Would love to see how the Global Warming idiots explain this one...

[KittenKoder]

Anyone who has sat by the edge of a pond know that gas bubbles up from the earth. That's methane. Better to burn it than let it go into the atmosphere wasted.

The true agenda for liberals is to eliminate much or most of the human population polluting this planet. Earth is their god.

Okay, from the king of illogic ... you do realize that contradicts them wanting stop global catastrophe, right? I want humans dead, thus why I don't care about pollution or the environment. The planet will survive, and life will return, much of it will even survive humanities own demise. No, the liberals want to tell people what's right and wrong ... sound familiar?

 

[glockmail]

Okay, from the king of illogic ... you do realize that contradicts them wanting stop global catastrophe, right? I want humans dead, thus why I don't care about pollution or the environment. The planet will survive, and life will return, much of it will even survive humanities own demise. No, the liberals want to tell people what's right and wrong ... sound familiar?

These liberal pukes have been warning of a global catastrophe for the last 50 years, you idiot. Where the fuck is it?

 

[Old Rocks]

These liberal pukes have been warning of a global catastrophe for the last 50 years, you idiot. Where the fuck is it?

Well, you willfully ignorant foulmouthed redneck, it is happening right now. We are already seeing the starting a climate change. Increaseingly violent weather swings. More droughts and floods. Ice caps melting, and the permafrost doing the same and becoming a net emmitter of GHGs rather than a sink for them.

As far as liberal or conservative goes, it is immaterial. This is a matter of science. And all the evidence says that we changing the way the climate works, and doing it to our detriment.

 

[glockmail]

Well, you willfully ignorant foulmouthed redneck, it is happening right now. We are already seeing the starting a climate change. Increaseingly violent weather swings. More droughts and floods. Ice caps melting, and the permafrost doing the same and becoming a net emmitter of GHGs rather than a sink for them.

As far as liberal or conservative goes, it is immaterial. This is a matter of science. And all the evidence says that we changing the way the climate works, and doing it to our detriment.

You're the willfully ignorant one. Anyone who passed Geology 101 knows that ancient storms were much more violent than anything man has documented in the last 100 years. The Global Warming argument is entirely political. N-fucking-tirely.

 

[Old Rocks]

You're the willfully ignorant one. Anyone who passed Geology 101 knows that ancient storms were much more violent than anything man has documented in the last 100 years. The Global Warming argument is entirely political. N-fucking-tirely.

As one that successfully passed Eng. Geo. 470/570, I am qualified to state that you haven't the faintest idea as to what your are talking about.

 

[glockmail]

As one that successfully passed Eng. Geo. 470/570, I am qualified to state that you haven't the faintest idea as to what your are talking about.

As someone who graduated cum laude with courses like CE 569 and 571, then went on to grad school passing courses like CIE 651, I would say that you're full of shit.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? Then why do you not post referances for you foolishness? Cannot find any in real peer reviewed journals?

 

[glockmail]

Really? Then why do you not post referances [sic] for you [sic] foolishness? Cannot find any in real peer reviewed journals?

I've long since learned that liberals are closed minded and unwilling to learn, so I don't waste my time with a lot of links. Most can't even spell or use correct grammar.

 

[Old Rocks]

I've long since learned that liberals are closed minded and unwilling to learn, so I don't waste my time with a lot of links. Most can't even spell or use correct grammar.

Glockmail, you are a pussy. You cannot defend your positions, so instead of owning up to being a redneck ideologue, you hurl insults and names like a third grade reject. By the way, nice to see North Carolina joined the sane states and voted for Obama.

 

[glockmail]

Glockmail, you are a pussy. You cannot defend your positions, so instead of owning up to being a redneck ideologue, you hurl insults and names like a third grade reject. ....

You claim to be intellectually superior, and I handily prove that you ain't. That pisses you off to the point where you demonstrate hypocrisy in just two sentences.

 

[Old Rocks]

You claim to be intellectually superior, and I handily prove that you ain't. That pisses you off to the point where you demonstrate hypocrisy in just two sentences.

so you say.

 

[glockmail]

so you say.

So I have proven.

 

[Caligirl]

If we don't use it it leaks into the atmosphere anyway, and its 50 times worse as a greenhouse gas than the CO2 released if burned. In fact you can buy carbon credits from companies that build systems at old landfills to collect and burn the methane, and most of those systems are so small or off the power grid that they don't bother making electricity.

A little glock-fact for you that the liberals don't want you to know.

I mind less about burning methane that would escape anyway (such as capture from waste treatment silos), and more about actively 'mining' (that can't possibly be the right word) it as an energy source.

It's sunk carbon. The violent storms and warm weather in Earth's far past have been due to all sorts of thing (milankovich, sun output, and also the amount of carbon that was in the atmosphere at the time, the hadean had enormous quantities of CO2, so of course the planet has had other climate patterns in its past...) Over geological time carbon has been sunk into fossil fuels and we have evolved on the planet in a fairly small window of earth's climate potential.

But you've heard all that before. I do think non-carbon sources of energy (solar etc) are probably the best way to preserve the status quo on the cycling/sunk carbon ratio.

My thinking for why we should address climate, is because it seems like it boils down to a question of whether we really are collectively capable of overcoming human instinct (instincts of acquisition, consumption, reproduction, etc) in order to work for the common good and the future. To my way of thinking, it isn't that I want people dead and worship the earth - it is rather that I frankly wonder why we're even here to begin with. You know, why is there something instead of nothing and all that. If we can't get past our instincts collectively for the common good, then it seems we are nothing more than our genetic programming. That's damn depressing. If we can get past our basic instincts, then there is hope that we are more than just genetic programming.

I suppose I am saying that seeing my fellow man trash his back yard causes a bit of a faith crisis for me.

