Any info about the contribution of warfare to global warming?

WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, yada, yada........

All would have an impact, and the timeline coincides nicely with the AGW arguement.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: ...Any other suggestions, from those who are seeing this as an individual or family level issue?

Well thats more than hardly anything

quote Originally posted by Jonesy: Ah, the great American attitude about anything.. Who cares, by the time it happens ill be dead.. Screw those still around, not my problem..

Yup, now you get it. Right now at my age and average life expectancy, Ive only got 10-15 years left. Anything happening past that is of absolutely no concern to me. All these kids these days think theyre so smart, let them fix it for themselves.

The common mantra you hear is "The science isn't settled." With this, they take a position that they don't have enough information to make a definitive conclusion. The problem with this is they go on to make statements that MMGW isn't real. I'm sorry, you can make a statement saying you don't have enough evidence either way then go on to make a declarative statement after you've already admitted you're ignorant on the material.

It is a very complicated subject that scientists have spent their lives work understanding. Since it is complicated, the science behind it is very involved. People however, make simple explanations to try and dismiss a complicated subject. "Its not MMGW, its the Sun!" The only part of the science isn't settled is the degree in which its occurring. If one doctor stated that you had cancer with 6 months to live and the other stated you had cancer with 8 months to live, you wouldn't say "The science isn't settled! I don't have cancer!"

The fact is that MMGW is the best science at showing the happenings we're seeing. If there was such an easy answer that would fit the fingerprint if you will, one could write a paper about it, and win the Nobel prize for such; it would be a quick million dollars. However, this hasn't been done. Rather than suggesting a contrary position that can be tested and explained and supported by data, these contradicting 'scientists' [deniars] simply attack the other scientists and or science as false - never work on the science to propose a better idea. Also, if you look at these other 'scientists' they usually take the following roles: A.) Cherry pick data. B.) Are completely unqualified in the field of work. C.) Have not had anything that's survived any sort of reputable scientific criticism.

Lastly, the problem with the MMGW is the whole social impact that is associated with it. People like Al Gore have done more damage to the science than help. The social impact and the science have to be seperate in order to have a reasonable discussion of the actual science. A lot feel threatened of the social ramifacations that an admission to MMGW could carry and as such, chose to deny it rather than articulate a position on what could be considered a reasonable approach, if any, in dealing with it.

The carbon tax is an example of this. I get the point of it - It associates the unrealized cost with the consumption. For this scenario, imagine if you went for bids on how to dispose of some hot nuclear material, and three companies bid on it. Two of the companies bid in the same ballpark and the third bid a quarter of the price of the other two. The two higher prices involved a multistep process in which they contained, isolated, and properly disposed the material. The third companies plan was just to dump it under a building in a populated area. Obviously they're transferring the other 3/4's of price to the population in the form of health ramifications. This was the entire precipice behind the Hinkley lawsuit against Pacific Gas and Electric.

That stated, I don't support the carbon tax. Politicians do look at it as another form of income. Giving that much more power of taxation to the government is economic suicide. I do think we should make rational and well thought out efforts to mitigate our output. Increasing fuel economy for vehicles, making efforts at alternate fuels (as fossil fuels are a finite resource anyway), and other reasonable efforts.

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: The common mantra you hear is "The science isn't settled."

In response to the common mantra that "the science is settled".

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Yup, now you get it. Right now at my age and average life expectancy, Ive only got 10-15 years left. Anything happening past that is of absolutely no concern to me. All these kids these days think theyre so smart, let them fix it for themselves.

You have no kids I suppose.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007).

The same IPCC that says Climate Change's primary goal is wealth redistribution.

quote Before the industrial era began in the late 1700s, carbon dioxide concentrations measured approximately 280 ppm. Concentrations have risen steadily since then, reaching an annual average of 394 ppm in 2012—a 41 percent increase. Almost all of this increase is due to human activities.

That statement makes it sound like CO2 concentrations are at their highest point ever, which we both know is false. It's only accurate within the time frame they're examining - which is conveniently not mentioned.

It's like ignoring water vapor as a greenhouse gas because it's self regulating. Sure, it's self-regulating but it still contributes to the climate. Why is this important? Take a hypothetical example where H2O was responsible for 99% of global warming and CO2 was responsible for the other 1%. By ignoring H2O, you're leading people to think CO2 is the only driver, when it's only a tiny fraction of the overall effect.

