quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Quoting from the Energy Advisor.

In 2011, the US emitted about 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon. That compares with over 200 GTC/year from nature (92 GtC/year from the oceans, and 200 GtC/year from vegetation, soil, and detritus).

The atmospheric load is 750GtC. If all US emissions stayed in the atmosphere it would take 500 years to double the atmospheric concentration and that would lead to about a 3 degree rise in temperature, IF the climate models were any good at prediction (which they are not).


Other notes: Nordex, a german wind turbine business is going out of business, another in a long string of business failures.

quote:

No, if you bothered to even google it you would find he is a Ph.D, professor emeritus University of Connecticut and author of multiple books on the science of global warming.

Not that you bothered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


Great Theory.
Completely ignores the facts.

The point *again* is that emissions from natural sources DWARF what American emissions are.

2 points in rebuttal.
1. The total calories in a human body (which is being constantly renewed) DWARF the calories in a can of soda. ( used a can of soda for clarity to show how something so seemingly insignificant can affect ones health)

2. The US isn't the only country on the planet. There's a few others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Quoting from the Energy Advisor.

In 2011, the US emitted about 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon. That compares with over 200 GTC/year from nature (92 GtC/year from the oceans, and 200 GtC/year from vegetation, soil, and detritus).

The atmospheric load is 750GtC. If all US emissions stayed in the atmosphere it would take 500 years to double the atmospheric concentration and that would lead to about a 3 degree rise in temperature, IF the climate models were any good at prediction (which they are not).


Other notes: Nordex, a german wind turbine business is going out of business, another in a long string of business failures.

Would you have any validation for this moronic insipid drivel?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Quoting from the Energy Advisor.

In 2011, the US emitted about 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon. That compares with over 200 GTC/year from nature (92 GtC/year from the oceans, and 200 GtC/year from vegetation, soil, and detritus).

The atmospheric load is 750GtC. If all US emissions stayed in the atmosphere it would take 500 years to double the atmospheric concentration and that would lead to about a 3 degree rise in temperature, IF the climate models were any good at prediction (which they are not).


Other notes: Nordex, a german wind turbine business is going out of business, another in a long string of business failures.

Hmm you're only off by a factor of more than 3.5.
http://iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2012/may/name,27216,en.html

92 million tons decrease = !.7% decrease therefore 92Mt/0.017 = 5.411Gt for 2010. 5.411Gt - 92Mt = 5.319Gt

BTW natural sources are matched by natural sinks that is why the atmospheric composition was stable. What we're doing is adding more CO2 than those natural sinks can keep up with and theCO2 concentration has increased dramatically because of it.

I'm afraid once again you demonstrate a remarkable inability to comprehend english as I wrote it.

Your source quotes CARBON DIOXIDE. Carbon (which is what I quoted) is approximately one third the weight of CO2. Its necessary to make the conversion since terrestial carbon uptake (lignen etc) is measured in carbon units, not CO2.

Such elementary mistakes blind you to even more obvious issues.

Even if you were to cut the US emissions to ZERO you would have no appreciable effect on the carbon dioxide concentration.

Let me make the numbers more clear for those that have an actual interest in this:

US emissions: 1,500,000,000 metric tons.
Emitted from the oceans: 92,000,000,000 metric tons.
Emitted from terrestial Natural sources 200,000,000,000 metric tons.

This is the amount of carbon being added to the atmosphere in 2012.
Again. Reduce the US emissions to zero and you make negligible impact on atmospheric CO2 content.

Be a sheeple. Believe in 'global warming'. Or else actually read the numbers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

No, if you bothered to even google it you would find he is a Ph.D, professor emeritus University of Connecticut and author of multiple books on the science of global warming.

Not that you bothered.

Well, it took some digging, but I believe the dude in question is Howard Hayden.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Yes, there are more countries than the US - so even if we reduced our emissions to zero -- the effect is negligible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SaintHayden

Couple points.

