Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire About the climate change "hoax".

I have done some pretty extensive work on IR emissions and how photons are moved from one molecule to another. I understand the emissions bands and can even theoretically derive rough approximations of them based on vibrational modes/molecular geometry of the gases involved.

That is about it. One very small piece of a very large puzzle. And even then I cannot offer much beyond the original work done by NASA back in the 60s. A computer program which can be used to interrogate IR images at specific wavebands and determine constituent gas composition and temperature... my only original work on the base science.

Not much to hang your hat on.

This is the problem. Many folks can understand parts of the puzzle but very, very few of us can truthfully claim to have a handle on much more than that. We have to depend on those who do. Most of us cannot even do that, we must depend on those who can take the work of these few and then turn it into language we can understand.

As far as where I stand? Well a lot of the theory is air tight. Much of the theory is still being developed. But the parts that have been nailed down look bad. Enough to say that there is real danger.

But there is some real good work on sequestering of CO2 that I have seen lately. A really interesting power plant just came on line recently that is trying this out. So there are things that can be done. Not sure that it will get done.

Will

Dumb it down for me Will.



From your tone, I'd say you're pretty concerned but I'm not following all the technical talk.

*shaking head*

Sometimes I feel like such an idiot when I try to follow some of these conversations.

Boy howdy; they can't predict the weather for 48 hours, and we're supposed to believe them about future predictions. LOL

My take is that there is global warming going on. It is not a straight line increase, it is more like a ball bouncing its way UP a flight of stairs. Year to year the average temperature may or may not increase but the trend line is obviously an increasing one. And this global warming is substantially the result of the billions of tonnes of CO2 gas put into the atmosphere each year.

The bad part? We don't have a credible alternative energy source ready to go on line in case the theory turns out to be true. Hell we don't even have alternative energy sources in position to help out. A true alternative that could completely replace carbon is probably not in the cards.

As Jeff pointed out, a whole lot of the damage is done. And to try and do more than silly half steps will require a complete rethink of how we live and how we structure our societies. Not pretty.

Will

Kind of takes the anticipation out of "Beat the Penguin 2010"

lol

That was funny as hell.

What percentage of the total greenhouse gases are constituted of CO2? As I understand it, it's significantly less than 1%, the vast majority being water vapor. That means that, assuming we eliminated all the CO2 produced by man's activities, we could effect less than 1% of the total greenhouse gases. A large volcano eruption contributes more.

What Will says is exactly what I think (minus the technical knowledge, of course <grin>)...

The proposals I've paid attention to are simply to limit the INCREASE in carbon output. In other words, not even touch the "nut". The nut is what got us here. To actually touch the nut (existing levels of carbon emission) would require things changing, that ain't gonna change. Period.

It'll all get burned.

Whatever is going to happen, is going to happen.

I suspect it'll be bad.

And when it does happen, likely in our lifetime, those of you denying it's existance will pretend you didn't- while denying the existance of the NEXT cause de jour of the enviro's!

You know really climate changes all the time, the last big change that can be documented started in the tenth century, the Earth cooled to the point that Greenland became uninhabitable for the people of the time, Chimineys were developed for heating crops that had formerly grown in England like soft grains and grapes stopped growing, this was known as the mini ice age it continued until the mid 1800's. while temps have been documented since about 1850 prior to that all we have are letters and notations in diaries and journels, like from the Virginia colonies from 1650 mentioning snow drifts above the eves of houses and measurments of fifteen to sixteen feet. In Virginia?!!!
The misreported shrinking polar ice has been blamed on a "glitch in a sattalite, in reality the ice shelf has increased in size since 1979 by the size of California and the poor polar bears supposedly on the verge of extinction has increased in numbers five times since 1980 to over 25,000. I have studied the global warming "science" it is a theory latched on to by fear mongers, yes some weather has changed slightly due to sun spot activity, over the next decade or so the earth is going to be feeling some colder winters because the sunpots have slacked off ( they tend to do that)
I for one will not stop eatting beef or pork or chicken because of the methane they produce, I will not stop useing fossel suel unless/until somthing cheaper comes along. In short I do not buy the Global warming theory, It can be explained as NATURE she is fickle and changes all the time!

even before the emails revealed the fraudulent data manipulation and deletion, even before they admitted having to change their computer models because they didn't deliver a sufficiently alarming result, anybody with a brain and a little bit of background reading scientific papers should have smelled a rat....simply from the language that has been used to try to end the discussion.


Real science doesn't have to try to create a fake consensus by censoring and muzzling critics, by using pet reporters to plant scary false stories, making ridiculous scary movies, by repeating over and over that an issue is settled and therefor anybody who doesn't sing the Warmist hymn book is a "Denier"....it is also disgusting that they try to equate denying their lies to denying the Holocaust.

Real science never assumes that it has all the answers, or that a consensus excuses an idea from proof.

It was always a lie, now it's a bit more exposed.

+1

Maybe not on the industrial side but I don't see why solar and/or wind can't replace carbon based energy on the consumer side.

Heck, with the federal incentive of 30% along with many state incentives, a person is only paying about .50 cents on the dollar(sometimes way less) right now. Couple in the fact that many PV modules can be had for less than 50% of whhat they cost just 3 yrs ago and all of a sudden solar is a viable product.

I'd be more than happy to see the govt further renewable energy incentives instead of rebuilding Muslim countries.

No offense, but you're summary here simply makes it sound like the whole thing is just another topic to help segregate and bitch about, at least to you.

In the event you think its a true crisis, the reason so many folks have a problem with it is because opportunists are taking advantage of it and treating it like a tool for their own use.

Just like you did, just now.

FWIW

Oh, really.....I guess you must have already gotten yourself one of these, huh trips? Or a real long extension cord for your electrocar?

Therein lies the problem. The validity of the scientific method has been compromised by the money and politics. My point is that in an ideal world, we build scientific progress on the integrity of the work of individuals.

In this field, the integrity of all published work is suspect.

Is there global warming? Common sense says there is, but the point is that the science done so far in the field is corrupt.

And, JeffO is right. The fossil fuels WILL get burnt. You are not going to convince a farmer in India not to run his irrigation pump and let his kids starve, or not run his oil heater in winter and let his kids go cold. We may be able to stretch it, we may be able to sequester carbon, but the oil will be burnt. JMO, Dutch.

Point taken.

I'll bet he's got a rrroe boat

I just spent the last several months exhausting energy options for my new house. I wanted to go as green as humanely possible, not because of GW, but to be as energy self sufficient as possible.

Even with the 30% tax credit and Florida's additional tax rebate, in one of the better solar states one can live in, we're just not there. Money wasn't an issue, but waiting 20 years to break even was to me. PV's are great for remote locations, but they are not cost efficient at this point without heavy subsidization from the Federal Government. 30% doesn't even do it.

In the end, I used solar collectors (Non-PV) in a semi-passive system for my hot water uses and a separate system for my pool. I also used remote PV's to power attic fans as they had a much shorter cost/benefit timeframe than tying into the grid with a whole house PV system.

I would have gone 100% green if I could have, it's just not optimal yet for residential, let alone for transportation purposes.

Even that statement is so very questionable.

For starters, climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer. Dr. Roy Spencer


Some believe that the earth needs more CO2 to stay cool.

One point on Spencer's website.



Ironically, there are even those that debate that the cause of wholesale increases in the earth's temperature since the last ice age may be....get this...caused by the SUN. No, really. Google it up.

Brilliant!