Honest science always makes clear the frame of reference. Without that, you can make any data say anything you want.

quote And the likelihood of the government allowing tax offsets is about the same as living forever.....dream on. This isnt about saving the earth or the environment, it's about money, and control. If the earth becomes uninhabitable for humans, it will still be here, just inhabited by another species that has adapted to the conditions.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: I am all for healthy skepticism, especially about any kind of government intervention in the form of mandates and regulatory schemes, "engineered" tax schemes or incentivizing schemes involving grants and subsidies. So I agree with that much of what was said there. The offhanded dismissal of CCS (carbon capture and storage), however, is thoroughly risible, considering how CCS is carefully regulated in the United States. As it happens, the EPA just finalized its guidance documents for CCS Class VI injection wells. Across the U.S., the status of CCS as a greenhouse mitigation strategy is still exploratory and experimental. Scientists are weighing the evidence from various lines of investigation to define the potential for safely and economically increasing the use of CCS. Some scientists are assessing the possibilities for a particular kind of CCS called "mineral sequestration", which would take advantage of the chemistry of selected underground rock formations to convert the injected waste CO2 into highly stable carbonate compounds. If this could be reliably and economically engineered, it would reduce any potential for the sequestered carbon to escape into the atmosphere as a consequence of seismic activity, whether that would be because of naturally occurring earthquakes or localized earthquakes caused by the CO2 injection process itself.

...is this the same EPA that ok'ed the use of Asbestos as an insulating material? We all know how that turned out...

...just saying

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Taxing carbon based emissions is a fuel tax on fuel consumed, .

Yes it is.

But the public is vehemently, irrationally opposed to higher fuel taxes directly. Carbon taxes end up being spread out and absorbed into everything, not just fuel.

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: And the likelihood of the government allowing tax offsets is about the same as living forever.....dream on.

I was stating what would be good policy. Whether our current politicians and public have the will to make it happen is entirely different. Have to see the solution before it can be realized. Better to tax consumption than to tax production (income) - after all, taxing something means less of it. We'd all be better off with more productivity and less consuming.

quote If the earth becomes uninhabitable for humans, it will still be here, just inhabited by another species that has adapted to the conditions.

You're right, we are all going to die, so why bother doing anything? Might as well speed up the process and just kill ourselves now.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Right now at my age and average life expectancy, Ive only got 10-15 years left. Anything happening past that is of absolutely no concern to me. All these kids these days think theyre so smart, let them fix it for themselves.

For someone as admittedly mature as you are, you sure are irresponsible. And it's alright, you can thank me later for funding your unsustainable social security payments that I will never receive.

[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 08-21-2013).]

I want 89 cent gas again. Let the levels rise, I dont give a **** . I live at 1300 feet. Theres only so many icebergs, once theyre melted, the sea cant rise much more.

Oh and with all this global warming, explain the coldest and wettest summer ever on record for Kansas?

quote Originally posted by fieroX: I want 89 cent gas again. Let the levels rise, I dont give a **** . I live at 1300 feet. Theres only so many icebergs, once theyre melted, the sea cant rise much more.

Yeah, who cares about everyone else!

quote Originally posted by Formula88: That statement makes it sound like CO2 concentrations are at their highest point ever, which we both know is false. It's only accurate within the time frame they're examining - which is conveniently not mentioned. It's like ignoring water vapor as a greenhouse gas because it's self regulating. Sure, it's self-regulating but it still contributes to the climate. Why is this important? Take a hypothetical example where H2O was responsible for 99% of global warming and CO2 was responsible for the other 1%. By ignoring H2O, you're leading people to think CO2 is the only driver, when it's only a tiny fraction of the overall effect. Honest science always makes clear the frame of reference. Without that, you can make any data say anything you want.

Valid points, the IPCC has political motivations; try to separate the politics from the science. Offering more information the matter. The length of time that water vapor and Co2 remain in the environment is vastly different. Co2 remains in the atmosphere at lot longer than water vapor and as such, retains its heat for longer. This is what allows such smaller concentrations of Co2 to have a large effect.

An issue people have is not understanding the amount of Co2 being put into the atmosphere due to it being invisible. Showing this under the assumption of stoich combustion,

C8H18 + A(O2 + 3.76N2) ==> BCO2 + DH2O + EN2

Balancing this equation nets the following;
A = 12.5
B = 8
D = 9
E = 47

This is to say, for every mol of gasoline used, you're putting out 8 mols of Co2. Since one mol of gasoline weighs 114g and one mol of Co2 weighs 44g, that is saying for every mol of gasoline used, you're putting out 352g of Co2. A gallon of gas weighs 6.073 lbs or 2.75467kg. Assuming the average vehicle gets 23.5mpg and drives 15,000 miles a year, that means a vehicle puts out an average of 5430kg or nearly 12,000lbs (6 tons) of Co2 every year. This doesn't include other contributors in other industries. So go look at a traffic jam in LA and realize every single one of those vehicles is putting 12,000lbs of CO2 in the atmosphere every year. This notion that humans can't have an impact is invalid.