By simple laws of thermodynamics increased levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere would raise the heat reflection point of that atmosphere higher above core, and could not possibly not raise the temperature of the earth. Yes there are a lot of other variables, but if all else remained the same more Carbon Dioxide = higher temperatures.

quote:



Claiming that climate modelers have all somehow conspired to deceive the world is tinfoil in a tophat ludicrous. There (if I remember correctly) 38 functioning climate models currently, with about 25 of them considered reliable.

quote:


The opposition to this just keeps coming up with these little red herrings to throw sand in the eyes of the masses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Yes, there are more countries than the US - so even if we reduced our emissions to zero -- the effect is negligible.

So ending our burning of fossil fuels would have no effect? The new industries developed would have no effect? No other country would be that tech to also free themselves on dependence on OPEC?

Already we are seeing the entire first world moving to renewable energy sources. Germany, a country you consistently spread misinformation about, gets more than 25% of its energy from renewables up from 6% in 2000. The fact that a single turbine manufacturer has failed is simple indication that it is a free market which cons are supposed to be in favor of.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


[
quote]
So ending our burning of fossil fuels would have no effect? The new industries developed would have no effect? No other country would be that tech to also free themselves on dependence on OPEC?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

No, if you bothered to even google it you would find he is a Ph.D, professor emeritus University of Connecticut and author of multiple books on the science of global warming.

Not that you bothered.

Well, it took some digging, but I believe the dude in question is Howard Hayden.

Ah, cheers DC. But this can't be the man Phydeaux is talking about, because he's connected to the Heartland Institute of Quackery and Bullshit, whereas the man to whom Phydeaux is referring is a fine upstanding scientist with impeccable credentials.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Well, you'll have to go relearn your points. Google "NASA admits".
Nasa it seems has a lot to admit regarding climate science. Taking a few points

Nasa Admits temperatures flat last 10 years
Nasa admits solar radiation accounts for more than the combined human co2 emissions.
Nasa admits they were held to a political bias.
Nasa admits that the greenhouse gas effect of carbon dioxide lower than expected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Yes, there are more countries than the US - so even if we reduced our emissions to zero -- the effect is negligible.

So ending our burning of fossil fuels would have no effect? The new industries developed would have no effect? No other country would be that tech to also free themselves on dependence on OPEC?

Already we are seeing the entire first world moving to renewable energy sources. Germany, a country you consistently spread misinformation about, gets more than 25% of its energy from renewables up from 6% in 2000. The fact that a single turbine manufacturer has failed is simple indication that it is a free market which cons are supposed to be in favor of.

Ahhh cherry picking statistics, again.

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/p/pow-gen-ger.htm

German Power: solar 3.1%; Biomass 5.2%; Wind 7.6%. Natural gas 13.7% coal 44%, nuclear 17.6%.

As for 'misleading statistics' I notice you didn't find any to contradict them.
Just like you didn't find any to contradict that Siemens is exiting the field.
Just like Germany is *reducing* its subisidies. Or that renewable energy is destabilizing their power grid.

And go read some more and you will find more than half a dozen german companies have gone broke. The very idea that solar energy is viable in a northern country is idiotic. We can't make it work in Arizona - germany is supposed to make it work north of maine?

Its just absolutely *moronic*

quote:

Renewables (wind, water, biomass, photovoltaic) account for 19.9 %.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Quoting from the Energy Advisor.

In 2011, the US emitted about 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon. That compares with over 200 GTC/year from nature (92 GtC/year from the oceans, and 200 GtC/year from vegetation, soil, and detritus).

The atmospheric load is 750GtC. If all US emissions stayed in the atmosphere it would take 500 years to double the atmospheric concentration and that would lead to about a 3 degree rise in temperature, IF the climate models were any good at prediction (which they are not).


Other notes: Nordex, a german wind turbine business is going out of business, another in a long string of business failures.

Hmm you're only off by a factor of more than 3.5.
http://iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2012/may/name,27216,en.html

92 million tons decrease = !.7% decrease therefore 92Mt/0.017 = 5.411Gt for 2010. 5.411Gt - 92Mt = 5.319Gt

BTW natural sources are matched by natural sinks that is why the atmospheric composition was stable. What we're doing is adding more CO2 than those natural sinks can keep up with and theCO2 concentration has increased dramatically because of it.

