Climate scientists did not lie

[bonbon]

If that is the case (your background) you probably know more about the technical details than I do. I am just trying to get the basic understanding of the underlying mechanism to a degree where I know why my calculations make sense. My Feedback argument must look horrible simplified and I would probably had been going much more into details if I in fact knew your level of education (at least I hope it was useful for other members of this site).

Politics & Money or animal spirit as I am used to say (J. M. Keynes), is a never-ending motivation process for mankind. Unfortunately, corruption will always exist as long people have confidence in each other; at some point people will screw you because they can optimize their own utility.

I agree to some degree that "the end of the world" preaching might be a little overheated. I do not think we will die that easily, however, there are other major problems regarding consumption of fossil fuel; we will run out of fuel in a "short" period of time and it is very bad for people’s health. I think these two reason, simply, are enough to conclude; we need to do to something about it.

[Bob May]

Global Warming is real and it is very likely anthropogenic – and when I say likely I mean I am 99.99 % sure of that assertion. From studies for similar periods (middle ice age) we know that the natural maximum of carbon dioxide is approximately 285 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere; now the number is 391 ppm (April, 2010). Even if we assumed that anthropogenic carbon dioxide does not affect the weather it is still important for humanity to create a global low carbon society; we will run out of fossil fuel, we will run out of Nuclear power and from there we need to focus on new resources. Furthermore, it will be good for all people’s health to decrease the pollution that is the cause of Global Warming.
More than 150 years ago (1824) scientists had theory on how a high amount of carbon dioxide could increase the atmospheric temperature and to my knowledge, the term “Global Warming” already began in 1975 – scientists and politicians have known this for a long time; however, they have not been doing well in informing the people of how critical this is.


"..., however, there are other major problems regarding consumption of fossil fuel; we will run out of fuel in a "short" period of time and it is very bad for people’s health. I think these two reason, simply, are enough to conclude; we need to do to something about it.

I took an Earth Science class back in 1973-74 in which it was taught that we had only 7 years left of natural gas and 14 years left of oil on the planet.
You are correct in stating that scientists have not been "doing well" in informing us.
They have, however, been doing a very good job at indoctrinating us.

Nuclear power will not run out. The problem there is disposing of "spent fuel rods" I worked at a nuclear plant here in Illinois. And the problem was not even a place to put the spent rods but the inability of transporting them through states on there way to storage facility. Those states would not allow them to be transported through their land. So the nuke plants are stacking them.

Also nuclear power is not portable.

Electric cars still need to be plugged in so the so called "carbon footprint" is still being added to though I've heard that they don't count this as taxable???

The majority of mechanics of wind farms are made in China. The jobs created by them are minimal as is the power generated per cost of building and maintenance.

You are correct there needs to be better power sources but so far I don't see much happening there.

It should not suprise you that all this started back in the 70's.
It is an agenda driven collective of thought designed to increase taxes and ultimately make every American citizen dependent upon government. If it takes generations to accomplish it is not a problem. They are willing to wait.

If there is lying and number crunching involved, Oh well. The end jusifies the means.

That is "This World." It is the situation we are in. It might do you well to do an in depth study of that phrase in scripture. To see who is in charge of the seats of power in this world. Education, Science, Politics etc., etc.

By the way. If the problem is man made pollution, the solution is in China and India, not in the United States. They have surpassed us as far as the smog production and water and atmosphere pollution goes.

Start preaching to them and see how far you get.

Bob

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If that is the case (your background) you probably know more about the technical details than I do. I am just trying to get the basic understanding of the underlying mechanism to a degree where I know why my calculations make sense. My Feedback argument must look horrible simplified and I would probably had been going much more into details if I in fact knew your level of education (at least I hope it was useful for other members of this site).

Politics & Money or animal spirit as I am used to say (J. M. Keynes), is a never-ending motivation process for mankind. Unfortunately, corruption will always exist as long people have confidence in each other; at some point people will screw you because they can optimize their own utility.

I agree to some degree that "the end of the world" preaching might be a little overheated. I do not think we will die that easily, however, there are other major problems regarding consumption of fossil fuel; we will run out of fuel in a "short" period of time and it is very bad for people’s health. I think these two reason, simply, are enough to conclude; we need to do to something about it.

I completely agree that there are huge problems with fossil fuels. They're dirty and unhealthy and unsustainable. And I am a very strong advocate of environmentalism in general (sans the sectarian politics). But rather than preaching doomsday to "motivate" people, we should appeal to their intelligence, their faith, their hope, and their love. There are problems with the way we run society on all levels. We still have mass poverty, great suffering under depraved regimes, millions without food, education, or hope in life. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. We should not be wasting our time with sectarian disputes about an uncertain prognostications of future doom.