Moving forward, politically, I'm a libertarian. I'm actually more comfortable with people saying as roger garrison does, a point of "I'd rather be selfish." - That's absolutely his right. I can't stand however, people denying science over political ideology, that's a dangerous path to tolerate. History has shown us how dangerous this is, whether its the Catholic churchs stance against Gaileo or the influence Hamid al-Ghazali had on Islam. Its why muslims shout 'allah akbar' when stuff blows up and why they believe (thankfully) muhammed has more influence over where rockets go rather than the laws outlined by Isaac Newton.

We are an energy dependent species. Fossil fuels are finite and will run out. We can either suffer a painfully steep learning curve when we get there, or we can invest in alternative sources and be ahead of the curve when that time comes out. When it does, and it will, I'd rather we have the technology and sell it to others than playing beggar to other nations that may get there first.

[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 08-22-2013).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Taxing carbon based emissions is a fuel tax on fuel consumed, .

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Yes it is. But the public is vehemently, irrationally opposed to higher fuel taxes directly. Carbon taxes end up being spread out and absorbed into everything, not just fuel.

So, you are saying the public is stupid, ?

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: For someone as admittedly mature as you are, you sure are irresponsible. And it's alright, you can thank me later for funding your unsustainable social security payments that I will never receive.

Thank you for funding my unsustainable social security payments ? Right after I thank you for funding my ObamaCare. If you have a problem with funding old folks, vote conservative.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: If the earth becomes uninhabitable for humans, it will still be here, just inhabited by another species that has adapted to the conditions.[/SIZE]

If ... if I zhit in one hand and wished in the other, which one would be full first ? We have right now, humans who can live in Alaska. We have humans who can live in Texas. Temperature is not a factor.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-22-2013).]

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: try to separate the politics from the science.

I would have more confidence in the "science" if the "scientists" did that.

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: So go look at a traffic jam in LA and realize every single one of those vehicles is putting 12,000lbs of CO2 in the atmosphere every year. This notion that humans can't have an impact is invalid.

How much does the atmosphere weigh?
According to Encyclopedia Britinica, about 5.5 quadrillion tons. That's 5,500,000,000,000,000 tons. 12,000lbs (or 6 tons) represents 0.00000000000011% of the atmosphere. Talk about pissing in the wind...

Let's use your analogy with an example people will readily say is absurd, but it uses the same logic.
Humans typically urinate 150ml - 200ml. (a bladder can hold up to 600ml, but the urge to urinate usually starts at about 150ml)
The EPA says Americans take about 2 billion trip to the beach each year. If just one person urinates in the ocean once on each trip, that's 300,000,000 Litres of urine added to the ocean every year just from the US.

So why aren't we afraid of tsunami and flooding because of that? Why no calls to stop made made urination in the ocean?

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: The length of time that water vapor and Co2 remain in the environment is vastly different. Co2 remains in the atmosphere at lot longer than water vapor and as such, retains its heat for longer. This is what allows such smaller concentrations of Co2 to have a large effect.

That's why I said you have to look at the "global warming effect" and not the mass or volume. Some gases such as methane have a MUCH larger impact than CO2. When weighted by the amount of their contribution to the overall global warming effect you can put it into perspective. I uploaded information previously showing how these calculations were made using IPCC climate data and it was dismissed out of hand unread because it didn't support the desired answer.

That's another example of how the "climate scientists" are using bad science.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 08-22-2013).]

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Yeah, who cares about everyone else!

Correct. I care about me and my own. I have no fu(ks left to give.

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: Any info about the contribution of warfare to global warming? WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, yada, yada........ All would have an impact, and the timeline coincides nicely with the AGW arguement.

Just to bring this up again, as I am curious and have not seen this addressed anywhere.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Yup, now you get it. Right now at my age and average life expectancy, Ive only got 10-15 years left. Anything happening past that is of absolutely no concern to me. All these kids these days think theyre so smart, let them fix it for themselves.

That is the most patriotic attitude I've seen In many years. Some of us are securing the only jobs this administration wouldn't dare demonize, tax or regulate out of business. This unappreciated service provide by us today ensures our descendants will find a job in the future...

