Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

ChrisGraley (29.74)

My 4th grade level Science class on Global Warming!

Recs

50

December 08, 2009 – Comments (77)

Ok class this is the first of many lessons on global warming. I'd like everyone to pay attention here and save your questions for the end of the class?

Does anyone know what makes the Earth warm?

That's right Sinch it's the sun!

Does anyone know what the Geenhouse effect is?

No one?

Well the Greenhouse effect is a bunch of different gases in our atmosphere that act like a blanket to keep the Earth warm. Light form the sun penetrates the blanket pretty well and warms the Earth below. The Earth eventually radiates that heat back up and a lot of that heat gets caught in the blanket.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Wrong devoish, this is in fact a very good thing because without the Greenhouse effect, the Earth would be 60 degrees colder than it is now! A lot of our planet would be unlivable without the Greenhouse effect.

Ok so lately there has been a group led by Al Gore, (Inventor of the internet) Kenneth Lay (Who hasn't been as active from his prison cell), Goldman Sachs (Upstanding financial intitution with no ties to the government) and Blythe Masters (Inventor of the very popular Credit Default Swaps.) This group is stating that there is an emergency of a massive scale and a problem with Greenhouse effect! They say that the mean old businesses are pumping too much Carbon gas into the atmosphere and it is causing the blanket to get thicker and cause the Earth to get hotter. This would be a very bad thing if true so we should investigate...

First we should see if we are in fact getting hotter, and we are. Temperature records show that since a very cold period called the "Little Ice Age we have been consistently getting warmer. But since we should be expected to get warmer after a cold period, we should check and see if we have ever been as hot as we are now and in fact we have been this hot many, many, times. The last time was about the same time that Columbus set sail for the new world and we are not quite as hot as we were back then.

Ok so the above information doesn't seem to support anything to worry about yet, but we should be dilligent! Lets look for a link between Carbon and warming.

Fortunately the "Inventor of the Internet" wrote a book called an Inconvienient Truth" (On sale at your local bookstore for $19.95) In that book he did show a rise in Carbon level along with the rise in temperature. Finally we are getting somewhere class! Unfortunately what "Mr Locked-box" didn't mention was that the increase in Carbon lagged the increase in temperature. So it appears that the extra Carbon is a result of the warmer temperature and not the other way around. How could this be? We'll get to this in a moment class.

Next, let's try to isolate Carbon as a culprit.  The first question we should ask is that if this is most Carbon we've had in the atmosphere before. It's not even close in this dept! We currently have 380 ppm of Carbon in the atmosphere and back in the time of the Dinosuars (Jurassic Period) it was at 1800 ppm. Before that in the Cambrian period it was at a whopping 7000 ppm! there was even an Ice Age known as the Ordovician period where Carbon levels were at 4400 ppm. In an Ice Age!

Ok, well that isn't much help. It seems like Carbon makes up a very tiny amount of the atmosphere at the moment. Lets see if we can find out how much heat it can absorb. Fortunately we can measure this exactly!  If you take visible light and shine it through CO2 you can measure what's called it's absorbtion spectrum. Everything has an absorbtion spectrum. This measures the frequencies that the CO2 absorbs and therefore the heat it can absorb. CO2 absorbs the following 3 narrow bands of wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns respectively. Added together, (and I'm being generous here.), that means that Carbon could absorb about 8% of all the IR spectrum of light passing through it. Ok so we have something that is only 0.038% of the atmosphere that can absorb only 8% of the heat passing through it. This doesn't sound like it has the potential to damage to me. But that's all for today class!

In the next class we are going to explain the Greenhouse effect further and get into the reason that Carbon is more of an effect of warming than it is a cause.

 

77 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On December 08, 2009 at 3:12 PM, FleaBagger (28.14) wrote:

I have a 12th grade education, and I don't understand a word you just said.

Report this comment
#2) On December 08, 2009 at 3:19 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

You denier!  You should try backing up your opinions with science and leaving the real science to the scientists and... and... and...

insert graph #1

and links to journals which are friendly to Jones and Mann (as shown in many leaked emails) and links to peer review papers that were rigged by the IPCC and Jones et. al. (again, see hacked emails) and then get $22.6 million in research grants....

insert graph #2

(with the data points supplied by Jones et al. and then put into a crappy database that its own programmer declared hopeless - see Harry_Read_Me)

oh, and all your points were debunked by the people friendly to Mann, and all your people work for the Heritage foundation or Big Oil (except McIntyre... who is a small businessman working independently..... we don't know what to do with him), 

insert deragotory name-calling (flat-earther, denialist, right winger, nutjob, wacko),

(now declare science is settled.)

I choose to trust the real scientists.

David in Global Warming Land

Report this comment
#3) On December 08, 2009 at 3:19 PM, nebcornhusker13 (97.86) wrote:

Excellent!

Report this comment
#4) On December 08, 2009 at 3:20 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Not even the blanket?

Should I have called it a woobie?

Report this comment
#5) On December 08, 2009 at 3:29 PM, zymok (< 20) wrote:

Ken Lay is dead.  I'm sure that if it were not for this, he would be considerably more active.

Report this comment
#6) On December 08, 2009 at 3:30 PM, devoish (96.28) wrote:

Chris,

Thanks for the shout out. I think my class was better.

David in Qatar,

In your world where science cannot be trusted, why should I trust you?

 

 

Report this comment
#7) On December 08, 2009 at 3:31 PM, kdakota630 (29.76) wrote:

Excellent blog.

Report this comment
#8) On December 08, 2009 at 3:48 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Science can always be trusted, unfortunately some scientists can't.

Report this comment
#9) On December 08, 2009 at 3:58 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

devoish,

I don't trust anyone with power.  I also have a great deal of experience with the incompetence of government workers. 

If it's any consolation, I'm not a big fan of government dentists either.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#10) On December 08, 2009 at 4:06 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

6) On December 08, 2009 at 3:30 PM, devoish (99.64) wrote:

Chris,

Thanks for the shout out. I think my class was better.

devoish

I'm actually gonna reference that first video for my next class.

Report this comment
#11) On December 08, 2009 at 4:10 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Chris,

Btw, did you run this blog past the self-anointed censors of all Fool blogs to see if it was appopriate for an investing website?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#12) On December 08, 2009 at 4:11 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

Anyone who denies the global warming trend exacerbated by man is a dithering idiot. 

Report this comment
#13) On December 08, 2009 at 4:13 PM, devoish (96.28) wrote:

Chris,

Good. Make class easier, play the video, then critique it.

Report this comment
#14) On December 08, 2009 at 4:22 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

#12) On December 08, 2009 at 4:11 PM, BetapegLLC (90.75) wrote:

Anyone who denies the global warming trend exacerbated by man is a dithering idiot. 

Oh it is most definately exacerbated by man, but Carbon has nothing to do with it. stay tuned.

Report this comment
#15) On December 08, 2009 at 4:27 PM, BMFPitt (71.94) wrote:

A friendly hint:  This isn't bad at all by the stanrards of many I've read, but it loses a massive amount of credibility due to the Al Gore fixation.  Rational thinking people (those that don't think that carbon is some magical evil thing and the polar ice caps will be melted by next week, nor that all science is a giant conspiracy and we should vote on whether or not warming exists) don't care about Al Gore.  At all.  And we're annoyed by those who obsess over him.

And for practical purposes, I prefer to point out that current "we must stop carbon from getting into the air, and nothing else matters" thinking is a terrible solution even if worst-case scenarios are to be believed.  Geoengineering is a much more realistic plan.

Report this comment
#16) On December 08, 2009 at 4:31 PM, eldemonio (97.93) wrote:

I'm no scientist, just a smartass who likes to talk trash, so here goes.

I am here and the world seems pretty nice, so there must not be a problem.  What a lame argument.  Why not trace back to even earlier in Earth's history when the atmosphere was toxic to life?  That would get all of these cry baby environmentalists to shut their mouths.  Maybe global warming shouldn't be the only consideration.  What about pollution?

To deny that burning fossil fuels negatively impacts our planet seems ridiculous to me. 

Would our planet be healthier if we had never burned fossil fuels? If you answer no, you probably need to pull your head out of your ass to read the next question.

Can we continue to burn fossil fuels indefinitely?  If you answer yes, God help us.

Even if it didn't pollute the Earth, burning fossil fuels for energy should be discouraged because we will eventually run out.  Why not limit this practice to encourage innovation of alternative energy now?

Report this comment
#17) On December 08, 2009 at 4:33 PM, IBDFool4U (92.81) wrote:

Chris,

This is a great article you have written.  I used to be a staunch believer in global warming caused by man, until I saw the google video below produced by the BBC, "The great global warming swindle".  Might be something you want to check out.

I am getting a PHD, and I realize it is not difficult to "torture the data until it confesses", which is why you need to have funding for both sides of an issue, to properly draw conclusions (which has not happened for "global warming").

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647&ei=_WoZS7vUAoTGrAL2j4jXDA&q=global+warming+swindle&hl=en#

If this link doesn't work, you can search Google video and find this fairly easy.

