Anti Global Warming: Rational edition

[Druckles]

There have been theories that it's caused by cosmic waves and doodahs

 

[bbson john]

Judging from the low-quality and over-average of your graph, there is little chance that the graph is legitimate. And look at the CO2 data source(from the geocraft main site), the report from the source actually show that CO2 and palaeotemperature are correlated. I don't know why geocraft drew a different conclusion comparing with a professional report(If you bother to read it all) from the same set of data. And the report is from American Journal of Science. Lol

Wut?


Anyway, I've never rejected the solar variation theory. But this article is truly readable. It is, in fact, supporting your arguments.

http://www.eso.org/sci/libraries/lisa3/beckmanj.html

The vested interests on both sides of the argument between the ``greenhouse'' party and the ``solar warming'' party are obvious. Scientifically, the meteorologists, climatologists, and atmospheric physicists, who were responsible for ``discovering'' the human contribution to the terrestrial greenhouse effect, have been the most consistent champions of its importance, while the solar physics community, and especially those interested in solar-terrestrial relations, have increasingly stressed the possible importance of the long-term variations of the solar constant as the chief cause of climate change. Both communities tend to take the change for granted, and to neglect any purely statistical or chaotic effects which could lead to excursions of the Earth's surface temperature during periods of a couple of decades, without requiring a secular change either in the solar constant or in atmospheric transparency. In addition, the debate is conditioned by more powerful vested-interest groups. The oil industry in all its guises would obviously like to believe, and would like the public to believe, that greenhouse warming has been greatly exaggerated, and exploits any genuine scientific differences to undermine the credibility of the climatologists. Solar physics has been losing ground steadily compared with other branches of astrophysics during the past few decades, and many of its practicioners have seen solar climate change as a chance to move into an area where funding may be more assured. These aspirations are of course legitimate, and there is indeed much work to be done in the field, but one should be aware of the political background to this delicate issue, and not fall into the trap of using possible solar warming as an excuse for delay in reducing man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. Whatever the magnitude of the effects of these in the long term, there is no doubt that their concentration has increased dramatically in the past 30 years, and that for many reasons this is not a desirable path to follow.

 

[clarky003]

People control governments. If people can be convinced that global warming is a real threat to their lives, emissions can be cut down. Companies have already moved to less damaging technology, governments are also starting to care.

Quick history lesson. Money controls governments, i.e people with the most money/wealth.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Wut?

Wait.

 

[clarky003]

Weird huh, it's as if the whole global warming thing is being exaggerated to turn us into consumerist eco sheep.

 

[bbson john]

It is, in fact, money controlling lots of people. Who are the rich? And who are willing to manipulate others for their own good? No, you are wrong. They are not governments. Governments aren't profit making companies. They are the oil companies. It is oil companies trying to manipulate you and me.

Oil companies are trying underestimate the effect of greenhouse gases emission. Thus, more people will use fossil fuel, and they can profit from the up-raising oil price.

 

[Vigilante]

Judging from the low-quality and over-average of your graph, there is little chance that the graph is legitimate. And look at the CO2 data source(from the geocraft main site), the report from the source actually show that CO2 and palaeotemperature are correlated. I don't know why geocraft drew a different conclusion comparing with a professional report(If you bother to read it all) from the same set of data. And the report is from American Journal of Science. Lol

Wut?


Anyway, I've never rejected the solar variation theory. But this article is truly readable. It is, in fact, supporting your arguments.

http://www.eso.org/sci/libraries/lisa3/beckmanj.html

That graph is wrong. The rise in CO2 follows rising temperatures (by several hundred years).

 

[bbson john]

That graph is wrong. The rise in CO2 follows rising temperatures (by several hundred years).

And I call that a classic misleading graph.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

It is, in fact, money controlling lots of people. Who are the rich? And who are willing to manipulate others for their own good? No, you are wrong. They are not governments. Governments aren't profit making companies. They are the oil companies. It is oil companies trying to manipulate you and me.

Oil companies are trying underestimate the effect of greenhouse gases emission. Thus, more people will use fossil fuel, and they can profit from the up-raising oil price.

Our government is RUN by the rich. The government itself doesn't need profit because it gets free money (debt) out of thin air.

The oil companies want your oil use restricted so they can a) limit supply and b) jack up the price.