[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 08-22-2013).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: So, you are saying the public is stupid, ?

Not in general. But people are not rational when it comes to gas and fuel prices. Remember after hurricane Katrina? It had a huge effect here in the southeast, not sure if it affected the whole nation the same way. People were paying thousands above MSRP for hybrids and compacts when gas prices jumped.

Similarly, truck and SUV sales are much stronger when gas prices are low, even though fuel prices has always been incredibly volatile. Rationally, the current fuel price shouldn't have much effect on buyer habits - but it does.

My point here is that the public has hypersensitivity to direct fuel prices. This forces roundabout policies like carbon taxes or CAFE that accomplish similar goals, but have a lot of undesirable side effects.

quote Thank you for funding my unsustainable social security payments ? Right after I thank you for funding my ObamaCare. If you have a problem with funding old folks, vote conservative.

I have no problem supporting those who need support, or even those who are collecting entitlements that were promised to them. I do have a problem with folks that I am supporting who are completely ungrateful for it.

Im just ready for the unraveling to begin. Im sitting long physical gold, silver and lead. Lets rock and roll before I get to old to make sh1t happen.

I just read this and tried to give you a positive. Didn't work. I had already given you a pos. You make a lot of sense to me and you're much more articulate than I am.

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: Valid points, the IPCC has political motivations; try to separate the politics from the science. Offering more information the matter. The length of time that water vapor and Co2 remain in the environment is vastly different. Co2 remains in the atmosphere at lot longer than water vapor and as such, retains its heat for longer. This is what allows such smaller concentrations of Co2 to have a large effect. An issue people have is not understanding the amount of Co2 being put into the atmosphere due to it being invisible. Showing this under the assumption of stoich combustion, C8H18 + A(O2 + 3.76N2) ==> BCO2 + DH2O + EN2 Balancing this equation nets the following; A = 12.5 B = 8 D = 9 E = 47 This is to say, for every mol of gasoline used, you're putting out 8 mols of Co2. Since one mol of gasoline weighs 114g and one mol of Co2 weighs 44g, that is saying for every mol of gasoline used, you're putting out 352g of Co2. A gallon of gas weighs 6.073 lbs or 2.75467kg. Assuming the average vehicle gets 23.5mpg and drives 15,000 miles a year, that means a vehicle puts out an average of 5430kg or nearly 12,000lbs (6 tons) of Co2 every year. This doesn't include other contributors in other industries. So go look at a traffic jam in LA and realize every single one of those vehicles is putting 12,000lbs of CO2 in the atmosphere every year. This notion that humans can't have an impact is invalid. Moving forward, politically, I'm a libertarian. I'm actually more comfortable with people saying as roger garrison does, a point of "I'd rather be selfish." - That's absolutely his right. I can't stand however, people denying science over political ideology, that's a dangerous path to tolerate. History has shown us how dangerous this is, whether its the Catholic churchs stance against Gaileo or the influence Hamid al-Ghazali had on Islam. Its why muslims shout 'allah akbar' when stuff blows up and why they believe (thankfully) muhammed has more influence over where rockets go rather than the laws outlined by Isaac Newton. We are an energy dependent species. Fossil fuels are finite and will run out. We can either suffer a painfully steep learning curve when we get there, or we can invest in alternative sources and be ahead of the curve when that time comes out. When it does, and it will, I'd rather we have the technology and sell it to others than playing beggar to other nations that may get there first.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: That's why I said you have to look at the "global warming effect" and not the mass or volume. Some gases such as methane have a MUCH larger impact than CO2. When weighted by the amount of their contribution to the overall global warming effect you can put it into perspective. I uploaded information previously showing how these calculations were made using IPCC climate data and it was dismissed out of hand unread because it didn't support the desired answer. That's another example of how the "climate scientists" are using bad science.

So now your argument is that the atmosphere can just aborb all of this, shouldn't make a difference, right? So all 30,000,000,000tons of Co2 pumped out every year by humans just 'disappears' in the atmosphere? You're so quick to dismiss this scientists as using bad science. What motive do they have in this 'bad science'? Do you think all these scientists are in a conspiracy for control or do you think its politicians hijacking a science to gain control? Do you think there are other fields of science that use 'bad science'? Do particle physicists use bad science? Do modern astophysicist use 'bad science'? Do medical doctors use 'bad science'? Do biochemists use 'bad science'? Do nuclear physicist use bad science? Why do you think you hold such a disdain for climatologist? Could it be that the information they provide poses a threat to your views? Please tell me how these thousands of well qualified scientist with PhD's are all just 'too dumb' to realize they're using bad science. Surely, you must be way more qualified with the swiftness that you dismiss them, right?