Report this comment
#18) On December 08, 2009 at 4:36 PM, BravoBevo (99.97) wrote:

Report this comment
#19) On December 08, 2009 at 4:38 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

Why are the global warming deniers so fixated on Al Gore? Do you honestly think some scientist has the know how to bring such an issue to a mass audience. Enter Al Gore. Nobody wants to listen to some boring scientists and read long peer-reviewed scientific journals. Enter Al Gore. Global warming deniers are just irked at how much mass appeal he has and that his goal of bringing awareness to our environmental foot print has been fulfilled.

Report this comment
#20) On December 08, 2009 at 4:49 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

#19) On December 08, 2009 at 4:38 PM, BetapegLLC (90.75) wrote: Why are the global warming deniers so fixated on Al Gore? Do you honestly think some scientist has the know how to bring such an issue to a mass audience. Enter Al Gore. Nobody wants to listen to some boring scientists and read long peer-reviewed scientific journals. Enter Al Gore. Global warming deniers are just irked at how much mass appeal he has and that his goal of bringing awareness to our environmental foot print has been fulfilled.

So opportunity for financial gain isn't there for him, Goldman Sachs, or JP Morgan Chase and Blythe Masters?

They are just doing it out of the kindness of their hearts?

Report this comment
#21) On December 08, 2009 at 4:53 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Nobody wants to listen to some boring scientists and read long peer-reviewed scientific journals.

That's why the myth is succeeding so far.

Report this comment
#22) On December 08, 2009 at 4:58 PM, BMFPitt (71.94) wrote:

So opportunity for financial gain isn't there for him, Goldman Sachs, or JP Morgan Chase and Blythe Masters?

Well I guess that's better than the people trying to claim that it's all a conspiracy by the Weather Channel, but not my much.  Once again, I implore you to take a step back and look at your argument based on cherry picking which messengers to attack and instead try to address the actual message.

Report this comment
#23) On December 08, 2009 at 5:38 PM, jabberjaws55 (< 20) wrote:

I can't wait until the U.S. is scammed by this Cap & Trade tax. I'm sure we'll all pay then. That will surely not only fix the global warming issues, but will totally kill whatever competitive business we have left. Whatever you are currently paying for an electric bill, I'm sure that won't continue. I can't wait until my energy bills spike through the roof. That's what I'm looking forward to. Can't wait!

Report this comment
#24) On December 08, 2009 at 5:41 PM, USNHR (32.27) wrote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091204092445.htm

#16) On December 08, 2009 at 4:31 PM, eldemonio (97.54) wrote:

I'm no scientist, just a smartass who likes to talk trash, so here goes.

Would our planet be healthier if we had never burned fossil fuels? If you answer no, you probably need to pull your head out of your ass to read the next question.

The whole planet is made of carbon... rotting carcuses release carbon gasses... to say that planet would be healthier if we never burned fossil fuels is a logical fallacy of questionable cause. As is, if you ask me, the whole global warming debate.

Can we continue to burn fossil fuels indefinitely?  If you answer yes, God help us.

Even if it didn't pollute the Earth, burning fossil fuels for energy should be discouraged because we will eventually run out.  Why not limit this practice to encourage innovation of alternative energy now?

This is a a rediculous argument if you ask me... if we continue to burn coal at current rates we can go about 500 years on America's supply alone. This time period is slightly less than the time between Columbus coming to America and today. We have a lot of coal, but of course we can't burn it forever, or nat gas, or oil or anything else, but we have enough fossil fuels for the near future, we might just have to rearrange how we use them a bit.

Speaking of Columbus, why didn't someone (the majority) tell him, "don't sail man!, you will only go off the edge of the earth and waste your crew's life for nothing".  If history teaches us anyting it is that humans inovate when they need/want to, not when it is forced upon them. "Alternative Energy" will become mainstream when it is economical, practical, efficient and people want to do so. For the government or anyone else to mandate it, is taking freedom away from the people.

Report this comment
#25) On December 08, 2009 at 5:43 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Ahh, I see! I hit a soft spot!

Henceforth I will no longer refer to "the inventer of the internet" or his band of "cap and trade" merry men (and woman) that seek to rob from the rich and give to themselves, despite the fact that I could prove motive and opportunity in a court trial. :)

Henceforth, I will refer to all the people in the anti-Carbon group as "fact impared"!

We must be politcally correct even when someone has their hands in our pockets. ;)

I will save the attacks for when I show how Cap and Trade really works and that there is only one reason why someone would pick that over a straight Carbon tax if Carbon was actually a culprit. (Which it clearly is not.)

Report this comment
#26) On December 08, 2009 at 5:48 PM, dwot (45.74) wrote:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/12/06/man-cp-ice-roads.html?ref=rss

 

 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025174618.htm

 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/12/03/mb-polar-bear-cannibalism-churchill-manitoba.html?ref=rss Report this comment
#27) On December 08, 2009 at 5:53 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Yes dwot is is getting hotter. But it has nothing to do with Carbon. Thanks for that link on the methane BTW, I will use that in one of my classes. You always were the studious one. ;)

Report this comment
#28) On December 08, 2009 at 6:01 PM, kdakota630 (29.76) wrote:

Yes dwot is is getting hotter.

How can you tell that she's getting hotter just from her small picture she uses?

Report this comment
#29) On December 08, 2009 at 6:09 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

don't get me in trouble with dwot, kdakota30.

Canadian school teachers can pack a mean wallop when they want to!

Report this comment
#30) On December 08, 2009 at 6:11 PM, devoish (96.28) wrote:

 27) On December 08, 2009 at 5:53 PM, ChrisGraley (99.70) wrote:

Yes dwot is is getting hotter. But it has nothing to do with Carbon.

Chris,

Thanks for accepting the fact that it is getting hotter. All the temperature measurements David in Qatar went to great lengths to cast doubt upon, agree with you.

Now that you have made up your mind that the globe is warming, you and I have come to some agreement except on why.

Please spend the next few replies explaining to us why you agree with the majority of climate scientists and believe that the world is getting warmer. Perhaps you can find a more convincing argument for David than I have.

Report this comment
#31) On December 08, 2009 at 6:35 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Please spend the next few replies explaining to us why you agree with the majority of climate scientists and believe that the world is getting warmer. Perhaps you can find a more convincing argument for David than I have.

Well I said it's getting warmer, but I have my own doubts about the "official temperature measures" You would not believe how easy these things can be manipulated! All you have to do is to pick and choose your measuring locations and you can make the numbers say whatever you want. 

I also think that it isn't warming forever. I can't explain why in a simple reply, but I do plan to explain that in further posts.

BTW that video that IBDfool4U is amazing and supports a lot of what I came up with myself in my own research.

 

Report this comment
#32) On December 08, 2009 at 6:35 PM, eldemonio (97.93) wrote:

USNHR,

The whole planet is made of carbon... rotting carcuses release carbon gasses... to say that planet would be healthier if we never burned fossil fuels is a logical fallacy of questionable cause.

Thanks for pointing out that our planet is made up of carbon, but I think you missed my point.  Maybe you didn't follow directions as to what you must do after you answered the first question. 

I wanted to point out that burning fossil fuels not only releases carbon into the atmosphere, but also releases other pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, volatile organic compounds and heavy metals.  Carbon monoxide is also released through combustion of fossil fuels.  I don't want to put words in your mouth, but not all naturally occurring compounds are good for us

I suppose you would argue that Mexico City today, is just as healthy of an environment as it was before all of the pollution?  Maybe the Los Angeles basin's smog contains healthy nutrients that can only come from burning fossil fuels?

Since the planet is made of carbon, carbon dioxide can't be a pollutant.  Is that the argument you want to make?  If so, I don't believe you are qualified in determining when logical fallacies are committed.  

Report this comment
#33) On December 08, 2009 at 6:43 PM, blake303 (29.31) wrote:

ChrisGraley - Do you have sources for any of this information?

Prehistoric "carbon" levels are irrelevant without corresponding temperatures. Actually, prehistoric "carbon" levels are irrelevant because the earth as we know it bears little resemblance to the earth hundreds of millions of years ago. For instance, a quick internet search of the Ordovician suggests that plants were just beginning to emerge and the ice age was due to movement of Gondwana over the south pole. You cannot draw any meaningful conclusions by comparing atmospheres of these periods. 

If you take visible light and shine it through CO2 you can measure what's called it's absorbtion spectrum. Everything has an absorbtion spectrum. This measures the frequencies that the CO2 absorbs and therefore the heat it can absorb. CO2 absorbs the following 3 narrow bands of wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns respectively. Added together, (and I'm being generous here.), that means that Carbon could absorb about 8% of all the IR spectrum of light passing through it.  

There are so many things wrong with this statement. First of all, an absorption spectrum can be conducted for all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, not just visible light. Visible light and heat are not the same thing. Absorption of several wavelengths of visible light says nothing of a substance's ability to absorb heat. In actuality, carbon dioxide is a very strong absorber of infrared radation. Also, there are other greenhouse gases like ozone, methane, and CFCs that your rant completely ignores. Furthermore, you can't add absorption wavelengths to come up with the percentage of heat a substance can absorb. How did you arrive at 8%? 

If you were trying to portray a class taught by a fourth grader, you have succeeded. Bravo. I will be sure to skip the next session and encourage other Fools to do the same. 

