Climate change - an oil based question.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: GreeCguy
Global warming continues to be a hot topic (no pun intended). Certain people in high places are convinced the world is warming and this will spell hard times ahead for human kind, if not the downright end of humanity. The causes of this climate change are well known, greenhouse gases. If I understand the theory correctly, greenhouse gases are created every time you crank your car and drive around (I know this is simplistic, but it should work for my question, which is . . .)

If burning oil, (all oil related products) produces greenhouse gases and these gases were trapped millions or billions of years ago, aren't we simply returning the earth to a condition it has experienced before?


Yep, the Earth once had an atmosphere of methane and CO2, so theoretically, there's enough stored to get it back there.

It wasn't very pleasant...but it was natural.
 
Originally Posted By: Brybo86
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Global warming is a scam to fleece the taxpayer. When a lot of people figured the scam out they changed the name to climate change.


This


And when the sea level drops around Iceland, deniers will start using that fact to deny that it's risen on the East Coast of the US.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Get over it, it's real and it's happening right now.


Mankind's contribution to heat + natural (base line) heat = actual temperature.

Please fill in the blanks.


Before we started our "experiment", there was x% CO2 in the atmosphere...since y tonnes of carbon were burned, there is now z% CO2 in the atmosphere...

Fill in the blanks Tempest, and see that we CAN materially alter something on a global scale in only a couple of hundred years...we CAN make a difference.
 
Originally Posted By: threeputtpar
GreeCguy, you drop this bomb in the off topic section and only post one response? Do you know that global warming is an unofficial banned topic here? And the title you gave this topic doesn't make it any better.

People will think you are a troll if you keep posting things like this and running for the hills!


Once again, sorry, (I felt compelled to post an apology in another post today as well). If I have an opinion or knowledge to contribute, I ramble (reference my "Fruity Pebble" thread). If I want to learn, I listen. It's my personality. For me, a ton of information has been posted here that I can read and use. I try to keep an open mind and drink in what I hear. When I was in school, I always came early and stayed till the end and sat on the front row, (even so, sometimes I feel like "Boxer" in "Animal Farm" who just can't get past the letter "D").

I did not create this post or thread to debate or argue my opinion, but to gather opinions, knowledge and wisdom from others. I know there are several sides to this question and had I had the answers, would not have created the thread. Once again, sorry if I ruffled feathers - not my intention.
 
Remember that we all live on a planet blessed with incredibly good conditions for life that have been around for a long, long time. Had any of these conditions been different, we would not be inhabiting this little house on the block. Example: What if the Earth had three times its present supply of surface water, or three times less? What if the sun were a variable star? It goes on and on. These nice conditions will not last forever.

The interesting thing about all this is the fact that global warming is just a blip in a much larger scheme of things. I doubt that our species will live to a point 600 million years from now. But if we do, increased solar light production, the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field and such will cause that CO2 to be locked up in the rocks. Once that CO2 gets below about 100 parts per million, plants will die out due to famine as they could not get the carbon any other way. And the Earth would be losing its water due to these factors. And heating up due to a brighter sun.

To survive, we humans (or whoever might have replaced us) must migrate to another planet or attempt to get the Earth into a higher orbit if anyone is around at such a late date.

You can easily guess how Murphy's Law will be operating in either of these scenarios.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Mankind's contribution to heat + natural (base line) heat = actual temperature.
Please fill in the blanks.


I'm not clear on why Tempest thinks that it's the thermal output of fossil fuels that is the problem. That's not significant, it is the simple fact that carbon-based fuels reduce to CO2 when combined with O2 and burned, and that ends up mostly in the atmosphere and reduces the infrared heat loss from the earth. The amount is significant enough that it is measurably upsetting the current climate that has taken thousands of years to settle down. For some (me) it's not a big deal, we have plenty of water down here, 70% renewable hydro electricity and I really wouldn't mind warmer temperatures. But for others there will be serious issues such as flooding and drought resulting from the more variable weather.

The one thing I took away from years at university was that there are people who study subjects to a level of detail that is unimaginable to the person on the street. Do I trust the scientists studying climate change? Darn right I do and I have great respect for them.
 
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Do I trust the scientists studying climate change? Darn right I do and I have great respect for them.

No offense but your years of University may have given you an eduction but...
I have no respect whatsoever for these frauds who just keep ginning stuff up to keep the grant money flowing.

Now NASA admits Co2 is needed by the plants and is actually helping to cool the planet. Well no $$it a 6th grader knows that you don't need to be a university grad to figure that out.

http://www.dailytech.com/Top+Physics+Pro...rticle19879.htm

http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-consensus-cooking-the-books/
 
In March of 2001 a significant paper by Richard Lindzen of MIT was published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society which addresses the cloudcover feedback mechanism.

Dr. Lindzen has been a long-time critic of the IPCC and a highly respected researcher in the atmospheric sciences. His paper reports that clouds in the tropics respond to warmer sea-surface temperatures (SST) by permitting long-wave radiation to space to increase, causing greater cooling of the atmosphere. This negative feedback mechanism would more than cancel all the positive feedbacks included in the more sensitive current climate models.

Dr. Lindzen calculated the average SST as a function of cloud cover and found a strong negative relationship. His explanation for the negative relationship is that warmer SSTs lead to higher humidities and greater convective activity.

This greater convective activity is more efficient in creating rainfall, leaving less moisture to form cirrus anvils which prevent long-wave radiation from escaping to space.