Yes, methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than Co2, by about 20x. Unfortunately for your argument, CH4 is in far smaller quantities by a factor of nearly 100; its measured in PPB vs PPM. Your comparison on urine is week at best and you know it. Urine is mostly water that gets taken in and out.

quote Originally posted by fieroX: Im just ready for the unraveling to begin. Im sitting long physical gold, silver and lead. Lets rock and roll before I get to old to make sh1t happen.

Sweet. So if it unravels, you can use gold for what? Eat it? Use it as a hat for shelter? When people are looking for food and shelter, I doubt stuffing gold under the mattress is going to be in high demand. . .

quote Originally posted by dratts: I just read this and tried to give you a positive. Didn't work. I had already given you a pos. You make a lot of sense to me and you're much more articulate than I am.

Thanks, tons of hearing the same old tired arguments again and again. Never do they provide any sort of science to explain things. They rather just dismiss the science as 'bad', 'corrupt', or other.

[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 08-22-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Let's use your analogy with an example people will readily say is absurd, but it uses the same logic.

It's not even close to the same logic. Fossil fuels are stored sunlight that is trapped here on Earth. Adding that carbon back to the atmosphere fundamentally changes its composition. Water has constantly been here. The carbon has too, but it has been sequestered for millions of years beneath the Earth's surface. Life has evolved without it. We had to go dig up the fossil fuels to find it. We're not digging up water. Earth rains water. Earth does not rain coal.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: If just one person urinates in the ocean once on each trip, that's 300,000,000 Litres of urine added to the ocean every year just from the US. So why aren't we afraid of tsunami and flooding because of that? Why no calls to stop made made urination in the ocean?

You continue to seriously argue what is by your own description an "absurd hyperbole" as if it has any merit at all. Logically it's completely unsound due to conservation of matter. The water we drink came from the oceans. Returning it to the oceans is a neutral contribution:

Source.

Further, 300,000,000 liters = 0.000071974 cubic miles. Volume of the oceans is 310,000,000 cubic miles. Source. Even if humans violated physical laws and created the hydrogen and oxygen in their bodies the contribution is completely negligible.

For a logical and relevant comparison the contribution from melting glaciers completely blows your human 'contribution' theory out of the water. From 2003 to 2010 the total global glacier ice mass lost was 1,000 cubic miles and contributed 12mm to sea level rise. Source.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: That's why I said you have to look at the "global warming effect" and not the mass or volume. Some gases such as methane have a MUCH larger impact than CO2.

Nope. CO2 is utterly dominating methane in radiative forcing impact:

Source.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: That's another example of how the "climate scientists" are using bad science.

It's another example alright. Not of climate scientists though.

[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 08-23-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: If just one person urinates in the ocean once on each trip, that's 300,000,000 Litres of urine added to the ocean every year just from the US. So why aren't we afraid of tsunami and flooding because of that? Why no calls to stop made made urination in the ocean?

heh - let's not forget about all the people that are in the water, and how about all the floating ships (never mind the sunken ones along with anything else added). These would all displace water which would technically raise the level.

quote Originally posted by FlyinFieros: We had to go dig up the fossil fuels to find it.

um, please check your facts not all oil is/was subsurface. For example look right in the middle of LA you have this little thing called the La Brea Tar Pits - not dug up buy humans and have been around for a long time. Same can also be said for oil sands in Alberta, originally they were available on the surface before they were removed and the oil extracted...

Ok fine, you believe man is the cause, but I have yet to see you put forth a real 'solution' to the problem, just like many of these 'scientists' that keep saying man is to blame - maybe some of them should put some real effort into coming up with real solutions to the problem without causing further (current or possible future) damage to the planet.

That being said, 'climate change' has always happened and at fast rates - there are theories out there right now where people are now thinking that climate change was responsible for the Mayan culture disappearing along with several others. If true I suppose man's CO2 emissions are also at fault here too???

The earth has had much higher CO2 levels in the past and survived, the earth has been ice free in the past and survived, the earth has been mostly covered with ice and has survived, even according to some the earth was completely flooded at some point. How is it different today? I have said it before, yes we need to clean up our act (and NOT just CO2 emissions like some people are just focusing on) but to say that man is 100% to blame for any change in the environment is completely unscientific.

[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 08-23-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: um, please check your facts not all oil is/was subsurface.