Report this comment
#34) On December 08, 2009 at 7:01 PM, devoish (96.28) wrote:

Jabber,

Leaving aside for one moment whether or not the globe is warming I agree that "cap and trade" will not solve the problem.

I too have no wish to let the banks have a manipulating piece of the puzzle.

A carbon tax and refund is one solution. Using miltary funding to replace coal plants is another. Nuking coal plants from space is another.

I understand that incomes from coal generation will be lost. Likde the buggy whip makers of yore, they have failed to recognize the opportunity that renewable energy has presented.

 

Report this comment
#35) On December 08, 2009 at 7:05 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Great post blake303!

Finally, somebody that is arguing with an open mind but skeptisism!

Check out the video I mention above they seem to say what I wanted to say a lot better and they have real scientists that will show the Carbon/Climate info that you are looking for.

Again you are right about the absorption spectrum, but since I'm only concerned with heat, I'm only concerned with the percentage of the infrared spectrum that Carbon captures, again that's not totally accurate, the 4.3 micron spectra should really be much more of a representation of heat than the other 2, but since I'm not a mathmetician, I thought it was best to weigh each spectra equally and just take it as a percentage of the spectra. That's why I said I was being generous. I have my doubts that it is anywhere near 8% given the placement of the other 2 spectra.

Report this comment
#36) On December 08, 2009 at 7:08 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

bah I don't mean the 4.3 spectra being the most heat I mean the 15 micron spectra!

 

Now I do sound like a 4th grader!

Report this comment
#37) On December 08, 2009 at 7:26 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

I do totally agree with you on cap and trade devoish!

The sole purpose of that plan is to skim money off the top of the global GDP.

Report this comment
#38) On December 08, 2009 at 7:35 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Prehistoric "carbon" levels are irrelevant without corresponding temperatures. Actually, prehistoric "carbon" levels are irrelevant because the earth as we know it bears little resemblance to the earth hundreds of millions of years ago. For instance, a quick internet search of the Ordovician suggests that plants were just beginning to emerge and the ice age was due to movement of Gondwana over the south pole. You cannot draw any meaningful conclusions by comparing atmospheres of these periods.

I've got to fault you a little there blake303 an Ice Age is by definition a "little cold", and when the factor of Carbon is well more 15 times what it is now you need a better explantion than the entire globe was colder because a land mass was in antartica unless you are willing to say that carbon does not have a link to warming. Are you saying that there me be other factors that are stronger than Carbon? You would be right in that case, btw and you'd even be partially right about the movement of that land mass. ;) As far as the plants being able to emerge again that is an effect of the temperature and not a cause.

 

Report this comment
#39) On December 08, 2009 at 9:24 PM, blake303 (29.31) wrote:

If it was not evident in my previous post, I'm not a paleontologist. I do not have enough background on that period to know exactly, but you and other CAPS members with YouTube science educations do not appear to either.

I do not believe that carbon dioxide always overshadows other events that affect climate. The presence of carbon dioxide in high levels may not negate every cooling event. Ice ages have come and gone during periods of stable CO2 levels, but that is no confirmation that C02 does not contribute to warming.

Atmospheric carbon fell from 7700 to 4000 ppm before the onset of the ice age, which would confirm that C02 had something to do with it. The location of continents did as well. There are probably dozens of other factors involved too, but you don't like democrats and investment banks, so lets ignore those.

Can an ice age exist in one portion of the world, while the rest is warm? What was the temperature during this period - at the south pole and at the equator? Like ice ages, the south pole is also a "little cold". For some reason Antarctica exhibits freezing, largely lifeless, & glaciated features that sound eerily similar to descriptions of the Ordovician. Yet, other than this week, it has been fairly comfortable here in the U.S. and the opposite pole is abnormally warm. Atmospheric conditions may be one cause of warming and ice ages. Location of continents is another.

I never suggested that plants emerged as an effect of the temperature, just making the observation that the world would be unrecognizable to us. Your second explanation of the spectra was not only nonsensical, but nonscientifical.

Report this comment
#40) On December 08, 2009 at 9:37 PM, BMFPitt (71.94) wrote:

Henceforth I will no longer refer to "the inventer of the internet" or his band of "cap and trade" merry men (and woman) that seek to rob from the rich and give to themselves, despite the fact that I could prove motive and opportunity in a court trial. :)

Good.  The way you do it makes you look silly.

Henceforth, I will refer to all the people in the anti-Carbon group as "fact impared"!

Depends greatly on how broadly you define "anti-carbon."

We must be politcally correct even when someone has their hands in our pockets. ;)

That sounds incredibly stupid.  Why would you fail to call out the thieves?

I will save the attacks for when I show how Cap and Trade really works and that there is only one reason why someone would pick that over a straight Carbon tax if Carbon was actually a culprit. (Which it clearly is not.)

Good, that's where they belong.  It should hardly be needed though, Cap & Trade is so transparently flawed and so obviously set up for no reason other than rent seeking that I don't know why you'd need to bother attacking your straw men.

Report this comment
#41) On December 08, 2009 at 10:18 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

We must be politcally correct even when someone has their hands in our pockets. ;)

That sounds incredibly stupid.  Why would you fail to call out the thieves?

You told me not to BMFPitt.

Report this comment
#42) On December 08, 2009 at 10:58 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Can an ice age exist in one portion of the world, while the rest is warm? What was the temperature during this period - at the south pole and at the equator? Like ice ages, the south pole is also a "little cold". For some reason Antarctica exhibits freezing, largely lifeless, & glaciated features that sound eerily similar to descriptions of the Ordovician. Yet, other than this week, it has been fairly comfortable here in the U.S. and the opposite pole is abnormally warm. Atmospheric conditions may be one cause of warming and ice ages. Location of continents is another.

Well blake303, you still are asking the right questions, but you would be thrown out of any climate change committee from the IPCC. For the first question, the answer is no, because we have to go with the global temperature average. for the second question, I can't answer that because the same IPCC destroyed that data. I can give you ice core measurements, and we could extrapolate, but the IPCC is trying to make it hard to observe variations for a reason.It's funny that you thimk that I am scamming you for the data that they are withholding though! Keep asking the same questions and do your own research and I think you'll come up with the same result.

Report this comment
#43) On December 08, 2009 at 11:18 PM, 292972826 wrote:

READING THIS NONSENSE, IT MAKES ME THINK, WE SHOULD NOT HAVE REGULATE THE CFC GAS TO CORRECT THE OZONE DEPLETION.

OUR TAN WILL BE SO MUCH BETTER DURING THE SUMMER, ISN'T IT?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion 

Report this comment
#44) On December 08, 2009 at 11:24 PM, 292972826 wrote:

AND JUST BECAUSE THIS POST SOUNDS DIRECTLY COMING FROM A SARAH PALIN SCIENTIFIC TEXTBOOK. I INVITE YOU ALL TO READ THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE, WHICH SHOWS THAT MOST OF THE DATA IN THIS POST ARE SIMPLE LIED...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere 

Report this comment
#45) On December 08, 2009 at 11:47 PM, 1315623493 wrote:

#20) On December 08, 2009 at 4:49 PM, ChrisGraley (99.70) wrote:

So opportunity for financial gain isn't there for him, Goldman Sachs, or JP Morgan Chase and Blythe Masters?

They are just doing it out of the kindness of their hearts?

------------------------------------------------

Do you work for free? What he gets paid is irrelevant as to the conclusion of the scientific research and his work bringing that conclusion to a mass audience, which is logically necessary if we are to drum up the political will. The argument that the scientists and specifically Al Gore, are advocating what they advocate, strictly for financial gain, or some deviant political objective, is, for lack of a better word...retarded. 

Report this comment
#46) On December 09, 2009 at 1:38 AM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@ChrisGraley,
"Does anyone know what makes the Earth warm?
That's right Sinch it's the sun"

That's right. The Sun is responsible for 99.98% of incoming energy and it's the only climate forcing independent of the Earth system.

"Does anyone know what the Geenhouse effect is?
No one?"

Wikipedia explains the greenhouse effect as the heating of the surface of a planet or moon due to the presence of an atmosphere containing gases that absorb and emit infrared radiation.
The greenhouse effect was experimentally discovered by Fourier and Tyndall. Then, when the laws of radiative physics were discovered, the GH effect accounted for the discrepancy between observed temperatures and the one calculated using those laws. At the end of the 19th century, Arrhenius made the first quantitative estimate of the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2.

"Is this a good thing or a bad thing?"
It's a very good thing, as long as it doesn't get out of control.

"without the Greenhouse effect, the Earth would be 60 degrees colder than it is now!"
Wrong. The difference is way smaller.