As for the technical aspects - I've studied this question well beyond the popular heuristic level that you shared in your last post. When I was talking about feedback, I was talking about a mathematical assumption built into the climate models that there would be a 3x feedback between CO2 and water vapor. If this assumption was not used, the models did not predict catastrophic runaway global warming. I was not talking about the physical reasons for the feedback. The problem there is that we know there are both positive and negative feedbacks. You noted a few of the positive feedback mechanisms. But if more CO2 leaders to more water vapor, then we would probably get more clouds, and we all know what happens when a could gets between the sun and the surface of the earth (temperature drops). But at night it can keep things warm by inhibiting the radiation back into space. So we have two competing effects. One causes cooling, the other warming. It is not a simple question. That is why there are some brainy eggheads out there that do not believe the case is settled yet. But on the other hand, I do not dismiss the possibility. I'm just skeptical, and very aware of the "animal spirit" involved in all of this.

Great chatting,

Richard

[bonbon]

Hmpf!

Scientists do not indoctrinate people, they are doing research and hopefully the useful results come by the politicians and the public – they are more interested in their job than indoctrination. I am not sure why you believe that is the case. It is a conspiracy theory and I bet you do not have any valid arguments to support your assertion.

This is just a hunch – did you take the class in a very religious/YEC place since they said “7 years”? References would be cool, ‘cause I bet he was not the smartest teacher at that time.

And yes, nuclear power will run out – not in my life, but in the generation when I die, if we continue to use nuclear power and create more nuclear plants. I like you to just think about nuclear waste in this way; you cannot smell, taste, nor feel it, you simply get cancer and die. It is no wonder they do not want that through their states if anything should happen with the transportation. Heard about Onkalu? They are building an enormous tunnel/dungeon just to get rid of the nuclear waste. To honest; this is screwed if we are going to get rid of all nuclear waste in such manners. It takes 100,000 years before it is not dangerous anymore. Nuclear power is a serious issue….
And yes, I know nuclear power plants are not portable. From the coast of Copenhagen I can see a decommissioned nuclear power plant in Sweden.

The majority of mechanics of wind farms are made in China. The jobs created by them are minimal as is the power generated per cost of building and maintenance.

China is the second largest producer with the US as largest (even if they did produce more, so what?). That is not that important though; Renewable Energy technology (RE) do in fact create a lot of jobs and is the CHEAPEST energy source (http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org...ind-power.html)
Here in Denmark, at Lolland Municipality, RE have created 1,200 jobs in total, the first year they started the RE project 200 people were employed by the municipality (48,600 inhabitants in that place). Just to clarify; more jobs will be created. At night time they produce 500% more energy than they use, which is exported, because the $/kWh is cheaper then fossil fuel; Win-Win situation. I know this is a very little example; however, this is just to explain that you are definitely wrong.

At the moment here in Denmark, 20-24 % of our electricity consumption is produced by Wind Turbines. In a lot of places in the US you could most likely do the same with combined photovoltaic and Wind Turbines. Analysis shows that we here in Denmark can supply our self with a maximum of 50% from wind energy because it is unstable, however, that is a lot you must admit. China has even more potential.

It should not suprise you that all this started back in the 70's.
It is an agenda driven collective of thought designed to increase taxes and ultimately make every American citizen dependent upon government. If it takes generations to accomplish it is not a problem. They are willing to wait.

I need some clarification; because of your fear of dependency upon the government you want the generation after your life to pay for your selfish attitude? By the way, I know a secret; they are not planning to control your life. I live in a tax heavy country and I am free to go if I really do not like it – they have not put any chip in my head. Who would you prefer to be dependent on; the government or the Middle East?

The scriptures do not provide anyone, with any answer, on how to be fossil fuel independent. Even God and Jesus understand that you know. When was the last time Jesus turned water into oil? I do not recall anything about that.
China and India are already doing a good job; take a look at this
http://www.denverclimatestudygroup.c...Gentd_Elec.pdf
It might take some time, but they are actually doing a lot of wind energy projects. It is a very good thing at least. Is it still hard to see the sources for alternative energy; wind, photovoltaic, heat pumps, geothermal heat, water, biomass…. There a lot of options.

(for more light version of these kind of developments)
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/

[Bob May]

Hmpf!

The scriptures do not provide anyone, with any answer, on how to be fossil fuel independent. Even God and Jesus understand that you know. When was the last time Jesus turned water into oil? I do not recall anything about that.

You are so right.
I am here for spiritual discussion and I am sick to death of politics, corrupt government officials, political correctness to the point of idiocy, and on and on and on.
Let the dead bury the dead.

Bob