What a surprise you'd completely skip the point of the post in order to argue semantics and rattle off a bunch of nonsense with zero citations.

[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 08-23-2013).]

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: So now your argument is that the atmosphere can just aborb all of this, shouldn't make a difference, right?

You don't read too well, do you?

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: So all 30,000,000,000tons of Co2 pumped out every year by humans just 'disappears' in the atmosphere?

Never said that. It's a question of scale. Where does your 30,000,000,000 ton figure come from? It's not mentioned in your earlier posts. Are we talking a tsunami of water in downtown New York, or a fart in a hurricane? 30,000,000,000 is such a huge number - and yet it's an insignificant amount compared to the whole and statistically less than the margin of error. I don't think the "science" has been perfected to 15 significant figures.

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: You're so quick to dismiss this scientists as using bad science. What motive do they have in this 'bad science'?

Previously anwsered. Re-asking doesn't invalidate the previous answer.

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: Do you think all these scientists are in a conspiracy for control or do you think its politicians hijacking a science to gain control? Do you think there are other fields of science that use 'bad science'? Do particle physicists use bad science? Do modern astophysicist use 'bad science'? Do medical doctors use 'bad science'? Do biochemists use 'bad science'? Do nuclear physicist use bad science? Why do you think you hold such a disdain for climatologist? Could it be that the information they provide poses a threat to your views? Please tell me how these thousands of well qualified scientist with PhD's are all just 'too dumb' to realize they're using bad science. Surely, you must be way more qualified with the swiftness that you dismiss them, right?

You're bordering on babble here. We're not discussing all other types of science, but when political motives are driving the answers you can bet there's opportunity for abuse.

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: Yes, methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than Co2, by about 20x. Unfortunately for your argument, CH4 is in far smaller quantities by a factor of nearly 100; its measured in PPB vs PPM. Your comparison on urine is week at best and you know it. Urine is mostly water that gets taken in and out.

Again you ignore the science. Here's where you're advocating bad science. You say the 30,000,000,000 tons is too huge a number to be ignored when it's 0.00055% of the atmosphere, yet you are fine with ignoring methane's contribution that is 1/5th that of CO2 (based on your numbers). If we can ignore someting that has the equivalent contribution as 20% of the CO2 levels, does that mean a 20% rise is CO2 would also be negligible?

According to your math, 0.2% is small enough to ignore but 0.00055% must be causing damage and cannot be ignored. But hey, that's barely a difference of 4 orders of magnitude.

And you ask why I'm skeptical of the "science?"

quote Originally posted by Formula88: We're not discussing all other types of science, but when political motives are driving the answers you can bet there's opportunity for abuse.

That's a pretty broad assertion that all (or most of) climate scientists are politically motivated.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: That's a pretty broad assertion that all (or most of) climate scientists are politically motivated.

But it's no reach at all to say many are attached to there idea of the problem.
People at all levels of "IQ or EDUCATION" can fail victim to their own preconceived
perspective. Their are some really (ignore their desired conclusion and ) just follow
the data. But we also have many who are (despite their expertise) paid to get results
or face an opportunity to change careers. When you come across researchers who
were former employees of (a nationally recognized institute for climate science) who
were fired, dismissed or let go have often been the ones that found (what they thought)
was a flaw in the methods. As the authority on climate change and Global warming, it
wouldn't matter whether you are right about everything or running the biggest conspiracy
known to mankind. The only way to keep this former scientist with credential you accepted
and hire, is to discredit them........


Okay, the guys out their selling book for gain, that claim some secret governmental
conspiracy to deceive the public are on my list of suspicious since they are now
obligated to prove their claims to make a buck.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: If ... if I zhit in one hand and wished in the other, which one would be full first ? We have right now, humans who can live in Alaska. We have humans who can live in Texas. Temperature is not a factor.

If, by 2100, most of the continental U.S. and large parts of Canada are as warm in summer as Texas is now, what would Texas summers be like in 2100..?

quote James Hansen, the former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the world’s leading climatologists has recently retired from his position after 43 years in order to concentrate on climate-change activism. He predicts that without full de-carbonization by 2030, global CO2 emissions will be 16 times higher than in 1950, guaranteeing catastrophic climate change. In an essay published in April of this year, Hansen states: “If we should ‘succeed’ in digging up and burning all [untapped reserves of] fossil fuels, some parts of the planet would become literally uninhabitable, with some times during the year having wet bulb temperatures exceeding 35°C. At such temperatures, for reasons of physiology and physics, humans cannot survive… it is physically impossible for the environment to carry away the 100W of metabolic heat that a human body generates when it is at rest. Thus even a person lying quietly naked in hurricane force winds would be unable to survive.”