"Ok so lately there has been a group led by Al Gore, (Inventor of the internet) Kenneth Lay (Who hasn't been as active from his prison cell), Goldman Sachs (Upstanding financial intitution with no ties to the government) and Blythe Masters (Inventor of the very popular Credit Default Swaps.) This group is stating that there is an emergency of a massive scale and a problem with Greenhouse effect!"
- Popular Mechanics, August 1953:
"Growing Blanket of Carbon Dioxide Raises Earth’s Temperature
Earth’s ground temperature is rising 1-1/2 degrees a century as a result of carbon dioxide discharged from the burning of about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal and oil yearly. According to Dr. Gilbert N. Plass of the Johns Hopkins University, this discharge augments a blanket of gas around the world which is raising the temperature in the same manner glass heats a greenhouse. By 2080, he predicts the air’s carbon-dioxide content will double, resulting in an average temperature rise of at least four percent. If most of man’s industrial growth were over a period of several thousand years, instead of being crowded within the last century, oceans would have absorbed most of the excess carbon dioxide. But because of the slow circulation of the seas, they have had little effect in reducing the amount of the gas as man’s smoke-making abilities have multiplied over the past hundred years."

- Time Magazine, May 1953:
"Science: Invisible Blanket
In the hungry fires of industry, modern man burns nearly 2 billion tons of coal and oil each year. Along with the smoke and soot of commerce, his furnaces belch some 6 billion tons of unseen carbon dioxide into the already tainted air. By conservative estimate, the earth's atmosphere, in the next 127 years, will contain 50% more CO2.
This spreading envelope of gas around the earth, says Johns Hopkins Physicist Gilbert N. Plass, serves as a great greenhouse. Transparent to the radiant heat from the sun, it blocks the longer wave lengths of heat that bounce back from the earth. At its present rate of increase, says Plass, the CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the earth's average temperature 1.5° Fahrenheit every 100 years.
As the blanket of CO2 gets thicker, it also prevents the tops of clouds from losing heat as rapidly as before. The smaller temperature difference between cloud base and top cuts down the air currents which must circulate through the cloud before rain or snow can form. Lowered rainfall will make a drier climate. Less cloud cover will be formed, more sunlight will reach the earth, and the average temperature will rise still higher.
After thousands of years, says Professor Plass, plants and the slow-moving seas will absorb most of the excess CO2. But for centuries to come, if man's industrial growth continues, the earth's climate will continue to grow warmer."

Conclusion: it's all the product of Al Gore's imagination and his desire to be uber rich.

"First we should see if we are in fact getting hotter, and we are"

The fact that the world is getting warmer is supported by an array of evidence: multiple reconstructions of the global average temperature anomaly using thousands of weather stations from all the globe, measurements of ocean's heat content, satellite and radiosonde measurements of tropospheric temperatures, decreasing amounts of Arctic sea ice, retreat of the whole cryosphere, poleward movement of species, earlier onset of spring, etc.

"Temperature records show that since a very cold period called the "Little Ice Age we have been consistently getting warmer."

The warming trend correlated with the end of the LIA isn't consistent. Volcanic eruptions and other natural forcings stopped or reversed this warming trend. Also, this warming trend is of a low magnitude and has been greatly enhanced by the cumulative anthropogenic forcing due to buildup of GHGs.


"The last time was about the same time that Columbus set sail for the new world and we are not quite as hot as we were back then."
Wrong. The weight of evidence says that temperatures during the so called Medieval Warm Period were lower than now. Also, the MWP looks like a regional event and not a global change.

"Lets look for a link between Carbon and warming.
Fortunately the "Inventor of the Internet" wrote a book called an Inconvienient Truth" (On sale at your local bookstore for $19.95) In that book he did show a rise in Carbon level along with the rise in temperature. Finally we are getting somewhere class! Unfortunately what "Mr Locked-box" didn't mention was that the increase in Carbon lagged the increase in temperature. So it appears that the extra Carbon is a result of the warmer temperature and not the other way around. How could this be"

- A link between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperatures is found everywhere in the paleoclimatic record going for million of years into the past. In the Pleistocene, temperatures closely track CO2 levels.
- Yes, in the Pleistocene, the increase in CO2 lagged the increase in temperature. The oceans were the source of that CO2 which acted as a amplifying feedback to the initial forcing (perturbations in the orbit and axial tilt of Earth). But this isn't the case now; oceans aren't releasing CO2 (in fact they're taking CO2 from the atmosphere), the atmospheric CO2 has a fossil fuel signature and economic records of coal/gas/oil mining/burning agree with the observed rise in CO2. So we know with great certainty that WE are the source of increased CO2 levels.

"The first question we should ask is that if this is most Carbon we've had in the atmosphere before. It's not even close in this dept! We currently have 380 ppm of Carbon in the atmosphere and back in the time of the Dinosuars (Jurassic Period) it was at 1800 ppm. Before that in the Cambrian period it was at a whopping 7000 ppm! there was even an Ice Age known as the Ordovician period where Carbon levels were at 4400 ppm. In an Ice Age!"
- What's the relevance of CO2 levels in the Mesozoic?
- Before the Ordovician glaciation, CO2 levels plunged abruptly.
- CO2 levels were high in the remote past to compensate for a less bright sun.

"It seems like Carbon makes up a very tiny amount of the atmosphere at the moment. Lets see if we can find out how much heat it can absorb. Fortunately we can measure this exactly!  If you take visible light and shine it through CO2 you can measure what's called it's absorbtion spectrum. Everything has an absorbtion spectrum. This measures the frequencies that the CO2 absorbs and therefore the heat it can absorb. CO2 absorbs the following 3 narrow bands of wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns respectively. Added together, (and I'm being generous here.), that means that Carbon could absorb about 8% of all the IR spectrum of light passing through it. Ok so we have something that is only 0.038% of the atmosphere that can absorb only 8% of the heat passing through it. This doesn't sound like it has the potential to damage to me."
- You have all your calculations wrong.

- You should know that water vapor is the main responsible for the GH effect. That said, there are cold and dry regions in the atmosphere where CO2 has its bigest impact. This is observable: the tropopause rises in height and the stratosphere cools



@IBDFool4U,
"I used to be a staunch believer in global warming caused by man, until I saw the google video below produced by the BBC, "The great global warming swindle"."
Read what Carl Wunsch (Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT) says about his participation in this "documentary". Or read about its (lack of) factual accuracy.

Report this comment
#47) On December 09, 2009 at 2:01 AM, MarginCallMcW (21.55) wrote:

"Ok so we have something that is only 0.038% of the atmosphere that can absorb only 8% of the heat passing through it. This doesn't sound like it has the potential to damage to me."

Oh, it doesn't sound like it could be damaging to you? On what basis do you decide that? What scientific credentials do you have and what data have you collected that you are not sharing with the world. I would be interested to see you calculations.

The combination of ignorance and arrogance that must be required to think that you know more then the majority of the world's experts in this field is astonishing.

"Wrong devoish, this is in fact a very good thing because without the Greenhouse effect, the Earth would be 60 degrees colder than it is now! A lot of our planet would be unlivable without the Greenhouse effect."

Are you retarded? By your logic we should all live under the sea because water is a good thing, The greenhouse effect is a good thing, until it becomes to great due to greenhouse gasses. Do you really think we can pump these levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere without changing anything?
You look up some facts on wikipedia that you don't understand and then claim that there is a world conspiracy of the majority of the worlds scientist making up a problem for no reason. Why would they make this up? To get more grant money? You know they don't get paid more when they get a grant, they are just able to continue their research. What is the motive?

Report this comment
#48) On December 09, 2009 at 2:07 AM, MarginCallMcW (21.55) wrote:

Thank you lucas1985 for showing this fool (lower case f) some real data. He won't bother loking into it though. He has his mind made up and no evidence will change that.

Report this comment
#49) On December 09, 2009 at 8:59 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

slycal I'm not really sure why you posted that first link about ozone depletion, but since you did, I'll take the opportunity to point out that legislation to ban CFC's caused them to be replaced by HFC's which happen to be Greenhouse gases.

The second link you posted shows data that pretty much agrees with everything that I've said so far. So thank you for that.

MarginCallMCW if you don't understand that the Greenhouse effect is a good thing and that you would probably be dead without it. You should see if you can find a third grade class on the subject. Where I live in Ohio, it is expected to get down into the teens tonight. Without the Greenhouse effect, it would be below -40 degrees (not including wind chill). If you look at the video mentioned above you'll find that the scientists don't all agree on global warming. But the scientists that don't agree, don't get grants.

lucas1985, I didn't forget about you, but your response will take more time and I'm at work. Please be patient.

 

Report this comment
#50) On December 09, 2009 at 11:46 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

@ChrisGraley,
"Does anyone know what makes the Earth warm?
That's right Sinch it's the sun"

That's right. The Sun is responsible for 99.98% of incoming energy and it's the only climate forcing independent of the Earth system.
I'm really nitpicking here, but interstellar rays do affect cloud formation and would also have an effect. But we are in agreement that the Sun plays a huge role in the Earth's climate.

"Does anyone know what the Geenhouse effect is?
No one?"
Wikipedia explains the greenhouse effect as the heating of the surface of a planet or moon due to the presence of an atmosphere containing gases that absorb and emit infrared radiation.
The greenhouse effect was experimentally discovered by Fourier and Tyndall. Then, when the laws of radiative physics were discovered, the GH effect accounted for the discrepancy between observed temperatures and the one calculated using those laws. At the end of the 19th century, Arrhenius made the first quantitative estimate of the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2.

"Is this a good thing or a bad thing?"
It's a very good thing, as long as it doesn't get out of control.

We seem to agree here so far.

