myself; qui bono? And just how much do I trust a vested interest that is already making money but might no longer do so if we change our ways?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

But Og isn't only talking about conserving energy ,he's talking about replacing his energy sources by means of an initial financial outlay. These replacement sources, according to some of our other members, are impossible and too expensive and don't work and, and, and... However, og's community does use them, they do work. In fact, he could potentially sell extra energy back to his community. Neither, really. it may prove, if your assertoin is correct, that some scientists are more interested in pretending to have a proven theory than in actually having one-- happens all the time, sadly. This is why we have peer review, and insist on replicable results.

There seems to be some midunderstanding on your part, Stella, as well as 99% of all the people concidering "comservation" "Alternate Energy Sourses" or whatever you call it.

If you burn 1 gallong of oil to produce some amouth of energy, your thinking is that energy cost $3.00 or whatever the going price is. That's a short sighted view. There are more costs involved. Among these are ... Cost to produce the furnace you butn the oil in, the maintenance on the furnace, the cost of disposing for that furnace when it's worn out, the cost of cleaning the environment because you burned that oil and so on.

Ok, make the same amount of energy with solar, wind or whatever other source you chose. It's free, right? Bullshit. You had to buy the land to build your wind farm, solar farm or what ever. You have a huge investment in equipment and maintenance. There is the cost of continuous maintenance, distribution of the energy produced and so on. Have you saved any money? No. Have you saved the environment? No, again. You have created a large amount of heavy metals that we have no way of reclaiming to make solar cells. You spend a huge amount of capital to buy wind generators, then squander thousands of gallons of oil shipping them to the farm to be installed.

So, what's the net savings? -0-

 

[TE999]

The current technology that exists to produce alternative sources of energy is woefully inadequate to serve the needs of this country. You would need enough solar panels to cover an entire state to generate enough power to serve a middle sized city. Ditto for 'wind farms', which by the way make mincemeat out of migrating birds. (Hellllloo PETA). Growing corn for ethanol would deplete the worlds food stocks since arable lands would be growing fuel, not food. Not everybody wants to live in a yurt with compost toilets, solar panels, a windmill on the roof and pedal a stationary bike to generate enough juice to recharge their laptop's battery.

Oil, natural gas and nukes utilized wisely are the fuels of the future, not some pie in the sky technology that may take untold years to become practical for every day use.

 

[oggbashan]

...

Oil, natural gas and nukes utilized wisely are the fuels of the future, not some pie in the sky technology that may take untold years to become practical for every day use.

Sorry, TE999, but the technology is being developed and used now, including in the US. US companies are significantly involved in manufacturing alternative power generation equipment, and exporting it to other countries.

At present generating power from renewables usually costs more than using fossil fuels but as practical experience is gained the costs are reducing and the efficiency is increasing.

In Africa solar powered lamps are being sold as alternatives to oil-fired ones. They cost more to buy but once installed cost nothing to run. Hand-powered radios have made a significant difference in rural Africa where batteries are expensive and often exhausted ones are sold as "new".

The capital costs may be high, but the capital costs of new nuclear and fossil-fuel powered generating stations are also high, in some cases higher.

Despite the political arguments in the US, US capitalists are investing in alternative energy and making money from it.

Og