Source:
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/r...ing-to-end-very-soon


Björn Lomborg recommends an immediate, ten-fold (or more) increase over the current global level of funding for scientific and engineering R&D with the objective of developing a "next generation" of zero carbon energy sources that could compete economically with fossil fuels--without "green energy" subsidies.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: We're not discussing all other types of science, but when political motives are driving the answers you can bet there's opportunity for abuse.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: That's a pretty broad assertion that all (or most of) climate scientists are politically motivated.

That's a pretty pitiful example of reading comprehension. The statement you quoted doesn't come anywhere near saying that. What it does say is that when there are political motives involved, that brings opportunity for abuse.

You really need to work on reading what people actually write and not what you imagine they write. You're having an imaginary argument.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: That's a pretty pitiful example of reading comprehension. The statement you quoted doesn't come anywhere near saying that. What it does say is that when there are political motives involved, that brings opportunity for abuse. You really need to work on reading what people actually write and not what you imagine they write. You're having an imaginary argument.

I figured you would say that. Let's try putting 2 and 2 together.

There's overwhelming consensus in the scientific community to the tune of 95% of climate scientists that AGW is real. You are dismissing a mountain of evidence from a number of independent sources because you believe there is political motivation and abuse. Are all of them politically motivated? How is it that climate data from so many different sources all agree with each other?

You are dismissing all climate science because a select few used it for political purposes. That is a huge mistake. And there's abuse on both sides of the aisle. You can bet there's plenty of money and influence being poured in from the oil, coal, and gas industries.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: I figured you would say that.

Of course you did.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: You are dismissing all climate science because a select few used it for political purposes. That is a huge mistake.

Yes, that statement is a huge mistake, because it isn't what I said. Apparently when you add 2+2 you get 37.
But I'm sure your powers of clairvoyance told you I'd say that too.

There's no point in continuing if you're going to ignore what I actually write and just reply to what you imagined I wrote.

quote Originally posted by RandomTask: Sweet. So if it unravels, you can use gold for what? Eat it? Use it as a hat for shelter? When people are looking for food and shelter, I doubt stuffing gold under the mattress is going to be in high demand. . .

Well it's going to have the same use that it did in Zimbabwe when their monetary system collapsed, and pre ww2 Germany, and Yugoslavia as every other society that had economic collapse. Its going to be the only accepted form of payment, everyone without it will starve.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: And you offer another selective example omitting what you don't want.

You're projecting. You are hyping methane as if it's having a major impact to avoid discussing the MAJOR impact CO2 is having.

I showed you clear and obvious evidence that methane is making very little impact compared to CO2, despite methane being a much more potent greenhouse gas. Yet you accuse ME of omitting evidence "I don't want."

The only person omitting unwanted evidence is you, sir. CO2 is by far the most dominate greenhouse gas from human emissions.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I can see that's all you will ever have to offer.

You're projecting again.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: There's no point in continuing if you're going to ignore what I actually write and just reply to what you imagined I wrote.

He isn't ignoring anything. You are actively avoiding a real discussion.

How about you clarify your position instead of insulting a person for misunderstanding you and refusing to set the record straight.

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: Any info about the contribution of warfare to global warming? WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, yada, yada........ All would have an impact, and the timeline coincides nicely with the AGW arguement.

"No Question Left Behind"

There have been a number of singular or unusual episodes during these wars that obviously injected large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere in the form of CO₂--along with a lot of other "stuff" going into the atmosphere from the same events. Most recently, when retreating Iraqi forces set fire to almost 700 oil wells in Kuwait. The last of these well fires was not extinguished until November 6, 1991: about eight months after these fires were started. But despite considerable trepidation on the part of many onlookers, the measurable environmental impacts were almost entirely localized, with no apparent global effect:

quote According to a 1992 study... daily emissions of sulfur dioxide were 57% of that from electric utilities in the United States, emissions of carbon dioxide were 2% of global emissions and emissions of soot were 3400 metric tons per day. Scenarios that predicted serious environmental impact on a global level did not happen, though regional and long-lasting impacts... were serious. At the peak of the fires, the smoke absorbed 75 to 80% [locally] of the sun’s radiation. The particles rose as high as 20,000 feet... but were scavenged from the atmosphere relatively quickly.