This keeps them in business MUCH longer. They also need to buy time to get in on the "enviro" technologies.

 

[bbson john]

The oil companies want your oil use restricted so they can a) limit supply and b) jack up the price.

But trimming down greenhouse gases emission suggests that oil demand is restricted, not that the supply is restricted. When the oil supply is restricted, the price goes up. Or, if a lot of countries are early grasping every drum of oil, the price can go up since there is such a large amount of demand. The demanders compete for seizing more oil. They have to bought it anyway even if the oil price goes up. War in Iraq is a great example for the restriction of supply.

However, if the demand is restricted, the price will not be affected or will even go down. It is because there are less buyer. It ought to be hard to get the oil sold. How are the oil companies supposed to increase their profit while there are less oil is bought? When petroleum cars turn into eco-cars, fire power plants turn into nuclear/renewable power plants, it is certain that the demand goes down, not the supply. So the oil companies will gain less profit thanks to trimming down of greenhouse gases emission. Thus, it is almost impossible for oil companies to support any anthropogenic global warming theory.

This is a basic concept of supply and demand. Have you ever studied economics?

 

[clarky003]

It's a socially viable conclusion though, restricting the supply to the poplulace will eventually happen because a smaller and smaller number of people will be able to afford it. This will just mean they will be making an equal amount of profit from a smaller more elite group of society because of the adjusted increases in price. You can bet they don't care aslong as they are getting their money.

Econonmics works like this, you pay up for your service, they make 400% 1000% profit. The heads don't give a shit, cut back their work force.. goto high risk areas.. don't refine as thoroughly, whatever cuts cost and delivers the product without complaint. Even if it ends up costing the earth to buy, as long as people will buy it and the company still has a way to create a decent profit margin, it will perpetuate.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

But trimming down greenhouse gases emission suggests that oil demand is restricted, not that the supply is restricted.

Oil demand only increases.

When the oil supply is restricted, the price goes up.

Up until recently oil has only been artificially limited.

However, if the demand is restricted, the price will not be affected or will even go down. It is because there are less buyer. It ought to be hard to get the oil sold. How are the oil companies supposed to increase their profit while there are less oil is bought?

Oil demand will never decrease.

When petroleum cars turn into eco-cars, fire power plants turn into nuclear/renewable power plants, it is certain that the demand goes down, not the supply. So the oil companies will gain less profit thanks to trimming down of greenhouse gases emission. Thus, it is almost impossible for oil companies to support any anthropogenic global warming theory.

Engine lubricant, gasoline, and diesel are not the only products of oil.
Oil demand

does not,

can not,

decrease.

This is a basic concept of supply and demand. Have you ever studied economics?

Yes. Do you know anything about oil?

Plastics are a HUGE industry and oil that will not be refined into combustible liquids will be shoved in our face through other means. They'll probably convince the auto industry to make plastic cars.

 

[bbson john]

Econonmics works like this, you pay up for your service, they make 400% 1000% profit... and the company still has a way to create a decent profit margin, it will perpetuate.

True.

It's a socially viable conclusion though, restricting the supply to the populace will eventually happen because a smaller and smaller number of people will be able to afford it. This will just mean they will be making an equal amount of profit from a smaller more elite group of society because of the adjusted increases in price. You can bet they don't care as long as they are getting their money.

That's not the trend. The trend is that eco-friendly product is about to substitute oil, rather than pushing oil into luxury goods level. The ones who have to afford for oil are large trucks, cargo vessels, not the elite group of society. If automobiles and fire plants stop using petroleum significantly, the loss in oil buyers will be very great. So great that no matter how the oil price is rocketed to an unreasonable level, the profit cannot keep up to what used to be.

Up until recently oil has only been artificially limited.

I was talking about during the recent Iraqi war, oil pipes had been the main targets of militants. A few pipelines was bombed and destroyed. The global oil price, thus, went up. This merely serves as an example of restricting oil supply.

Oil demand will never decrease.
Plastics are a HUGE industry and oil that will not be refined into combustible liquids will be shoved in our face through other means. They'll probably convince the auto industry to make plastic cars.

Oil is an ingredient of plastic, detergent or even flavour enhancers. I have been studying this since secondary 4.