But part of the common good and the future involves not destroying the economy in the process, not allowing bad science or ill conceived solutions to determine policy (like some of the sequestration schemes that have been suggested), that sort of stuff. And I do feel like focusing on greenhouse gases is pointless in the end if keep deforesting, keep dumping into the oceans, etc etc -

And I'm happy to disagree on it too.

 

[glockmail]

Here's what the AMS has to say about the cause of climate change:

Why is climate changing?
Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.), which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.

Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface and atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy until the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas contribution to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other greenhouse gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have provided an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century.

AMS Information Statement on Climate Change
You know that has to be a carefully worded statement, so the causes are written in order of importance. We can’t do anything about orbital changes or sun spots, but we can reduce disrupting natural flows of radiative energy and water. Cutting down trees to put up solar panels, disrupting wind patterns with windmills, and altering ocean currents with tidal dams would therefore seem to be detrimental towards this stated goal. It seems to me that growing lots of trees would be beneficial, and trees require lots of CO2 to grow.

 

[Old Rocks]

They just put 1.1 Megawatts of solar on the roof of a warehouse here in Portland. Installation time, about a day and half. Most of what you are stating about alternatives is pure bullshit. For one thing, where trees grow best is not the best place to put solar. Places like the high desert of Eastern Oregon. Disruption of wind patterns? Have you the slightest idea of how what the depth of the wind flow in in Western States?

 

[Old Rocks]

Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.



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

Permissions: Members everywhere are encouraged to help inform the policy making process in their home locales with thoughtful presentation of scientific viewpoints. Council adoption of position statements is one way that the Union can assist in this process. Any member may use an AGU policy statement in discussions with local or national policy makers as an official statement of the Union. If you use excerpts from a statement, then you should not attribute those as a Union position. Societies anywhere may use an AGU position statement with or without attribution as a basis for developing their own statements.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science and Policy Home
AGU Home

 

[Old Rocks]

Environment
Scientific Group Releases New Statement on Climate ChangeBy Andrea Thompson, LiveScience Staff Writer

posted: 24 January 2008 11:14 am ET
Buzz up! del.icio.us
Digg It!
Newsvine
reddit0 Comments | 0 Recommend
The world’s largest society of Earth and space scientists has released a new statement on climate change that unequivocally names human activity as the cause of global warming.

"Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming," according to the first paragraph of the statement by the American Geophysical Union. The statement cites many components of the Earth system that are changing at unnatural rates, including rising global temperatures, ice melt, sea level rise and the distribution of precipitation around the globe.

"The facts are well-established now that the Earth's climate is warming," said Bette Otto-Bliesner of National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado at a press conference today in Washington, D.C., held to release the statement.

These climate changes, the statement says, are "best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century."

The second paragraph of the three-paragraph statement warns of problems global warming could cause, including rising sea levels, declining agricultural productivity and loss of biodiversity. Specifically, the effects of a warming of 2 degrees Celsius [3.6 Fahrenheit] globally are cited because more research has been done on the effects of that change and how to avoid it than for other temperature changes, said Michael Prather of the University of California, Irvine, at the press conference. (Some scientists contend that smaller temperature changes could be as disastrous.)

The statement notes that climate projections inherently have uncertainties, but says "none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential."

AGU President Timothy Killeen says the statement is "a fair representation of the basic scientific understanding" of climate change, a collective opinion that has evolved over the past few years and given scientists a firmer understanding of natural climate change and human-caused changes. Prather noted that the committees that helped draft the AGU statement included scientists outside the field of climate change.

The statement also calls for the need to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 50 percent globally by the end of this century to avoid the more catastrophic potential effects of climate change. The final paragraph of the statement calls for cooperation among scientists, industry and government to develop strategies to mitigate climate change.

The new statement was adopted on Dec. 14, 2008, by the AGU's governing body, the AGU Council, at their annual meeting in San Francisco. Its release today comes about 11 months after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change first announced its initial and similar findings. Later in 2007, the IPCC and Vice President Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to learn more about man-made climate change and to disseminate that knowledge broadly.

Scientific Group Releases New Statement on Climate Change | LiveScience

Video: Goldilocks and the Greenhouse
Top 10 Surprising Results of Global Warming
Timeline: The Frightening Future of Earth

 

[glockmail]

They just put 1.1 Megawatts of solar on the roof of a warehouse here in Portland. Installation time, about a day and half. Most of what you are stating about alternatives is pure bullshit. For one thing, where trees grow best is not the best place to put solar. Places like the high desert of Eastern Oregon. Disruption of wind patterns? Have you the slightest idea of how what the depth of the wind flow in in Western States?

PV soar is now about $5/ watt. That project costs is over $5,000,000. It will never pay for itself. Solar Photovoltaic, PV Module, Panel Prices

Typical nuke is 1100 MW.

Coal's the way to go baby. Mine the earth, pulverize it, ship it, burn it, then back-haul the ash.

 

[Chris]

PV soar is now about $5/ watt. That project costs is over $5,000,000. It will never pay for itself. Solar Photovoltaic, PV Module, Panel Prices

Typical nuke is 1100 MW.

Coal's the way to go baby. Mine the earth, pulverize it, ship it, burn it, then back-haul the ash.

Don't tell the Israelis.

They are building ONE solar power plant that will supply 5% of their energy.

 

[KittenKoder]

PV soar is now about $5/ watt. That project costs is over $5,000,000. It will never pay for itself. Solar Photovoltaic, PV Module, Panel Prices

Typical nuke is 1100 MW.

Coal's the way to go baby. Mine the earth, pulverize it, ship it, burn it, then back-haul the ash.

I agree, let the thousands of coal miners that die each year increase in numbers so we can kill off more humans.