OK, but here's the essence of deterministic chaos; you can walk 1,000 steps up the hill, and claim that none of those steps resulted in 'disaster,' which they in fact did not.

But a step is a step, by this estimation, so the step that leads one off the cliff edge is statistically no different (or as likely) as the previous steps. But that last step is not excluded from the potential either, and never has been.


Also, there are many things in nature that require a rather tight balance with tight margins, the human blood Ph level, e.g. Water turns to ice in just one degree, F or C.

Nature doesn't screw around with phase change, or the thresholds enabling or engendering such transition, I hope you are aware of that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Just utterly false. Go look it up. CO2 has varied from under 180 ppm to over 6000.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Yes, there are more countries than the US - so even if we reduced our emissions to zero -- the effect is negligible.

So ending our burning of fossil fuels would have no effect? The new industries developed would have no effect? No other country would be that tech to also free themselves on dependence on OPEC?

Already we are seeing the entire first world moving to renewable energy sources. Germany, a country you consistently spread misinformation about, gets more than 25% of its energy from renewables up from 6% in 2000. The fact that a single turbine manufacturer has failed is simple indication that it is a free market which cons are supposed to be in favor of.

Ahhh cherry picking statistics, again.

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/p/pow-gen-ger.htm

German Power: solar 3.1%; Biomass 5.2%; Wind 7.6%. Natural gas 13.7% coal 44%, nuclear 17.6%.

As for 'misleading statistics' I notice you didn't find any to contradict them.
Just like you didn't find any to contradict that Siemens is exiting the field.
Just like Germany is *reducing* its subisidies. Or that renewable energy is destabilizing their power grid.

And go read some more and you will find more than half a dozen german companies have gone broke. The very idea that solar energy is viable in a northern country is idiotic. We can't make it work in Arizona - germany is supposed to make it work north of maine?

Its just absolutely *moronic*

Can you not read or were simply hoping to get another flat out lie by the gullible?
The page you site is for 2011 not 2012 or later.
Also you simply misrepresented the data even from 2011
From your link:

quote:

Renewables (wind, water, biomass, photovoltaic) account for 19.9 %.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Just utterly false. Go look it up. CO2 has varied from under 180 ppm to over 6000.

Do you really think humans can live in CO2 concentrations over even 1000ppm? Want to give it a try yourself?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Well, you'll have to go relearn your points. Google "NASA admits".
Nasa it seems has a lot to admit regarding climate science. Taking a few points
Nasa Admits temperatures flat last 10 years
Nasa admits solar radiation accounts for more than the combined human co2 emissions.
Nasa admits they were held to a political bias.
Nasa admits that the greenhouse gas effect of carbon dioxide lower than expected.

I've called you out on these lies over and over again. Present a link to an official statement by NASA about any of this, not just one lunatic creationist who has done some work for NASA.
BTW, most of the links on the first page of a Google search for "NASA admits" lunatic conspiracy crap about "chemtrails."

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Well, you'll have to go relearn your points. Google "NASA admits".
Nasa it seems has a lot to admit regarding climate science. Taking a few points
Nasa Admits temperatures flat last 10 years
Nasa admits solar radiation accounts for more than the combined human co2 emissions.
Nasa admits they were held to a political bias.
Nasa admits that the greenhouse gas effect of carbon dioxide lower than expected.

I've called you out on these lies over and over again. Present a link to an official statement by NASA about any of this, not just one lunatic creationist who has done some work for NASA.
BTW, most of the links on the first page of a Google search for "NASA admits" lunatic conspiracy crap about "chemtrails."

"NASA backtracks" is a better search phrase for what Phydeaux is talking about.

But, all the hits lead to one source that no longer has it up.

But, NASA apparently admitted that 1934, not 1998 was the hottest year on record in the US. 1998 and 2005 were still the hottest globally.

Again, I have no source for this, only the articles trumpeting the defeat of global warming alarmists that link back to a site that no longer has the original article.