"Ok so lately there has been a group led by Al Gore, (Inventor of the internet) Kenneth Lay (Who hasn't been as active from his prison cell), Goldman Sachs (Upstanding financial intitution with no ties to the government) and Blythe Masters (Inventor of the very popular Credit Default Swaps.) This group is stating that there is an emergency of a massive scale and a problem with Greenhouse effect!"
- Popular Mechanics, August 1953:
"Growing Blanket of Carbon Dioxide Raises Earth’s Temperature
Earth’s ground temperature is rising 1-1/2 degrees a century as a result of carbon dioxide discharged from the burning of about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal and oil yearly. According to Dr. Gilbert N. Plass of the Johns Hopkins University, this discharge augments a blanket of gas around the world which is raising the temperature in the same manner glass heats a greenhouse. By 2080, he predicts the air’s carbon-dioxide content will double, resulting in an average temperature rise of at least four percent. If most of man’s industrial growth were over a period of several thousand years, instead of being crowded within the last century, oceans would have absorbed most of the excess carbon dioxide. But because of the slow circulation of the seas, they have had little effect in reducing the amount of the gas as man’s smoke-making abilities have multiplied over the past hundred years."

- Time Magazine, May 1953:
"Science: Invisible Blanket
In the hungry fires of industry, modern man burns nearly 2 billion tons of coal and oil each year. Along with the smoke and soot of commerce, his furnaces belch some 6 billion tons of unseen carbon dioxide into the already tainted air. By conservative estimate, the earth's atmosphere, in the next 127 years, will contain 50% more CO2.
This spreading envelope of gas around the earth, says Johns Hopkins Physicist Gilbert N. Plass, serves as a great greenhouse. Transparent to the radiant heat from the sun, it blocks the longer wave lengths of heat that bounce back from the earth. At its present rate of increase, says Plass, the CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the earth's average temperature 1.5° Fahrenheit every 100 years.
As the blanket of CO2 gets thicker, it also prevents the tops of clouds from losing heat as rapidly as before. The smaller temperature difference between cloud base and top cuts down the air currents which must circulate through the cloud before rain or snow can form. Lowered rainfall will make a drier climate. Less cloud cover will be formed, more sunlight will reach the earth, and the average temperature will rise still higher.
After thousands of years, says Professor Plass, plants and the slow-moving seas will absorb most of the excess CO2. But for centuries to come, if man's industrial growth continues, the earth's climate will continue to grow warmer."

Conclusion: it's all the product of Al Gore's imagination and his desire to be uber rich.

I will concede that global warming has  been postulated before, but Mr Gore has taken this science to a whole other level by misrepresenting data to further his own cause. I do agree with your conclusion that it's because of his desire to be uber rich though. I'll put into evidence the fact that he picks cap and trade over a straight carbon tax. There is only one reason to choose cap and trade over a Carbon tax and that reason is greed.

"First we should see if we are in fact getting hotter, and we are"
The fact that the world is getting warmer is supported by an array of evidence: multiple reconstructions of the global average temperature anomaly using thousands of weather stations from all the globe, measurements of ocean's heat content, satellite and radiosonde measurements of tropospheric temperatures, decreasing amounts of Arctic sea ice, retreat of the whole cryosphere, poleward movement of species, earlier onset of spring, etc.

We seem to agree here.

Temperature records show that since a very cold period called the "Little Ice Age we have been consistently getting warmer."
The warming trend correlated with the end of the LIA isn't consistent. Volcanic eruptions and other natural forcings stopped or reversed this warming trend. Also, this warming trend is of a low magnitude and has been greatly enhanced by the cumulative anthropogenic forcing due to buildup of GHGs.

I'm glad that you point out the dips due to volcanic eruptions and other natural forces. Most people in the anti-carbon group dismiss the fact that they play a role. As far as an anthropogenic forcing is concerned, it sounds like you are inserting your opinion here. Why in one breath do you talk about cooling resulting from natural forces and then in the very next breath blame warming on manmade GHGs and not mentioning nature at all?

The last time was about the same time that Columbus set sail for the new world and we are not quite as hot as we were back then."
Wrong. The weight of evidence says that temperatures during the so called Medieval Warm Period were lower than now. Also, the MWP looks like a regional event and not a global change.

Well I used the IPCC's own data from 1995 to back that statement up. Do you feel that the IPCC might be anti-carbon? Did I break your hockey-stick?

"Lets look for a link between Carbon and warming.
Fortunately the "Inventor of the Internet" wrote a book called an Inconvienient Truth" (On sale at your local bookstore for $19.95) In that book he did show a rise in Carbon level along with the rise in temperature. Finally we are getting somewhere class! Unfortunately what "Mr Locked-box" didn't mention was that the increase in Carbon lagged the increase in temperature. So it appears that the extra Carbon is a result of the warmer temperature and not the other way around. How could this be"
- A link between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperatures is found everywhere in the paleoclimatic record going for million of years into the past. In the Pleistocene, temperatures closely track CO2 levels.
- Yes, in the Pleistocene, the increase in CO2 lagged the increase in temperature. The oceans were the source of that CO2 which acted as a amplifying feedback to the initial forcing (perturbations in the orbit and axial tilt of Earth). But this isn't the case now; oceans aren't releasing CO2 (in fact they're taking CO2 from the atmosphere), the atmospheric CO2 has a fossil fuel signature and economic records of coal/gas/oil mining/burning agree with the observed rise in CO2. So we know with great certainty that WE are the source of increased CO2 levels.

This is just a blatant lie. The oceans are still giving off CO2 like they always have. The oceans give off far more CO2 than man, volcanos, and land combined. Using the fact that oceans take in more CO2 than they put out, as a statement that they don't put out any CO2 is borderline fraudulent. Oceans also put out more CO2 when they are warmer. We could prove this fact if a rise in carbon levels was noticed after a rise in temperature on the charts. Wait, we've already noticed that!

"The first question we should ask is that if this is most Carbon we've had in the atmosphere before. It's not even close in this dept! We currently have 380 ppm of Carbon in the atmosphere and back in the time of the Dinosuars (Jurassic Period) it was at 1800 ppm. Before that in the Cambrian period it was at a whopping 7000 ppm! there was even an Ice Age known as the Ordovician period where Carbon levels were at 4400 ppm. In an Ice Age!"
- What's the relevance of CO2 levels in the Mesozoic?
- Before the Ordovician glaciation, CO2 levels plunged abruptly.
- CO2 levels were high in the remote past to compensate for a less bright sun.

Well does CO2 = more heat or doesn't it? You can't have it both ways. Thanks for pointing out that the CO2 levels actually plunged before the Ordovician period and helping to prove my point. Also thanks for pointing out that the Sun is hotter now than it was then as well.

It seems like Carbon makes up a very tiny amount of the atmosphere at the moment. Lets see if we can find out how much heat it can absorb. Fortunately we can measure this exactly!  If you take visible light and shine it through CO2 you can measure what's called it's absorbtion spectrum. Everything has an absorbtion spectrum. This measures the frequencies that the CO2 absorbs and therefore the heat it can absorb. CO2 absorbs the following 3 narrow bands of wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns respectively. Added together, (and I'm being generous here.), that means that Carbon could absorb about 8% of all the IR spectrum of light passing through it. Ok so we have something that is only 0.038% of the atmosphere that can absorb only 8% of the heat passing through it. This doesn't sound like it has the potential to damage to me."
- You have all your calculations wrong.

- You should know that water vapor is the main responsible for the GH effect. That said, there are cold and dry regions in the atmosphere where CO2 has its bigest impact. This is observable: the tropopause rises in height and the stratosphere cools



I'm not sure why you say my calculations are wrong. The graphs that you posted seem to support them. I love that second graph the most! Not only because it shows how little of an effect that CO2 has compared to Water vapor, but it also shows how much the absorbed spectra overlap for water apor and CO2.

I do agree that CO2 would have a bigger effect in the cold dry regions simply because water vapor wouldn't accumulate there, but CO2 being a heavy gas wouldn't want to stay in that region long itself. Still it would have a bigger effect because it would filling in a void of water vapor. Since you mentioned the Troposphere, it should be noted that if the current warming is because of an accelerated Greenhouse effect, we should see temperatures in the Troposphere accelerating faster than we see temperatures on Earth accelerating. We do not see that trend.

 

Report this comment
#51) On December 09, 2009 at 12:24 PM, binve (< 20) wrote:

Hi Chris,

First I want to say that I always enjoying reading your thoughts. I don’t always agree with them, but you always put together a thoughtful and nuanced argument. And as someone who tries to do the same, I appreciate that greatly.

Second, I have avoided jumping into the fray on the Global Warming Discussion because it is *much* too charged. But I like this post a lot because it tries to deal with it on a factual basis. And because you wrote it, I expected a fairly even-handed, not jumping to conclusions, analysis. Which I think you were mostly successful with

So I am going to give my opinion, and I hope it is useful.

Are humans causing global warming? I don’t know … and neither does *anybody* else. There is absolutely no way that anybody can prove or disprove it at this point.

Why?

Precisely because of your Water Vapor observation.

I am going to relay a quick story that I think will prove useful. Tonylogan1 and I had a very lengthy discussion on this very topic back in March ( CO2 vs H2O).