What? You think plastic is a greater business then transportation fuel? Take USA as an example. The daily use of crude oil is about 20.8 million barrels daily. The amount of crude oil used in making plastic is only about 2 million barrels(less than 1/10 of total), but that used as transportation fuel is more than 14 million barrels. The profit of plastic industry and transportation fuel is not comparable. Motor consumption of oil far outweighs plastic manufacture consumption. Profit from plastic or other by-products of petroleum can never keep up to that of transportation oil, because 68% of oil is used in transportation. The percentage is even greater if I account the oil consumption of fire power plants as well. Your argument is therefore WRONG.

If power plants and cars used eco-friendly fuel, the oil consumption will surely decrease. When the demand decreases, the oil companies' profit decreases, no matter whether the oil price decreases. So will oil companies support anthropogenic global warming? No, no and no. No company will sacrifice at least a score percentage of profit for nothing.

 

[Emporius]

The government itself doesn't need profit because it gets free money (debt) out of thin air.

Please elaborate. I fail to see how debt provides a government with money.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

What? You think plastic is a greater business then transportation fuel? Take USA as an example. The daily use of crude oil is about 20.8 million barrels daily. The amount of crude oil used in making plastic is only about 2 million barrels(less than 1/10 of total), but that used as transportation fuel is more than 14 million barrels. The profit of plastic industry and transportation fuel is not comparable. Motor consumption of oil far outweighs plastic manufacture consumption. Profit from plastic or other by-products of petroleum can never keep up to that of transportation oil, because 68% of oil is used in transportation. The percentage is even greater if I account the oil consumption of fire power plants as well. Your argument is therefore WRONG.

Ok, that was just one example, and you are making up an unrealistic situation where all oil dependent machinery just simply ceases to exist.
That's not going to happen until oil runs out. Oil will run out before the demand ever does, so no, I am not wrong.

Please elaborate. I fail to see how debt provides a government with money.

Jesus Christ.
US American money IS debt. I live in the US, so that is the government I am speaking for. That's extremely off-topic into a different world so watch a video because I don't want to explain it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...308&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

 

[bbson john]

Ok, that was just one example, and you are making up an unrealistic situation where all oil dependent machinery just simply ceases to exist.
That's not going to happen until oil runs out. Oil will run out before the demand ever does, so no, I am not wrong.

I've never say it. I mentioned the oil company will lose lots of income if vehicles and power plants don't use petroleum. Thus, fortify my statement that oil companies support solar variation theory.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

If if if. Vehicles and power plants WILL be using petroleum for a long time to come. You can't just legislate these things out of existence and they know this. Oil demand is increasing as we speak, despite the mass of environmental friendly technologies emerging.
I'm not interested in what theory you claim they support. It's irrelevant and potentially wrong. The oil companies can just as easily arrange a stranglehold on whatever new car fuel becomes popular next.

 

[bbson john]

But the demand will be increase much greater if there is no eco-friendly car or power plant. Oil companies should be earning more if no environmental policy. The comparison is between with and without environmental policy in the same period of time, not between the past and future. Oil companies will just strive for maximum profit all the time.

The oil companies can just as easily arrange a stranglehold on whatever new car fuel becomes popular next.

No. Shifting business is not as easy as you thought. Oil companies are not GOD. Establishing new factories, new resources support, new advertising strategies, new financial arrangement, new logistic line, etc. It is very difficult and costy. There is no way oil companies will give up their easy oil business and take a lot of risk on starting a new business.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Why would they have to give anything up? Business won't be shifted it will be assimilated. You realize they have been making outstanding RECORD BREAKING PROFITS year after year? As another purely one dimensional example, BP and Conoco Philips drill for natural gas, as well as oil. Natural gas is a car fuel among it's countless other heating-related uses. They could EASILY buy up some ethanol farms when the need arises for ethanol.

The oil companies own the gas pumps.

The oil companies decide what is supplied at the gas pumps. If they want to supply petrol, they will supply petrol. If they want to supply hydrogen or natural gas or E85 or friggin distilled water, that's what they will supply. The ONLY reason it is taking so long to adopt new fuel sources is because the oil companies are reluctant to move because as you say, their profit margin will decline relatively, but that is the cost of progress, and progress is inevitable.

