Bronze Member
A new report offers extensive scientific, peer-reviewed evidence for man-made Global Warming. But despite worldwide, lengthy, widely-accepted scientific evidence, it must be a hoax, because one senator says so.
two new reports underscore impact of manmade global warming/
Platinum Member
I read the whole article you linked to, because in spite of what some people think, I try to keep an open mind. First off I noticed that the writer, Andrew Freedman, is not just a "reporter". He actually has a Masters in Climate and Society from Columbia University. So he is no dummy. After reading his article, I read the whole report that the article was based on. I suggest that you take a look at it. Nowhere in the report can I find the term "manmade global warming"...although Freedman uses it in his article. That makes me suspicious. So I checked some of the peer reviews.:Originally Posted by sdcal
A new report offers extensive scientific, peer-reviewed evidence for man-made Global Warming. But despite worldwide, lengthy, widely-accepted scientific evidence, it must be a hoax, because one senator says so.
two new reports underscore impact of manmade global warming/
"There has indeed been some warming, perhaps about 0.8 degrees Celsius, since the end of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early 1800s. Some of that warming has probably come from increased amounts of CO2, but the timing of the warming—much of it before CO2 levels had increased appreciably—suggests that a substantial fraction of the warming is from natural causes that have nothing to do with mankind.
Frustrated by the lack of computer-predicted warming over the past decade, some IPCC supporters have been claiming that “extreme weather” has become more common because of more CO2. But there is no hard evidence this is true. After an unusually cold winter in 2011 (December 2010-February 2011) the winter of 2012 was unusually warm in the continental United States. But the winter of 2012 was bitter in Europe, Asia and Alaska.
Weather conditions similar to 2012 occurred in the winter of 1942, when the U.S. Midwest was unusually warm, and when the Wehrmacht encountered the formidable forces of “General Frost” in a Russian winter not unlike the one Russians just had.
Large fluctuations from warm to cold winters have been the rule for the U.S., as one can see from records kept by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. For example, the winters of 1932 and 1934 were as warm as or warmer than the 2011-2012 one and the winter of 1936 was much colder.....http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/2...enco-and-karl/
Platinum Member
Cute little chart, but not the right one.Not even close to being true.
"U.S. Crude production" has nothing to do with untapped crude oil that has been discovered worldwide in the last 50 years. My statement is true.....unless you come up with a new chart.
"Obama is the domestic oil and gas president."....Ha!
Platinum Member
I didn't ignore that statement. It is true, it had to be included. Likewise the statement about the massive reduction of "man made" CO2 in the United States is also true.
Therefore I think that logic would encourage the environmental crowd to turn their attention to the evil industries of other countries like China, Russia and India. Shut them down and save the world. American industries are doing the right thing......right?
Supreme Member
So your original point was that renewable energy is not important for the USA because there has been so much 'untapped crude' found in other countries that aren't which are not the USA?
Hmmmmmm ... something seems to be a little off with that reasoning ... what can it be?
Reminds me of the Keystone 2 pipeline arguments that building a pipeline that allows Canadian oil to be shipped to other countries that are not the USA is somehow essential for "American Energy Independence".
Nothing's wrong with Naked Ambition! --> T-shirts for nudists
Platinum Member
No, I'm not saying that......and I am sorry for your misunderstanding.
What I said was: "Today we seem to have found more oil in the ground than we had 50 years ago."
If you remember, some folks were saying that we would consume the world's supply of crude oil by the year 2000. (the myth of "peak oil") Today, exploration has uncovered vast amounts of oil that were overlooked years ago. Sort of like oil as a renewable resource.
Bronze Member
Wow! am impressed that you read and analyzed the entire 282 page scientific report on all aspects of the world's climate in 2011. However, if you just searched for that specific phrase, I'm sure you couldn't find it. Instead it uses the scientific terms and is very specific. For instance, I found this:
"Sulfur hexafluoride is primarily used as a dielectric insulator for transmission of electricity and emissions are entirely anthropogenic. Its global average mixing ratio in 2011 was 7.31 ppt (ppt = pmol mol-1, dry air), an increase of 0.28 ppt over 2010 (Fig. 2.41). The average linear growth rate was 0.22 ± 0.01 ppt yr -1 from 1995 to 2007. Since 2007, the growth rate has averaged 0.28 ppt yr."