Carbon Dioxide traps in over an order of magnitude more heat than Water Vapor, which is why it is often discussed. But Water Vapor is way over an order of magnitude more abundant than Carbon Dioxide.
The problem is Water Vapor’s non uniformity. It disperses through the atmosphere very unevenly.

So here is my story.

First I am a Mechanical Engineer, not a Climatologist or Atmospheric Scientist. I perform Thermal and Structural Analysis of Aerospace Vehicles. But in this capacity, I have worked with many scientists in many fields.

There was one satellite that I worked on where the purpose of the main instrument was to measure Water Vapor in the atmosphere. And without delving into too many of the details of the instrument, I will say this. I attended all of the design reviews for the instrument, since I was responsible for getting it to orbit safely and making sure it worked up there, and I got to know the team quite well.

I asked them their thoughts on Global Warming and all of them were adamantly agnostic.

And here is the reason why. We have no clue how Water Vapor moves through the Upper Atmosphere! I sat in a room with the smartest minds in the world on this subject and they don’t know. That was the point of this mission, to gather data. There were also a few other missions launched around the same time for the same purpose (with different measurement methods) Our Water Vapor Models break down at about 60-70 km up.  We don’t know at what altitude the Water Vapor is breaking down and interacting with other gases. This is the biggest (by overall effect) greenhouse gas, and we don’t have models that work throughout the entire atmosphere.

…. That is a pretty big deal.

The atmosphere is, of course, only one part of the equation but it is a big part, if not the biggest part.

Until we have valid models, not side in this debate can claim the upper hand. And neither side absolutely cannot claim proof of anything.

What should we do?

… We should figure this *hit out. We waste so much money on so much non-productive crap as a nation and world. We are coming up with far-reaching policies on incomplete scientific data. We need to spend money on pure science to figure this out.

It needs to be a world priority and it needs to be funded that way. Any policy decisions that arise from incomplete data, due to a lack of time and funding, should be avoided. Which I know is where you are coming from.

My $0.02.

Report this comment
#52) On December 09, 2009 at 12:44 PM, BMFPitt (71.94) wrote:

You told me not to BMFPitt.

Your lack of reading comprehension doesn't help your argument.

MarginCallMCW if you don't understand that the Greenhouse effect is a good thing and that you would probably be dead without it. You should see if you can find a third grade class on the subject. Where I live in Ohio, it is expected to get down into the teens tonight. Without the Greenhouse effect, it would be below -40 degrees (not including wind chill).

Find me anyone who is taken seriously at any level who claims otherwise, or anything in this thread that was said that could be understood by anyone with average intelligence to claim that the greenhouse effect itself is bad.  When you argue against absurd points that nobody is actually making, it makes you look foolish.

Cap & Trade is like bloodletting someone with a fever, but claiming there is no fever and that anyone who believes in bacteria must have a financial interest in antibiotics just seems silly and counterproductive.  Maybe the fever is just a minor infection that will clear itself up, but I'd rather do some tests and find otu for sure.

Report this comment
#53) On December 09, 2009 at 12:49 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Thanks for the kudos binve,

This is an attempt to figure it out step by step and there will be more steps to follow.

Report this comment
#54) On December 09, 2009 at 1:11 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@ChrisGraley,
"I'll take the opportunity to point out that legislation to ban CFC's caused them to be replaced by HFC's which happen to be Greenhouse gases."
What's your point?
- CFCs and HCFCs are greenhouse gases too.
- HFCs were the most cost-effective option available at the time of the signing of the Montreal Protocol. In fact, there are proposals to extend the protocol to HFCs and start their phase-out as long as it's possible.


"If you look at the video mentioned above"
If you look at that video, you'll be swindled.

"you'll find that the scientists don't all agree on global warming"
The scientists who don't agree on global warming are a tiny minority of the scientific community and they've failed to produce evidence to support their claims (correlations with solar variability, lower rate of warming, cosmic rays, smaller climate sensitivity)

"But the scientists that don't agree, don't get grants."
This is laughable but I should admit that's a powerful meme.
- Glaciologists don't get grants because they believe in global warming. They get grants because they want to study ice sheet dynamics and other features of the cryosphere.
- Paleolimnologists don't get grants because they believe in global warming. They get grants because they want to study sediment cores to know what happened in the past in inland waters.
- "Skeptics" get grants (and earmarks) too. Let's see what Roy Spencer, creationist and Rush Limbaugh's climate expert says in his own website:
"Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil." *
The research performed by Spencer and John Christy supports the consensus view of climate science.


"lucas1985, I didn't forget about you, but your response will take more time and I'm at work. Please be patient."
OK. It'll be nice to watch you prove that:
- The recent rise in CO2 levels isn't anthropogenic in origin.
- There's no strong correlation between CO2 levels and temperature swings in the paleo record.
- CO2 can only act as a feedback to an initial forcing and not be a forcing on its own.
- The greenhouse effect of CO2 is small and/or near saturation.
- The climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is <1.5 ºC
- The rate of warming is disputed.


* Exxon Mobil (and other fossil fuel groups) doesn't fund climate research; it's expensive and you may not get the results you want. Instead, they fund propaganda activities: petitions, letters to the editor, OpEds, expert witnesses for court hearings, ads. Propaganda trumps research in cost-benefit analysis: it's way cheaper and enough to manufacture doubt.

Report this comment
#55) On December 09, 2009 at 1:49 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

http://jcbmac.chem.brown.edu/baird/CHEM-F1/Chem-IRC/images/water_CO2Absn.html

This is for Blake303 to give a better explanation of my clalculations.

There is about a 100 micron range of infrared radition being radiated from the Earth.

In the link that I posted, the 2nd to the last spectra is for CO2.

Now what I did was to add the 3 peaks together  which comes out to be 8 of the microns of the infrared spectrum being blocked by CO2. But the first 2 peaks lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the 15 micron peak, so 4% might be closer to reality. I would rather error on the side of caution though, so I stayed with the 8%.

 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#56) On December 09, 2009 at 2:04 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

@lucas 

OK. It'll be nice to watch you prove that:
- The recent rise in CO2 levels isn't anthropogenic in origin.

I agree that man is putting more CO2 into the atmosphere but I believe that I can show that man isn't the only thing putting more Carbon into the atmosphere. This I will be showing in my next post.


- There's no strong correlation between CO2 levels and temperature swings in the paleo record.

There is a strong correlation, but Carbon lags warming.


- CO2 can only act as a feedback to an initial forcing and not be a forcing on its own.

Carbon can act as a catalyst, but not enough of a catalyst at it's current level.


- The greenhouse effect of CO2 is small and/or near saturation.

Small yes, near saturation no.


- The climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is <1.5 ºC

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm


- The rate of warming is disputed.


Don't think I ever disputed it, it's irrevellent to this topic.

Report this comment
#57) On December 09, 2009 at 2:40 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

In the news today

Report this comment
#58) On December 09, 2009 at 2:45 PM, 292972826 wrote:

@ChrisGraley Do you get a Job at ExxonMobile as Phillip Cooney did after changing the Global Warming scientific data?

 

 

Report this comment
#59) On December 09, 2009 at 3:10 PM, blake303 (29.31) wrote:

Chris - Like I said, you cannot just add wavelengths of absorbed EM waves to arrive at the percentage of heat absorbed. Your "calculations" are laughably illogical and could be picked apart by a first semester chemistry student. I have a feeling that you would not take the time to understand any counterargument I make, so I am not going to waste my time explaining something you will stubbornly ignore. 

Also, there are far better sources on this topic than alcoholic golfers.  

Report this comment
#60) On December 09, 2009 at 3:10 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

@slycal

No, but I wonder who's hiring the guys over at East Anglia, that are doing the same thing?

Report this comment
#61) On December 09, 2009 at 3:34 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

I'm not sure where you see something wrong Blake. I admit that adding the wavelengths is not correct, but it should cause my number to be too high and not too low and measuring the total bandwidth (albiet with far better calculations) is exactly how to determine the amount of retained heat.

I didn't even include that Carbon becomes unstable when it absorbs heat until it releases that heat. When it releases that heat only a portion of that heat gets sent back to Earth and another portion gets sent out of the atmosphere, So only really part of the retained heat causes the warming. Again I'm leaving this out entirely.

It may be simplified doing it this way but errors would be in the favor of the anti-Carbon group not against it.

Report this comment
#62) On December 09, 2009 at 3:55 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Also, there are far better sources on this topic than alcoholic golfers.  

I take offense to that statement!

I hate golf!

Report this comment
#63) On December 09, 2009 at 11:54 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@ChrisGraley,
"I'm really nitpicking here, but interstellar rays do affect cloud formation and would also have an effect."
The evidence to support this assertion is at best weak.

"Mr Gore has taken this science to a whole other level by misrepresenting data to further his own cause."

- Al Gore didn't distort or misrepresent data. Provide evidence to support your claim.
- What's the matter with Al Gore? The important thing is the message, not the messenger.

"I do agree with your conclusion that it's because of his desire to be uber rich though."

That was sarcasm. I apologize for not being clear.

"I'll put into evidence the fact that he picks cap and trade over a straight carbon tax. There is only one reason to choose cap and trade over a Carbon tax and that reason is greed."
- How do you convince teabaggers and anti-government nuts of a tax? Cap and trade is easier to sell to the American electorate: little government interference (the cap) and full private involvement.
- James Hansen also prefers carbon taxes and opposes cap and trade.

"I'm glad that you point out the dips due to volcanic eruptions and other natural forces. Most people in the anti-carbon group dismiss the fact that they play a role."

You can find ignorant people in every corner of the world. If some environmentalists have suboptimal knowledge of climate science, does that mean that climate science and climate scientists are the culprits?

"As far as an anthropogenic forcing is concerned, it sounds like you are inserting your opinion here. Why in one breath do you talk about cooling resulting from natural forces and then in the very next breath blame warming on manmade GHGs and not mentioning nature at all?"
- There are cooling forcings of anthropogenic origin. Example: sulfate aerosols. That said, the net anthropogenic forcing is one of warming.
- The net anthropogenic forcing is bigger than natural forcings. So, if anthropogenic forcing > natural forcing and the biggest component of anthropogenic forcings are GHGs, blaming man-made sources of GHGs as the main culprit of recent climate change is correct.


"Well I used the IPCC's own data from 1995 to back that statement up."
Well, I could use ancient Greek astronomy to prove that the Earth is the center of the universe. There's way more data now than at the time of the IPCC SAR.

"Did I break your hockey-stick?"

- The hockey stick isn't broken.
- The hockey stick is peripheral evidence. If it were wrong, little would change.


"This is just a blatant lie. The oceans are still giving off CO2 like they always have. The oceans give off far more CO2 than man, volcanos, and land combined. Using the fact that oceans take in more CO2 than they put out, as a statement that they don't put out any CO2 is borderline fraudulent."
I didn't lie. You misinterpreted me.
The ocean is a net sink of CO2. As you note, the CO2 fluxes between the atmosphere and the sea are big but on the whole, the ocean absorbs more CO2 than it emits. That's the reason behind the drop in pH.

"Oceans also put out more CO2 when they are warmer."
- The isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 tell us that it's coming from the combustion of fossil fuels and not from the out-gassing of ocean CO2.
- Explain how atmospheric CO2 levels were stable between the end of the last glaciation and the start of the industrial revolution.
- Explain how the ocean is losing CO2 if in fact it's getting more acidic.

"Well does CO2 = more heat or doesn't it? You can't have it both ways."
More CO2 = more heat when all else is equal. But there are always competing forcings, acting on short or long time-frames. You need to calculate the net forcing.

"Thanks for pointing out that the CO2 levels actually plunged before the Ordovician period and helping to prove my point."
CO2 levels dropped, the greenhouse effect became weaker and temperatures decreased enough to start an ice age. This is a strong correlation between CO2 fluctuations and temperature changes.

"Also thanks for pointing out that the Sun is hotter now than it was then as well."
But it isn't hotter now than at the start of the 20th century, yet temperatures kept climbing. In fact, we're at the deepest solar minimum in a century, yet this is the warmest decade on record.




"Not only because it shows how little of an effect that CO2 has compared to Water vapor, but it also shows how much the absorbed spectra overlap for water apor and CO2."
CO2 enhances the absorption efficiency of water vapor. CO2 replaces water vapor where it doesn't exist (upper atmosphere). The rise of the tropopause makes the atmosphere retain more heat because it has to emit from colder regions.
This saturation/overlap argument has already been rebutted many times since 1940. See here, here, here, here and here.

"I do agree that CO2 would have a bigger effect in the cold dry regions simply because water vapor wouldn't accumulate there, but CO2 being a heavy gas wouldn't want to stay in that region long itself."
GHGs are well-mixed by the processes in the troposphere such as winds, ascending air, etc. Remember that CFCs are very heavy but they still reach the stratosphere.

"Since you mentioned the Troposphere, it should be noted that if the current warming is because of an accelerated Greenhouse effect, we should see temperatures in the Troposphere accelerating faster than we see temperatures on Earth accelerating. We do not see that trend."
Wrong.

"I agree that man is putting more CO2 into the atmosphere but I believe that I can show that man isn't the only thing putting more Carbon into the atmosphere. This I will be showing in my next post."
- (¿?)
- If you say that nature (plant decay + oceans + volcanoes) dwarfs man-made CO2 you're correct but this is misleading. The carbon cycle is roughly balanced but the constant, steady emissions of CO2 from the fossil fuel reservoir to the atmosphere have caused the buildup of carbon. It's like compound interest.


"- There's no strong correlation between CO2 levels and temperature swings in the paleo record.
There is a strong correlation, but Carbon lags warming.

- CO2 can only act as a feedback to an initial forcing and not be a forcing on its own.
Carbon can act as a catalyst, but not enough of a catalyst at it's current level. "

If carbon can act as a catalyst, it will lead the rise in temperatures. How do you think the Earth got out of a near complete glaciation? Your assumption that it can't act as a catalyst at its current levels rest on the flawed saturation argument.

"- The climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 is <1.5 ºC
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm"

- See the responses to the saturated argument. It was found to be wrong in 1940.
- The climate sensitivity is approx. 1 ºC for a doubling of CO2. When you factor rapid feedbacks (water vapor feedback, ice-albedo feedback, lapse rate feedback) and exclude the slow feedbacks (ice sheet feedbacks, carbon cycle feedbacks) you get the consensus estimate (derived from observational evidence, past climate, modeling and statistical inference) of approx. 3 ºC for a doubling of CO2. This is a logarithmic relationship.

"In the news today"
Cosmic rays again. The correlations are spurious and the theoretical underpinnings are weak.

"When it releases that heat only a portion of that heat gets sent back to Earth and another portion gets sent out of the atmosphere"

It doesn't work this way. When a GHG molecule absorbs a photon it becomes excited and then the molecule re-emits it again. At this stage, the photon can be recaptured by another GHG and this cycle repeats itself until the photon eventually escapes the atmosphere.

Report this comment
#64) On December 10, 2009 at 4:15 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

The evidence to support this assertion is at best weak.

The people at Cern disagree.

The net anthropogenic forcing is bigger than natural forcings. So, if anthropogenic forcing > natural forcing and the biggest component of anthropogenic forcings are GHGs, blaming man-made sources of GHGs as the main culprit of recent climate change is correct.

Incorrect! Carbon is Carbon. and the the atmosphere doesn't care where it comes from. The net Carbon from a sink like the ocean does not preclude it from dumping more Carbon into the atmospere than man does. As far as blaming the recent climate change on GHG's alone you would have to have a more comprehensive understanding of mother nature than all of the other climatologists in the world, because they admittedly don't understand it entirely.

This is just a blatant lie. The oceans are still giving off CO2 like they always have. The oceans give off far more CO2 than man, volcanos, and land combined. Using the fact that oceans take in more CO2 than they put out, as a statement that they don't put out any CO2 is borderline fraudulent."
I didn't lie. You misinterpreted me.
The ocean is a net sink of CO2. As you note, the CO2 fluxes between the atmosphere and the sea are big but on the whole, the ocean absorbs more CO2 than it emits. That's the reason behind the drop in pH.

"Oceans also put out more CO2 when they are warmer."
- The isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 tell us that it's coming from the combustion of fossil fuels and not from the out-gassing of ocean CO2.
- Explain how atmospheric CO2 levels were stable between the end of the last glaciation and the start of the industrial revolution.
- Explain how the ocean is losing CO2 if in fact it's getting more acidic.

I'll take these two together. I actually think you might agree with at least part of this. The ocean has proven over history to take in more Carbon when Carbon is more available. This is strange because phytoplankton themselves don't respond to more Carbon. Of course there would have to be a saturation point. Now as the ocean warms it is also putting out more CO2, so while the net effect is the same, the Ocean remains a net sink. I know you're wondering where the extra CO2 comes from it comes from the missing CO2 sink that everyone is looking for. It's simply CO2 bouncing around  on the Earths surface waiting to be absorbed by a sink.

As far as the isotopic signature goes, it's flawed by the very process that is uses. Checking tree rings and  ice cores will give you a good idea of the CO2 near the Earth's surface which will definately lean toward man-made sources in an industrial era. It will give you little info about what's up in the atmoshpere though.

Here's a test you can do at home to prove more outgassing. Pour equal amounts of Ginger Ale into equal metal containers. Leave one at room temperature and heat the other one slowly and see which one goes flat first. (Warning this experiment will create an out-gassing of GHG's!)

I'll respond to the rest later.

Report this comment
#65) On December 10, 2009 at 7:44 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@ChrisGraley,
"The people at Cern disagree."
That experiment still hasn't produced convincing evidence. Even assuming that it proves some connection between cosmic rays and climate fluctuations it won't demolish an enormous body of knowledge rooted on the fundamental laws of physics.
Take a look at some papers.

"Incorrect! Carbon is Carbon. and the the atmosphere doesn't care where it comes from"
Correct.

"As far as the isotopic signature goes, it's flawed by the very process that is uses."

Geochemistry is flawed? How so?