There is no way to stop oil demand. It can't happen, it won't happen without an extreme limit of supply. This is my argument and it has nothing to do with global warming. Recreational and mass transit is far too reliant upon it. Oil supply is already dwindling. Demand is increasing faster than alternative solutions. Demand for alternative solutions is low.

 

[bbson john]

But my argument is the oil companies support solar variation theory, anyway...

The companies have the ability to do it, but they don't have a reason to do it for now. They may initiate business on ethanol, fuel cell, etc. Still, there is some work to do if oil companies are to carry out a major assimilation of other business. And I don't see a reason for them to shift their business core to eco-friendly systems in the next 20 years.

So we are no longer talking about global warming. I think there is no need for continuing the discussion.

 

[theotherguy]

Thats interesting. If there has been a stable equilibrium over millions of years, then what causes the periodic formation of ice caps? Why was Greenland habitable only 1000 years ago?

It can't be because of co2 because there was a stable equilibrium. So what causes this?

Solar variation and changes in CO2 concentrations due to catostrophic events such as supervolcanic eruptions and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (which was ironically caused by a massive field of peat being exposed in northern Europe which burned and caused global warming over a short period of time).

None of these changes (except the PETM) occurred within a period of centuries.

A stable equilibrium often includes oscillation. In the case of Earth, this oscillation comes in the form of ice ages. The current warming trend does not fit this pattern.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

But is there really a warming trend?

 

[bbson john]

But is there really a warming trend?

Yes, though the atmosphere is being warmed seriously, the ocean warming effect is the most worrying.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Ok that was a stupid question. What I really mean is, how accurately can we source the largest areas of concern?
I've heard that warming the ocean will release trapped methane ice, adding to yet more greenhouse gas "pollution" and there is absolutely no way to stop it.

There seems to be so many factors it's pointless to concentrate on just one like CO2, so I will restate my question thusly: Can the warming trend be stopped by reducing CO2?
The answer I expect to recieve is an emphatic NO.

 

[Eejit]

Ok that was a stupid question. What I really mean is, how accurately can we source the largest areas of concern?
I've heard that warming the ocean will release trapped methane ice, adding to yet more greenhouse gas "pollution" and there is absolutely no way to stop it.

Yeah, the Clathrate Gun hypothesis.

Similar situation with Siberian tundra I believe.

There seems to be so many factors it's pointless to concentrate on just one like CO2, so I will restate my question thusly: Can the warming trend be stopped by reducing CO2?
The answer I expect to recieve is an emphatic NO.

The other factors are mainly positive feedback if we let the CO2 get out of hand. If we cut our emissions to a much lower level before that happens then the normal equilibrium should come back into force.
It isn't that the geosphere and biosphere can't handle us producing more CO2, but our production has increased too fast and too dramatically for the CO2 sinks to adjust.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

the normal equilibrium

The what?

You don't think maybe deforestation is playing as large a role as say, personal transports?

We may be pumping CO2 into the air, but we are also weakening the ecosystems ability to reabsorb it. "Cutting back emissions", if that is even possible, is not going to solve the problem, if there even is a problem.

 

[Eejit]

Yes deforestation is a factor I never said it wasn't. So are CO2 emissions. Thanks for pointing that out.
Cutting back CO2 emissions alone may not solve the problem but they are the single biggest anthropogenic factor. Planting more trees alone also will not solve the problem, even if we could spare the agricultural area.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Planting trees, felling less trees, laying less concrete, convincing motorists to use fuel efficient vehicles, convincing automakers to BUILD fuel efficient vehicles (small and mass transit), regulating carbon emitting factories and power stations, pushing solar power sources...
There is a lot to be done, but if you look around, the only thing that will happen is consumers will be forced to buy small petrol and deisel vehicles or electric cars that pollute just as much through the production of electricity. The other solutions will cost someone money and that someone will cry and whine until they get their way, so motorists will get shafted and CO2 emissions will not decrease (because people will be keeping their pre-fuel efficiency initiative cars. I know I will).

 

[Fliko]

What's the big deal with becoming more efficient? We need to either way. Might as well become efficient in everyway.