I don't see any pattern that stands out as a "war signature" in this plot on the EPA's website (about halfway down the page) of global CO₂ emissions (the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas) from fossil fuels consumption, from 1900 to 2008. And I don't see anything indicative of a "war impact" in these plots of global mean temperature from 1880 to 2010. There's actually a persistent global cooling trend (or perhaps just a stationary trend--neither cooling or warming) from about 1941 to about 1975, after which, global warming predominates until the end of this data at about 2008.

quote The cooling trend from the 1940′s to the 1970′s now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend... It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern hemisphere: consistent with the nowadays accepted interpretation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols...

Source:
http://www.realclimate.org/...global-cooling-myth/

I think that there is a partial explanation, that global warming from the greenhouse effect was masked during this period (1940s to 1970s) by the effects of sulphates and other aerosols, and airborne particulates (smoke and soot), which reflected or absorbed incoming solar radiation in ways that resulted in a countervailing cooling effect at the earth's surface, all around the world. This has been called "global dimming". I think that at the end of the 1970s, these air pollutants and their cooling effects were significantly abated by a trend towards more widespread and more effective anti-smog equipment (like catalytic converters for passenger cars) and anti-smog regulations: thus, unmasking global warming from the greenhouse effect, which again became dominant.

I would think that this aerosols and airborne particulates abatement at the end of the 1970s (when global warming reemerged) achieved significant effect in the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, Japan and Australia, before spreading more slowly to the rest of the world. I think that this clearing of the skies had a rapid global warming effect because these countries represented such a large share of the global economy and its industrial, transport and agricultural processes: an even larger share at the end of the 1970s than would be the case today, when there are many more large economic players, including China, India and Brazil.

I think that a further explanation of this "cold spell" would involve time delays in the climate system, in terms of how long it takes before global surface temperatures respond to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. Based on recent reports that I have seen, I don't think that it would be stupid to consider that the oceans may have been sequestering heat energy from the greenhouse effect (perhaps at deeper ocean levels) for decades during this period, before that energy reemerged at the end of the 1970s as higher temperature readings across the world at land-based monitoring stations.

quote Of course it’s possible that oceanic conditions or other sources of variability might produce a flattening in the warming trend on the decadal time scale. But that remains to be seen. And even Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, a scientist who received a lot of publicity recently for suggesting that this could happen, emphasizes that the long-term forecast is for warmer and warmer temperatures, thanks to our continuing emissions of greenhouse gases.

Source:
http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2740

Looking forwards, instead of backwards, there is a general description at the World Meteorological Organization of how the IPCC produces the 40 varying scenarios that project global CO₂ emissions and other climate-related parameters forwards to 2100, using different assumptions about the future, to cover the likely range of possibilities.

I don't see anything in this description to suggest that these IPCC scenarios incorporate any projected "war" effects.

Would anyone really expect such a thing?

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-25-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Yes, that statement is a huge mistake, because it isn't what I said. Apparently when you add 2+2 you get 37. But I'm sure your powers of clairvoyance told you I'd say that too. There's no point in continuing if you're going to ignore what I actually write and just reply to what you imagined I wrote.

You just got done saying how insignificant CO2 is for climate impact (which is contrary to almost all published work in the field). Why don't you just tell us exactly what you mean then?

Thanks for responding to my question.

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: I would think that this aerosols and airborne particulates abatement at the end of the 1970s (when global warming reemerged) achieved significant effect in the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, Japan and Australia, before spreading more slowly to the rest of the world. I think that this clearing of the skies had a rapid global warming effect because these countries represented such a large share of the global economy and its industrial, transport and agricultural processes: an even larger share at the end of the 1970s than would be the case today, when there are many more large economic players, including China, India and Brazil.

That is pretty funny. During the 19th Century, the whole of the industrialized world operated on coal. Everything from kitchens to factories, to war machines.

So let's pretend that all that coal dust started a mini ice age? It didn't.

It is unfortunate to say though, that most of the world operates on fossil fuels. The third world still burns wood for cooking and heat. China burns coal like crazy, and has no filters to mitigate the smoke. In short the pollution is mind boggling and troubling for everyone, but, does it mitigate the climate? Nope. There are forces like the tilt of the earth on its axis, the output of the sun and it's solar storms, and so much more that mankind has no control over.

Remember the buffalo herds of the 18th and 19th Centuries? There were millions of big wildlife emitting tons of flatulence (methane and CO2), and forest fires that went totally unchecked. There are so many forces at play you can't really blame 0.039% CO2 for climate variation. And we produce only about 3% of that.

Good climate reading