Global Warming and Hot Air

Washington Post ^ | 02/07/2007 | Robert Samuelson

[liberallarry]

Indeed it does, the subjugation of free people by authoritarian self-proclaimed elites.

That's very likely if global warming is real and a man-made consequence of ever-increasing population and industrialization.

[liberallarry]

You mean "peers" of Al Gore?

I mean peers, colleagues, highly-trained people of ability who've achieved mastery in the field by working with the evidence and theory on a daily basis for years.

[liberallarry]

Conquests? I suppose we are on a conquest to steal their oil in order to increase the rate of global warming.

If you want to resort to sarcasm and insult at least stay focused on the subject of the thread. :)

[from occupied ga]

I've argued before for a high oil tax to prod Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles

I'm pretty much in total agreement with the views of this editorial. Anne

So you like higher taxes? Avg state & fed tax on a gallon of gas now is $0.42 what do you think would be an additional appropriate amount to give to the greedy state? And how do you think impoverishing the hard working taxpayers for the benefit of government bureaucrats will benefit energy independence?

Oil company profits run about $0.08 a gal. exploration and R&D costs that actually accomplish something come from this. the money given to government is just wasted on do-nothings beloved by or employed by the state.

[CSM]

"I mean peers, colleagues, highly-trained people of ability who've achieved mastery in the field by working with the evidence and theory on a daily basis for years."

Oh, those experts that get nominated for Nobel Peace Prizes? Especially the ones that put out movies claiming unquestionable consensus.

"If you want to resort to sarcasm and insult at least stay focused on the subject of the thread. :)"

Hey, you used the word "conquests" when commenting on the WOT in Afghanistan and Iraq. Conquest means, "1 : the act or process of conquering" and conquering means, "1 : to gain or acquire by force of arms."

So, what exactly are we gaining or acquiring in Afghanistan or Iraq, if it is not oil? Would those "conquests" not have an end result in accelleration of Global Warming by increasing America's oil supply, therefore decreasing the price?

Remember, words have meanings. When you are willing to use "conquests" then don't get your feathers ruffled when it is taken literally.

[facedown]

That's very likely if global warming is real and a man-made consequence of ever-increasing population and industrialization.

LOL! Ah, the classic Marxist technique of projection.

[CaptRon]

I've argued before for a high oil tax to prod Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Somehow, I think the Founders would frown upon the now-common practice of using to taxes to force us to adopt a particular behavior.

[Publius6961]

Your source is not expressing the problem correctly. The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from the beginning of the Industrial Age is almost entirely due to fossil fuel use, and that's the cause of the concern.

That's silly.
Greenhouse gases have the same effect regardless of the source.
CO2 has been labelled a toxic substance (in California), but only if produced by fossil fuels? that's nonsense, not science.

Next you'll tell me that all other "greenhouse gases" play no role in climate and weather?

The significance of all this is that the "human induced" percentage is still minuscule.
As Lindzen, one of the authors of the 1995 IPCC report wrote, a factor but insignificant does not warrant a draconian the-sky-is-falling response.

[Publius6961]

Maybe? We have been spending billions on "energy efficiency" since the Nixon administration and the first "oil crisis." I see no sign that all of that spending has resulted in "conservation".

The ignorant, the neurotic, the Greens, the Pacifists don't have the brain cells to view the larger picture.

On another thread recently, just musings at the savings of energy due to microwave ovens and transistors should be a cause of wonder, not despair.

Innovation and creativity has improved the human spirit infinitely more than gloom and the spirit of doom, without government intervention or neurotically induced fascism.

[cogitator]

What makes the whole thing even more risible is that the net human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is infinitesimal in terms of a percentage of the atmosphere at large.

But because CO2 is an active absorber of longwave radiation, small changes in its concentration have significant effects. There is very little ozone by weight in the stratosphere, but what is there is very important for the absorption of solar UV.

[Publius6961]

But - as you and others correctly note - scientific predictions have been wrong before...many times. What you don't say is that in these matters scientific opinion is infinitely better than that of laymen. Especially laymen who would suffer economically if the scientists were believed.

OK then.
Explain this.

Other Voices

Once upon a time, the best scientists were ascetic scholar-monks. That is no longer true. Every scientist is paid by someone.

You can choose to have faith in bureaucrats and "scientists" living on our tax dollars and grants.
Me? I prefer to trust the silent majority who produce, innovate, discover and win nobel prizes under our private enterprise, free exchange system.

The invisible hand lives!

[cogitator]

Really? Prove it.

How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

Addressing the skeptical argument point "Natural Emissions Dwarf Humans'

Global Biogeochemical Cycles: Magnitude and Origin of the Anthropogenic CO2 increase and 13C Suess effect in the Nordic Seas Since 1981

Evidence of Anthropogenic CO2 in the Global Ocean

[cogitator]

The significance of all this is that the "human induced" percentage is still minuscule.

Were it not for human activities, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would actually be stable or slowly declining.

[Publius6961]

The debate is highly emotional because it has enormous consquences.

That sentence makes sense if and only if, as an article of faith, you already have made up your mind without any conclusive scientific evidence whatsoever.

To most of us, the "emotional debate" is exactly about what those consequences are or might be!

Circular reasoning, anyone?

[Publius6961]

Conquests? I suppose we are on a conquest to steal their oil in order to increase the rate of global warming.

The moonbats keep repeating this nonsense. Steal their oil?

Mexico and Venezuela are a lot closer, and we could steal their oil a lot easier and cheaper...

[Publius6961]

That's very likely if global warming is real and a man-made consequence of ever-increasing population and industrialization.

And totally undesirable if it's not!

Progressives have a huge problem separating things.
Global warming is real.
Man-made it's not.
There is no debate about the former.

The entire debate is about the latter.
Can we stop blowing smoke here?

[Publius6961]

But because CO2 is an active absorber of longwave radiation, small changes in its concentration have significant effects. There is very little ozone by weight in the stratosphere, but what is there is very important for the absorption of solar UV.

That's wonderful, but irrelevant.

A 0.28% concentration (0.0028) is still a minuscule amount. No reputable scientist anywhere can dispute that.

Small changes have "significant effects"? Enough to everpower the effects of the other 99.72%?

What are we doing here? Using muslim math?

[palmer]

such as sustained temperatures of 130 degrees or above in a major city (resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands)

There are no climate models showing that happening that I am aware of. The basic reason is that increased water vapor (responsible for most of the warming) will moderate temperatures, increased ones included.

[Publius6961]

Were it not for human activities, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would actually be stable or slowly declining.

That is a contention, an assertion, not a fact.
Which computer model "proves" this?
Bottom line is, certainty by guess or by Ouija Board ony counts in politics.

[palmer]

Evidence of Anthropogenic CO2 in the Global Ocean

From the link you provided the other day: http://www.holivar2006.org/abstracts/pdf/T3-032.pdf

An initially slow decline begins in the middle 1700's...

Any idea why the 13C/12C ratio started to decline when fossil fuel use was insignificant? Why the ocean ratio decline seems to precede the atmospheric one (from tree rings and ice cores)? Also I don't believe scientists have yet determined how much of the 13/12 decline is natural.