 

[Parrot of doom]

Judging from the low-quality and over-average of your graph, there is little chance that the graph is legitimate. And look at the CO2 data source(from the geocraft main site), the report from the source actually show that CO2 and palaeotemperature are correlated. I don't know why geocraft drew a different conclusion comparing with a professional report(If you bother to read it all) from the same set of data. And the report is from American Journal of Science. Lol

Wut?


Anyway, I've never rejected the solar variation theory. But this article is truly readable. It is, in fact, supporting your arguments.

http://www.eso.org/sci/libraries/lisa3/beckmanj.html

You can't begin to compare a graph with an x-axis on 100,000 year intervals with one on 100,000,000 year intervals.

The graph I posted is certainly worth consideration. Nobody doubts that co2 levels have, in the past, been many many times greater than they are today, with no apparent correlation with temperatures. co2 levels have been as much as 19 times what they are today, and guess what.....nothing bad happened.

The graph you posted, while interesting, seems to say nothing to me other than that correlation does not equal causation. OVer the time periods shown, it could easily be argued that some other factor was responsible for the temperature of the planet, and that co2 levels rose and fell due to the resultant effects of this temperature change - mainly, the amount of plant life around.

I'm waiting for the 'sponsored by oil companies' argument.....

 

[bbson john]

You can't begin to compare a graph with an x-axis on 100,000 year intervals with one on 100,000,000 year intervals.

The graph I posted is certainly worth consideration. Nobody doubts that co2 levels have, in the past, been many many times greater than they are today, with no apparent correlation with temperatures. co2 levels have been as much as 19 times what they are today, and guess what.....nothing bad happened.

You are right, The two graphs are not totally related. So just ignore my graph for a moment a take a look at your graph. Is the following your graph?

The graph comes from this site: http://www.geocraft.com. This negligently designed site is clearly supporting non-anthropogenic global warming.

The precise link to the graph is here: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/A6c.html. The source of data is posted below the graph in the website. The data used to plot the curves have extracted from Geocarb III from American Journal of Science. It is a professional academic writing composed by Robert A. Berner and Zarazeth Kothavala. Ironically, Geocrab III, with the same set of Data, drew a completely different conclusion:

...This means that there appears to have been very high early Paleozoic levels of CO2, followed by a large drop during the Devonian, and a rise to moderately high values during the Mesozoic, followed by a gradual decline through both the later Mesozoic and Cenozoic. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations (Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. This type of modeling is incapable of delimiting shorter term CO2 fluctuations Paleocene-Eocene boundary, late Ordovician glaciation) because of the nature of the input data which is added to the model as 10 my or longer averages. Thus, exact values of CO2, as shown by the standard curve, should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification. Nevertheless, the overall trend remains. This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Between the two sources which you will trust--- A negligently designed site with second- or even third-handed data, or an academic writing on American Science Journal with first-handed data?

 

[Parrot of doom]

I repeat, correlation does not equal causation. Either report just demonstrates how different conclusions may be drawn from the same data.

And to be honest, a slick website does not make a compelling argument.

 

[Solaris]

You are not climatologists; you are all way out of your depth.

The only sensible thing to do here is to agree with the overwhelming number of qualified experts in this field who say we are causing it and must stop it.

 

[bbson john]

I repeat, correlation does not equal causation. Either report just demonstrates how different conclusions may be drawn from the same data.

And to be honest, a slick website does not make a compelling argument.

Correlation means possibility of causation. In fact, there is not much reason that global warming causes a large increase of CO2. Global warming can cause increase of CO2 as water release CO2 upon heating up, but not to such a large amount. There is not much chance the increase in CO2 concentration is due to global warming. So it is very likely CO2 causes global warming. Perhaps no one can ever find out which one is the cause, no matter how much effort has been distributed to climatology. No, we should not take a chance. We should not take our and other species' future as our stakes. We cannot lose, especially when CO2 caused global warming is that likely.

 

[clarky003]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/35266/Global-warming-It-s-the-coldest-winter-in-decades

Most of the qualified experts seem to be sortof baffled, and you don't know how many of the pro 'humans cause global warming' experts are lobbyists who get fat pay checks to support that hypothesis just because it suits the agenda of acceptable increased charges for fossil fuels, and creation of green taxes and so on.

I say always look at it with a critical eye, experts get payed to do what they do, and it is possible they will lobby for certain conclusions if it's in the interest of large corporations.