Consequently, warmer SSTs lead to more rapid cooling of the atmosphere and stabilization of the earth’s temperature.

Lindzen, Richard S., Ming-Dah Chou, and Arthur Y. Hou, 2001, “Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 82, 417–432, March.
 
Last edited:
From Wiki:
"The Lindzen-Choi paper is the most often cited, but it's been trashed by other scientists for poor methodology and overstating its conclusions.[1] Naturally, Lindzen's skepticism has attracted funding from oil interests and he's worked on projects underwritten by Exxon and OPEC."
 
How about the polar ice caps? Bright white ice/snow reflects a lot of solar radiation back to space. Well, when the caps melt, we have less reflection, more heating and more melting and less reflection and ... its called a positive feedback loop.


Warmer SSTs also lead to stronger El Ninos. Flooding in some areas and drought in others. That's not a very stabilized climate system.


People can reference data on either side of the argument, but it seems like the majority of scientists believe in climate change.
 
Originally Posted By: Trav

Now NASA admits Co2 is needed by the plants and is actually helping to cool the planet.
I read the articles you quoted and more-importantly the NASA source. The NASA article does even mention climate change, it simply reports what they found. The author of the article Ethan Huff made the inference himself. Did you not notice the bias in his writing style?

As for Richard Lindzen, who am I to refute his research, but his wiki page is pretty interesting and tells me something about him. Perhaps he's right, or not, but he does seem to be a bit wacko in the eyes of others.
 
Follow the money. Chicago carbon credit exchange for one, just read who stands to make millions of that farce.
Tax structures, laws and trumpt up regulations are based on lies, deceit and fraud but it brings in the cash making it convenient and profitable to proclaim this junk science irrefutable.

What about the Hockey stick graph? How can anyone respect people like Prof Phil Jones? The man is a criminal and should be jailed. Laws and tax rates were based on the data he and his criminal cohorts manipulated punished millions of taxpayers and users of energy as a result.

The evidence that this is a money grabbing fraud based on deceit, lies, false data, etc is overwhelming.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-organised.html

http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Follow the money. Chicago carbon credit exchange for one, just read who stands to make millions of that farce.
Tax structures, laws and trumpt up regulations are based on lies, deceit and fraud but it brings in the cash making it convenient and profitable to proclaim this junk science irrefutable.


While personally believe we should reduce fossil fuel use (for other reason than climate change, such as particulate and NOX emission), I truly believe carbon credit exchange is a mess right now. Sequestration is not the same as reducing consumption as eventually they are released, and the way they do it may merely be a byproduct of their necessary work anyways (i.e. burning natural gas and pumping the hot, expanded gas back into a well to increase oil flow).

It is like someone who must plant trees in the backyard to sell a house to satisfy local law is selling the carbon credit to people who wants to feel good about planting trees. Nothing gets done other than some feel good factors.

Regulating NOX, SO2, HC, CO, and increase fuel price or tax fuel for road cost would be better ways to save the world.
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
That is amazingly irrelevant to a GLOBAL issue. 3 days? I am amazed that you would offer that up as any proof of anything.

And scientists were wrong. Indeed, they were, and they could also be just as wrong about GW, eh?

(Slurp), Aaaaah, tasty sweet colored sugary beverage served here...


Last I checked, airplanes flew around the globe.

3 days - yes. Do you think the FAA would kindly ground air traffic for longer to conduct a follow-up study? It was a unique opportunity (when was the last time there were 4,000 weather stations with data available and no air traffic?) and resulted in an interesting observation.


we can certainly agree that it is an interesting observation.
 
"Follow the money" is certainly pertinent to the carbon tax scam...take Oz, and we get taxed, and lower income brackets get "double compensation", and pay less...that's pure vote buying.

As to following the money and the science, I'd rather trust Universities than researchers funded by oil companies.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
"Follow the money" is certainly pertinent to the carbon tax scam...take Oz, and we get taxed, and lower income brackets get "double compensation", and pay less...that's pure vote buying.

As to following the money and the science, I'd rather trust Universities than researchers funded by oil companies.


Universities have become more like multi billion dollar corporate entities in the last few decades. They are politically driven and agenda motivated.
Trustworthy? Not a chance, they will fiddle data like no bodies business to keep those big dollar grants coming in, there are enough cases that have been proven.
 
Originally Posted By: GreeCguy
If burning oil, (all oil related products) produces greenhouse gases and these gases were trapped millions or billions of years ago, aren't we simply returning the earth to a condition it has experienced before?


Consider the environment "millions or billions of years ago". There were no animals prowling about at all, much less humans. Plants were thriving.

We're heading back to those conditions thanks to all the CO2 being released.
 
Holy cow, 8 pages and no lock. Impressive. Due to climate change I can run 20w50 year 'round. I just top off with MMO around Christmas time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Global Climate Change scam
2
Replies
37
Views
8K
Dan4510
A
  • Locked
This is amusing Europeans screwed themselves
Replies
3
Views
884
JohnnyO
G
  • Locked
Creation of oil - a question
2
Replies
24
Views
6K
GreeCguy
G
  • Locked
SHELL BP Going into Wind Generation
Replies
7
Views
1K
Pablo
N
  • Locked
Potentially "habitable" super earth, discovered
2 3
Replies
40
Views
13K
Astro14
Back
Top Bottom