The key word here is anthropogenic, which means man-made. Here they refer to sulfur hexafluoride, which is a strong greenhouse gas, and its continued increase.
Platinum Member
Yes I remember that part. I had to research what (ppt = pmol mol-1, dry air) means to those of us who are not scientists. What they are talking about is equal to a drop of water in an Olympic sized swimming pool or a phart in a hurricane. Is Sulfur hexafluoride anthropogenic? Yes. Is it increasing? Yes. Is it causing global warming.....they can't say.
But lets assume that they conducted an experiment in which they added the exact amount of Sulfur hexafluoride to a mock-up of the Earth's atmosphere and low and behold the temperature went up. That would prove that Sulfur hexafluoride was indeed a culprit. So we would have to treat Sulfur hexafluoride like CFC's and ban its production world wide. Now what would that to to the transmission of electricity?? Of course we banned CFC's years ago and drove up the costs of air conditioning and refrigeration...and we still have those pesky holes in the ozone.
Silver Member
Nope. Wrong Again Gloria.
The phrase "Peak Oil" does not refer to running out of oil, or any amount of oil consumption or oil exploration or oil discovery or the amount of oil reserves in the ground...and certainly not to what "some folks were saying" as you claim. (Was one them your accountant?)
It's also not a "myth" as you label it. Hubbert's Peak may have been a scientific "theory" when it was first presented by Hubbert in 1956, but it has proven to be a fact.
In any case, since I have an aversion to providing research to conservatives who refuse to learn actual facts...and since you're probably the only person on the forum who doesn't know what "Peak Oil" actually means....why don't you Google up the phrase "Peak Oil" and tell us what it means.
And yes...this means you get a do-over at defining "Peak Oil".
Last edited by Navigator; 07-13-2012 at 05:15 PM.
"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." - Ayn Rand (probably speaking to Teabaggers, IMHO)
Platinum Member
I was wondering when we would hear from Navigator (the Nit-picker) again. Welcome back. We missed you.
Firstly, I have no idea what or where Hubbert's peak is and no inclination to learn about it. I was referencing "peak oil"...a concept that has been around since the early 1900's.
I labeled it a myth because Google turns up more "Myth of Peak Oil" and "Peak Oil Myth" or "Peak Oil debunked" titles than any other. Makes one wonder...
Secondly, Since YOU don't do "do-overs", why on earth would you expect me to-do-a-do-over? What I will do is take this opportunity to expand on my original point (that you can't seem to understand).
There have been ignorant fools loose in this country since oil was first discovered. These idiots only want to destroy the petroleum industry. They started yapping in the 1880s, when production was concentrated in Pennsylvania. They predicted that no oil would be found west of the Mississippi. Then oil was found in Texas and Oklahoma. They started scare tactics after the two world wars. And in the 1970s, they said that the world was going to fall off the "oil mountain." But since 1978, world oil output has increased by 30%. One lame prediction from the 1970's was that U.S. oil production would soon "peak" at 1.5 million barrels per day, the economy would stagnate and the end would be near.
By 2010 U.S. oil production reached 5.5 million barrels per day...and growing.
Like I said, it's almost like the Earth is producing more crude oil for us to use. Imagine that.....Oil...a renewal resource.
And them there is this:
Last week the Department of the Interior released a report showing that energy development on federal lands created 1.5 million jobs, with the vast majority being from production of oil, coal and natural gas. A tiny fraction of the jobs (fewer than 7,500) were created by renewable energy sources (the future!) like wind and solar power.
Yet those unproductive areas of energy production are exactly where the Obama administration wants to double down, while stifling the productive areas. Case in point: a new five-year offshore oil drilling plan that effectively restricts oil exploration to only areas now covered, leaving vast portions off our Atlantic and Pacific coasts once again off-limits. The Obama approach is to allow only one energy type to be harnessed offshore, welcoming wind turbines off the mid-Atlantic coast in an area he's now placing off-limits to oil. What a dummy!
P.S. Just so you don't have to torture yourself and comment about the actual subject......I left one little grammatical error in this post. Lets see how long it takes you to find it...good luck.
Last edited by Gloria; 07-14-2012 at 03:34 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote