Man Made Global Warming KOOKS

[KittenKoder]

Rocks ... you are still ignoring the big picture. Explain why it is that everything legislated to be "green" has bad consequences for us and the environment and puts all the money into the hands of so very few rich people.

Kitten, the top one percent of the top one percent recieve 6% of the total before tax income in the US. The top one percent accounts for essentially 50 percent of all before income tax in the US. The other 50 percent is divided up between the remaining 99 percent of us.

What do you mean, putting all the money in the hands of the rich people? Mission accomplished.

You support legislation that eliminates competition even more ... not that we were allowed to have much thanks to people like you who swallowed other fears without considering the impacts. So you are pushing to make even fewer people rich and completely destroying our species ... you just won't see it because you only want the "green" people to have all the money ... you do know Gore owns most of the companies you support having people depend on by force.

 

[Navy1960]

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..." - Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard

Lindzen has contributed to several articles on climate change in the mainstream media. In 1996, Lindzen was interviewed by William Stevens for an article in the New York Times.[15]In this article, Lindzen expressed his concern over the validity of computer models used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that computer models may have overpredicted future warming because of inadequate handling of the climate system's water vapor feedback. The feedback due to water vapor is a major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur with increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future warming. According to Stevens, scientists who worked on computer climate models did not accept Lindzen's nullification hypothesis.

He hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris; increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere.[2] This hypothesis suggested a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming.

Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know Rocks here is someone from MITand also someone that was on the first IPCC panel that seems to suggest that the very idea of man made global warming is a bit of an over-reach.

 

[KittenKoder]

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..." - Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard

Lindzen has contributed to several articles on climate change in the mainstream media. In 1996, Lindzen was interviewed by William Stevens for an article in the New York Times.[15]In this article, Lindzen expressed his concern over the validity of computer models used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that computer models may have overpredicted future warming because of inadequate handling of the climate system's water vapor feedback. The feedback due to water vapor is a major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur with increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future warming. According to Stevens, scientists who worked on computer climate models did not accept Lindzen's nullification hypothesis.

He hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris; increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere.[2] This hypothesis suggested a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming.

Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know Rocks here is someone from MITand also someone that was on the first IPCC panel that seems to suggest that the very idea of man made global warming is a bit of an over-reach.

In spite of the source ... your first point is dead on.

 

[Navy1960]

In some ways, Europe's program has been a success. It covers 45 percent of the continent's emissions, 10,000 companies and 27 European Union countries. It has built registries that list carbon dioxide emissions for every major plant.

In other ways, the approach has been a bureaucratic morass with a host of unexpected and costly side effects and a much smaller effect on carbon emissions than planned. And many companies complain that it is unfair.

Consider the plight of Kollo Holding's factory in the Netherlands, which makes silicon carbide, a material used as an industrial abrasive and lining for high-temperature furnaces and kilns. Its managers like to think of their plant as an ecological standout: They use waste gases to generate energy and have installed the latest pollution-control equipment.

But Europe's program has driven electricity prices so high that the facility routinely shuts down for part of the day to save money on power. Although demand for its products is strong, the plant has laid off 40 of its 130 employees and trimmed production. Two customers have turned to cheaper imports from China, which is not covered by Europe's costly regulations

However, because of lobbying by well-connected companies, the E.U.'s limits on emissions ended up being higher than the actual emissions. As a result, fewer companies than expected had to buy emissions this year, and the price of carbon allowances, which had topped $30 per ton of carbon about a year ago, crashed to about $1 a ton. That eased some of the pressure on electricity rates, but prices for next year, after tighter E.U. limits take effect, are still about $20 a ton.

Europe's Problems Color U.S. Plans to Curb Carbon Gases

If anyone thinks that cap and trade will result in anything but a similar mess then they will very disappointed. In fact if cap and trade were such a boon as proposed then make it voluntary and give tax breaks to those that participate in the program to reduce carbon emissions. I submit that this bill has turned a debate that should be about how to best meet our nations energy needs in the future in a safe and environmentally friendly way to one that debates if man made global warming is real or not and while we are doing so and writing bills along those lines the only people who stand to gain from it are companies that are in that business and not those who need it most and that's our nation as a whole. Let me put it this way, if everyone all of the sudden started driving EV car's then the makers of automobiles would be in the business of making them. Our Govt. should be in the business of providing an atmosphere that promotes those kinds of incentives rather than enriching a select few. A cap and trade bill is not the answer, in fact I submit rather than spending almost a Trillion dollars to start this ponzi scheme, think about how many wind farms, solar farms, nuclear plants you could build for a Trillion dollars.

Duke energy estimated the cost of one nuclear plant to be 10 billion dollars that generates 1,117 megawatts so taking that into consideration let's say we build 20 reactors across the nation at 200 billion dollars we have added an additional 20GW of cap. enough to power 24 million homes. Further during the construction phase of these plants it is estimated by the NRC that in real terms your looking at between 4 to 6000 jobs created driectly in the construction of these plants. Thats 120,000 real jobs and 20,000 perm. jobs needed to staff those plants.

Now in 2007 T. Boone Picken planned to build a wind farm that could generate 4 GW of power using 2000 wind turbines over 200,000 acres at a cost of 6 billion dollars. Lets say we fund that as part of an overall energy program and 5 more like it. Thats an addional 20 GW of power that is not static mind you but will be part of an overall plan. We now have raise our overall energy output capacity by almost 50GW aenough to reach almost 70 million homes and done so by spending a 1/4 of what cap and trade will do and employed countless thousands of people.

Further we can add funding for residential solar, funding for grants to clean coal, natural gas, etc, as part of an overall energy plan and spend less that half of what cap and trade will ever spend and not only that, will generate revenue as well as create real jobs as well as be safe for the environment. None of this can be done however, if people do not set aside their narrow views and work together to solve this energy mess once and for all, so we can finally tell OPEC and their ilk no thank you we have our own.

 

[Navy1960]

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..." - Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard

Lindzen has contributed to several articles on climate change in the mainstream media. In 1996, Lindzen was interviewed by William Stevens for an article in the New York Times.[15]In this article, Lindzen expressed his concern over the validity of computer models used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that computer models may have overpredicted future warming because of inadequate handling of the climate system's water vapor feedback. The feedback due to water vapor is a major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur with increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future warming. According to Stevens, scientists who worked on computer climate models did not accept Lindzen's nullification hypothesis.

He hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris; increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere.[2] This hypothesis suggested a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming.

Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know Rocks here is someone from MITand also someone that was on the first IPCC panel that seems to suggest that the very idea of man made global warming is a bit of an over-reach.

In spite of the source ... your first point is dead on.

While wiki may not be the best of sources kitten it does give you a good idea and the Professors writings as well as publications are well documented, I just happened to choose one that had it all condensed down somewhat.

 

[Old Rocks]

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..." - Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard

Lindzen has contributed to several articles on climate change in the mainstream media. In 1996, Lindzen was interviewed by William Stevens for an article in the New York Times.[15]In this article, Lindzen expressed his concern over the validity of computer models used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that computer models may have overpredicted future warming because of inadequate handling of the climate system's water vapor feedback. The feedback due to water vapor is a major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur with increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future warming. According to Stevens, scientists who worked on computer climate models did not accept Lindzen's nullification hypothesis.

He hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris; increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere.[2] This hypothesis suggested a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming.

Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know Rocks here is someone from MITand also someone that was on the first IPCC panel that seems to suggest that the very idea of man made global warming is a bit of an over-reach.

And someone that had his major hypothesis on that subject, the "Iris effect" completely falsiefied. Someone that also accepted $2500 a day to testify before congress from energy companies.

The following is the conclusion to a scientific paper that analyzed the sources and algorithms of Lindzen concerning his proposed negative feedbacks.

Lindzen on Climate Feedback « Climate Change

Lindzen once again claims that the changes still imply negative feedbacks, which is a rather dubious claim, given the discussion and comparisons with models in Wong et al. I also do not believe the full range of sensitivity can be evaluated from these results, but even so, the justification for strong negative feedbacks has vanished.

 

[Navy1960]

However, it also made clear that one could not readily use decadal variability in surface temperature to infer feedbacks from ERBE data. Rather one needs to look at temperature variations that are long compared to the time scales associated with the feedback processes, but short compared to the response time over which the system equilibrates. This is also important so as to unambiguously observe changes in the radiative budget that are responses to fluctuations in SST as opposed to changes in SST resulting from changes in the radiative budget; the latter will occur on the response time of the system. The primary feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds occur on time scales of days [Lindzen et al., 2001; Rodwell and Palmer, 2007], while response times for relatively strong negative feedbacks remain on the order of a year [Lindzen and Giannitsis, 1998, and references therein]. That said, it is evident that, because the system attempts to restore equilibrium, there will be a tendency to underestimate negative feedbacks relative to positive feedbacks that are associated with longer response times
New paper from Lindzen demonstrates low climate sensitivity with observational data « Watts Up With That?

Shall we not get into this implied paid for conclusion debate because that same implication can be pointed towards those that support the man made theory. While I am aware that many of these scientist receive money from various different groups both pro and con so if we choose to engage in that debate it will detract from the real issue if this nations energy needs.

 

[Old Rocks]

Shall we not get into this implied paid for conclusion debate because that same implication can be pointed towards those that support the man made theory. While I am aware that many of these scientist receive money from various different groups both pro and con so if we choose to engage in that debate it will detract from the real issue if this nations energy needs.
...........................................................................................................................................................................................
Yes, that is the real issue. However, there are two more issues. One is the addition of GHGs due to the burning of fossil fuels, the other the damage that such burning causes, such as asthma.

I think the first issue on energy is building a grid to get the energy from where it is at, to where it is needed. The second is the kind of grid. It must be a distributed grid, capable of picking up energy from a 2 kw home solar installation, as well as a 10 gw nuclear plant.

But there is an additional factor. We need to create another manufacturing base in this nation. We have some really good things, Eestor and Voxtel, that are wonderfully disruptive technologies. However, we need to get them off the ground and into production. In WW2, we had governmet expediters whose sole purpose was to aid companies in getting the personel, material, or technology they needed to develop, as fast as possible, production techniques for the war effort. I view both our dependence on foriegn energy, and the present economic circumstances as just as serious a crisis as we faced in
WW2. We should be aiding and pushing these disruptive technologies to be developed just as fast as possible, and I don't mean for manufacture in China, either.

 

[Navy1960]

While i tend fall into the catagory of wait and see in GHG issue from a practical matter lowering CO2 emissions on a unilateral basis is much like banging your head against the wall. However, that being said, I do belive that technologies that promote environmentally sound energy soultions and while doing so use the available energy sources we have as a nation tends to have many benefits that both sides IMO can see in terms of jobs, energy generation, and most of all ending our nations need for foreign oil. While I think that we both tend to agree the best solutions can be had when this nation applies the best ideas from everyone while respecting the opinions of both sides of the issue with one common goal and that is to make this nation self reliant in terms of energy generation. Which IMHO we have the capability , but lack the vision to do. I'm also of the opinion that good stewards of the environment need not have any politcal views or opinions on man made global warming they just need to have an appreciation of the world around them. As I have long argued on this point while I may disagree with mandated cap and trade bill ,I do feel that a comprehensive energy policy with the goal of ending our need for foreign oil should be something that every American should be in favor of.

 

[ozzmdj]

I see the kooks are still here.