"Checking tree rings and  ice cores will give you a good idea of the CO2 near the Earth's surface which will definately lean toward man-made sources in an industrial era. It will give you little info about what's up in the atmoshpere though."
With the exception of O3 and H2O, GHGs are well-mixed and long-lived

"I'll take these two together. I actually think you might agree with at least part of this. The ocean has proven over history to take in more Carbon when Carbon is more available. This is strange because phytoplankton themselves don't respond to more Carbon. Of course there would have to be a saturation point. Now as the ocean warms it is also putting out more CO2, so while the net effect is the same, the Ocean remains a net sink. I know you're wondering where the extra CO2 comes from it comes from the missing CO2 sink that everyone is looking for. It's simply CO2 bouncing around  on the Earths surface waiting to be absorbed by a sink."

You still fail to explain the source of the rise in atmospheric carbon.


" * Carbon in the air is made up of 12C (99%), 13C (1%), and 14C (1 per trillion)
  * Plants prefer 12C over 13C. The 13C/12C ratio in plants is 2% lower than the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio
  * Fossil fuels are derived from ancient plants so they have same low 13C/12C ratio
  * Therefore, fossil fuel emissions DECREASE the 13C/12C ratio
  * Volcano and ocean carbon emissions INCREASE 13C/12C ratios
  * Since the Industrial Revolution, 13C/12C has been decreasing -- fossil fuels and land clearance are the primary sources for the extraordinary carbon levels in the atmosphere. Volcanoes and oceans cannot be the source for these emissions."





Climate Change: The Smoking Guns for Humans.
Presentation by Scott A. Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College.
Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast. Video Lectures by David Archer, professor in the Department of The Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago.
Of upward slopes and isotopes. Horatio Algeranon's (blog)
Of upward slopes and isotopes (2). Horatio Algeranon's (blog)

Report this comment
#66) On December 11, 2009 at 12:28 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

The CERN experiment still hasn't produced results, because they just finished building the equipment last month. They did post a schedule of expected results at the first link that I gave you though.

I totally agree that there is more man-made CO2 on the Earth's surface. But unless you are telling me that suddenly we are making more CO2 than nature, then the data makes absolutely no sense! And don't give me this net sink stuff again because plants breathe just like we do! Or are you saying that the natural CO2 sponges suddenly decided to change preference and prefer man-made Carbon to a more available previous favorite? If you are, then you also have to be prepared defend your side's assumption that the CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 250 years, because it would have to fall back to Earth to get into the tree rings. (If that's the case, observations that you post from 1970 would have to have been from the booming industrial age of 1720!)  Or I guess you can say that man made CO2 never got into the atmosphere to begin with, but that would really screw up a lot of the other claims. Take your pick of the explanation.

Sorry I didn't respond to the rest of your post yet, but I had to watch the Brown's game tonight, and you think that you'll win the debate by posting more links and charts rather than provide your own analysis, which tends to get cumbersome after a while. Rather than argue an opinion, I have to read a bunch of regurgitated contrived information. I have read a lot of the theroms that you've posted already, although from different biased sources. I'll try to respond to the rest tommorrow.

BTW did you try the Ginger Ale experiment?

 

Report this comment
#67) On December 11, 2009 at 6:47 AM, tfirst (25.42) wrote:

Has anyone addressed the fact that other planets in our solar system are warming also? Man made CO2 is heating the whole soolar system? Duh, I think you guys should look at the cycles of the sun and realize we are coming into a peak of solar activity.

Report this comment
#68) On December 11, 2009 at 9:52 AM, 292972826 wrote:

@tfirst 

Another Lie, we are lowest point of the solar cycle.

It is sad to see so many lies...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm?list1109684

"If our prediction is correct, Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78,"...

 

 

Report this comment
#69) On December 11, 2009 at 10:09 AM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

@slycal you are only correct if you look at 2008-2009 data only. If you look at the last 60 years, the sun has been hotter over that time frame than it ever was before. Given the time the entire ocean takes to heat and cool I think it's going to respond more to 60 years of heating than a year and a half of cooling.

Report this comment
#70) On December 11, 2009 at 11:48 AM, eldemonio (97.93) wrote:

Chris,

The evidence for global warming may or may not be valid.  What about the evidence that burning fossil fuels harms our environment in other ways?  I am sitting in my office, staring at a disgusting brown cloud hovering over the skyline.  Can we agree that whether or not we are causing global warming, we a still harming our planet?

Report this comment
#71) On December 11, 2009 at 12:21 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Well I do agree that it harms our enivironment in other ways as well, but again I don't agree about the extent it is harming it. Nature has tremendous defense mechanisms and is not as fragile as people think. It has survived for ages without man and can survive for ages with man.

I'm not willing to put this country into a couple of trillion dollars worth of debt on top of the debt we already have, just to chase an unproven fallacy though. Nothing wrong with continuing reasearch and coming up with definative proof though. I would support that, and would also support taking action on that info if needed if it was done responsibly. Cap and Trade is not being done responsibly.

Report this comment
#72) On December 11, 2009 at 12:49 PM, eldemonio (97.93) wrote:

I am not a proponent of Cap and Trade either.  There are problems on so many levels that I won't even attempt addressing them in a blog comment. 

I agree that we live on an amazing planet  - my concern is that we are also affecting the defense mechanisms, making it harder for the planet to correct the problems we create. 

It has survived for ages without man and can survive for ages with man

The question shouldn't be about the planet's survival, it should be about our own.  Will we destroy the planet?  Absolutely not - but we may end up destroying ourselves. 

Report this comment
#73) On December 11, 2009 at 1:04 PM, blake303 (29.31) wrote:

eldemonio - Out of curiosity are you in Denver? If so, I'm looking at the same thing and there is no way breathing outside can be healthy. 

Report this comment
#74) On December 11, 2009 at 1:08 PM, eldemonio (97.93) wrote:

blake -

Yes.  It's not healthy.  That's why I counteract all that I breath in with a hearty diet of vegetables and super hoppy beer.

Report this comment
#75) On December 11, 2009 at 1:19 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Well, that should be self correcting. For instance, China is currently doing some obsene stuff to it's own environment. Pollution wise, whatever happens that is adverse to humans, will probably happen there first. How much support is the government going to have in that country when people start dropping like flies? When the have to shift a major part of their GDP to health care? People move out of the urban areas in China and back into the rural areas and they will be forced to clean up their manufacturing processes and try again. This is like anything else that eventually  when you overdo something to an extreme, you have to pay for your actions.

When we run out of oil, and that isn't too far away in time. That will take care of one problem right there.

Lastly, remember that acid rain was once a national emergency that everyone said was going to doom us to extinction as well. It turns out that it wasn't the emergency that we thought it was. If we would have implemented a cap and trade type plan at that time, the Government would have declared victory and expanded that program to cover everything under the sun! Your $4.00 a gallon gas last year would have probably cost at least $8.00 a gallon under that scenario and probably closer to $12.00 a gallon.

Report this comment
#76) On December 11, 2009 at 2:26 PM, eldemonio (97.93) wrote:

This is like anything else that eventually  when you overdo something to an extreme, you have to pay for your actions.

You're wrong.  The people paying the consequences are most often not the same people committing the injustices.  The consequences that come from crapping on the environment are very far reaching; they can be delayed for generations as well.  I would be more inclined to agree with your "self correcting" approach if this was not the case.

Report this comment
#77) On December 11, 2009 at 9:38 PM, ChrisGraley (29.74) wrote:

Yes other people will pay for those transgretions as well, but once the fingers start pointing, the abusers and for the most part, their entire industry will pay dearly.

Look at asbestos, once we figured out how dangerous it was, it not only destroyed the industry, but there are companies related to it that are still paying out on lawsuits. 

If you really wan't to talk about pollution that will kill you, take a look on the labels of the food that you buy. Even though there are very few people above the age of 12 that don't know what they are eating is killing them, most people eat it anyway. On top of that, we make it worse by over-eating and not excercising. Why does someone that knows they are personally going to suffer from an action take the action anyway? 

Now to regulate pollution, the biggest decision that you'd have to make is whether or not your willing to enslave 3rd world nations. Emerging economies need to have initial growth through manufacturing and exploiting natural resources. The Romans did it to the extent that they could at the time. Great Britain did it. We did it starting in the 20's. The BRIC nations are now starting to do it as well. Without allowing them the growth of a manufacturing base to build an economy on, you are sealing the fact that they are doomed to be third world countries forever. If you don't limit pollution everywhere though, your country suffers because all of the manufacturing moves to the unregualted countries and you did little to stop pollution.

Not an easy decision to make when you aren't exactlly sure what to regulate to begin with. A buffalo gives off the same amount of methane in a year as the average car being driven 8,000 miles. 

Did you know that Hydro-electric dams give off Green House gases and depending on the size of the resevoir, sometimes much more than most power plants? In Brazil, they rely on hydro-electric dams a lot. If those dam's emmissions were included in their GHG calculations, it would reduce their Carbon offsets by 7%.

These things are not, nor will they ever be black and white. But it doesn't matter because most people will blindly vote yes or no depending on what they are told from their party, or union, or church, or favorite celebrity, etc.. It wasn't until I started doing my own DD that I found out about these things. Maybe others should do some DD before they blindly sign off on something that we'll never be able to get out of.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement