Posted on 12/08/2010 3:59:15 PM PST by Coleus
Three Rutgers University scientists came to Trenton Tuesday to give Governor Christie a message: climate change is real, and it's man-made. The State House forum, sponsored by several environmental groups, was held in response to Christie's recent comments at a Toms River town hall that he is skeptical that global warming results from human activity. "I've heard over 100 different arguments about why we shouldn’t accept global warming. They're all fallacious and I'd be happy to point out the errors in any of them," said Rutgers professor Alan Robock, a meteorologist.
Responding to a question at the town hall last month, Christie -- a rising star in the Republican Party -- said was "skeptical" that climate change is man made and "more science" is needed to prove it. "I wondered whether he was telling the truth or not. Whether he really was confused or if he was saying what the Republican Party wanted him to say," said Robock. The scientists invited Christie to the event and offered to meet with him publicly. Environment New Jersey Executive Director Dena Mottola Jaborska said they did not hear back, but the Christie administration sent two officials -- assistant counsel Robert Marshall and policy advisor Tricia Caliguire -- to report back to the governor.
Paul Falkowski, director of the Rutgers University Energy Institute, said global warming doubts are based on politics and personal beliefs, not science. "There is no honest argument against human climate change. The issues now rely primarily on political dialogue on how we're going to move this country forward," he said. Falkowski said he was encouraged when Christie said he wanted to make New Jersey more energy efficient, but that his policy decisions, such as hiking mass transit fares while refusing to raise the state's 14.5 cent gas tax is "the wrong message to be sending."
Does anyone notice how they switch off on their argument?
Someone says that they don’t believe in “man-made global warming”, and their response is faux outrage, saying “of course global warming” is happening. Notice the difference?
They switch off between MMGW and just GW, pretending they are one in the same, when that is clearly not true.
To some extent, evidence suggests that indeed GW is taking place. But there is little or no evidence that it is mankind causing any part of it.
The same thing applies to global cooling. There is some evidence that suggests that GC is taking place. But still, there is little or no evidence that it is people that are making it happen.
Huh? Keep it simple when debating, I got a headache reading your response.
Lot of time on your hands huh, LOL? OK so maybe I read the analogy wrong an eyedropper full.
Oh? The how come it magically changed from “global warming” to “climate change”?
Nary a scientist in the bunch!
Just a bunch of Grant Whores protecting their income.
.
Sorry. CAGW = hoax
I think if Chris asked the question, these scientist advocates would freeze up.
I just took another trip through the central valley of California. The area is a moonscape. To save a small freaking fry fish they have turned the area back to nature.
These scientists don’t think about the other side of the cost equation. How many people will die due to decreased crop yields that the CO2 would have given us? How many people will die from cancer caused by the Mercury in the CFLs?
They keep telling us that the other side of the equation isn’t a concern but refuse to quantify it.
I don’t trust them. I think they need to be exposed. For ever benefit they claim there is an offset. Trees cut to make room for windmills and solar panels. Water required to clean the solar panels. etc...
But guess what. I realized that I made a big error.
The figure I gave for the metric tons of CO2 emitted in one year should actually be thousands of metric tons. link
So the correct equivalent volume of water is approximately 300,000 drops in an OSSP, or 15 liters, which is about:
4 gallons of water in an Olympic sized pool
I'm kind of an agnostic about AGW, but this figure doesn't seem so insignificant, especially when you think that it involves a substance that has been accumulating for 100 years and which may have an outsize effect compared with its relative volume.
Lot of time on your hands huh,
It seems worthwhile to point out misinformation when a figure is off by a factor of 200,000. It didn't take all that long.
(BTW the total CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to over 250 gallons in an OSSP.)
That is an important point, easily overlooked.
I have seen a number of statements for years that are cleverly constructed to be true yet totally miss-lead. A scientist delivering such a parsed political statement can’t be trusted.
If you have ever met a real scientist, they just don’t have these skills. They don’t.
Not showing up, except for your post here.
Activist liberals but certain not scientists.
ROBOCK, ALAN
MANASQUAN, NJ 08736
RUTGERS UNIV./PROFESSOR
ZEITZ, JOSHUA M
VIA ZEITZ FOR CONGRESS
03/23/2008 500.00 28990817362
FEINGOLD, RUSSELL D
VIA FEINGOLD SENATE COMMITTEE
09/22/2010 1000.00 10020842208
FOSTER, G. WILLIAM (BILL)
VIA BILL FOSTER FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
10/10/2008 250.00 28934750141
HOLT, RUSH D.
VIA RUSH HOLT FOR CONGRESS
04/10/2010 1000.00 10930783377
KERRY, JOHN F
VIA JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT INC
04/23/2004 2000.00 24961471454
ZEITZ, JOSHUA M
VIA ZEITZ FOR CONGRESS
06/18/2008 250.00 28932239555
10/21/2008 500.00 28993688026
5.512 X 10^15 is the Weight of the Atmosphere
The CO2 can’t be right though, because 0.039% of this is CO2.
Remember, my question for Christi to ask is how much has persisted since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?
If we are emitting it and it gets absorbed as quickly as it is emitted, then it is of no concern.
My understanding is that something on the order of 0.0013 x 10^-58 is the correct answer. I saw a video somewhere that laid this all out and I think it would be devastating to anyone arguing AGW.
Yes, I noticed that I had the CO2 too low by a factor of 1000. I corrected the answer in #68.
Remember, my question for Christi to ask is how much has persisted since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution?
If we are emitting it and it gets absorbed as quickly as it is emitted, then it is of no concern.
My understanding is that something on the order of 0.0013 x 10^-58 is the correct answer. I saw a video somewhere that laid this all out and I think it would be devastating to anyone arguing AGW.
It is known from various experiments that the CO2 has increased by 100 ppm since the start of the Industrial Revolution, so saying that is not increasing is only going to be devastating to your argument.
No, but you are looking at the total gross emission.
I am talking what is the net net persisting co2.
We aren’t arguing it isn’t increasing, we are quantifying for the public how much.
That is the problem right? We are increasing it? so how much, really is it?
Almost nothing you can measure. I remember the guy in the video said you needed 3-5 years just to be certain because it is so small it is in in the margin of error.
Remember, we are arguing we don’t have to reduce emissions but you are trying to quantify how much we are emitting, that doesn’t matter.
ok, let me see if I have this right.
100ppm of co2 with co2 equal to 0.039% of the total weight.
So, that would be roughly 3.9 x 10^-10 tons?
It going to be something crazy low like that.
ah, I think that 100ppm is the net increase, not the human contributed portion.
You have to take volcanoes, forest fires, etc.. into account. It is a fraction of that too.
The earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age and we are still coming out of it. CO2 increasing has natural components to it.
There's no question that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing from year to year. As I understand it, it is possible to tell that this is from fossil fuel burning because the increased CO2 does not contain carbon-14.
It sounds like the arguments on your video are bogus.
The absolute worst greenhouse gas on the planet is not CO2 nor is it methane.
It is (wait for it)......... water vapor.
We’re doomed!
No, not all the increase is from fossil fuel burning.
Forest Fires give off the same CO2 that is emitted from the local power plant.
Also, they count CO2 from decomposing plants in the increase too because they said it is due to us increasing the temperature.
They have made man the catch all, they say it is all due to man but not all the increase is due to fossil burning.
I will see if I can find the video and send it to you.
It was very boring because it when into great detail.
Broke AGW down to the theory of the straw that broke the camels back. We put the straw on the camels back so therefore it is all our fault and therefore we broke the camels back. It is a self feeding argument. But when you expose the straw, which is the size of the pin of a needle in a sack of sugar you are stunned.
Long set of calculations. Really the point wasn’t to get us to go through them. The point was to get them to go through them. If they even could.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.