A Real Physicist Responds to the Climate Change Scam

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank1400PennAve:

India says its carbon emissions will keep rising TheHill

India emits only 1.9 tons of carbon per person annually, less than the 5-ton international average. But it has 1.2 billion people and relies largely on coal for energy.

Mass of Earth atmosphere = 5.3 x 1018 km, or 5,300,000,000,000,000 tons

How many tons are those darn Indians generating?

 

[DriftingSand]

Can dispute the sky is blue all you like. The sky's blue though just as climate change is happening.

"Climate change" has been occurring since the earth came to exist.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did you know that there are literal seas of hydrocarbons on other planets in the solar system?...Why then do you think that the same process that created the hydrocarbons there isn't at work here?

Because we're on a different planet with wildly different conditions. Temperatures here are not -300F, and the free oxygen quickly oxidizes any stray hydrocarbons.

Do you really believe the term fossil fuel literally?

The hilarious thing is just how many deranged conspiracy theories you fall for. As John Cook pointed out so accurately in his Conspiracy Ideation paper, the same logic-deficient mindset that causes people to fall for the denier conspiracy theory also causes those same people to fall for a whole pack of crazy conspiracy theories.

So what if nobody can find this abiotic oil (beyond a trace) that you claim exists in near limitless amounts? You have faith. Frank has faith. Jon has faith. Faith will get you through the crisis. Just keep believing, and that abiotic oil will magically appear.

The issue is how the hydrocarbons are produced in the first place. Earth has as active and hot mantle that can generate hydrocarbons

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Is there anything to the possibility most climate change deniers are religious and think God wouldn't allow dire consequences of global warming to effect his favorite little people? I remember a classmate in the 80s saying if Russia launched a nuclear attack against us, God would wave his hand and make the ICBMs vanish. The absurdity of that made it burn itself into my long-term memory. Is something similar going on though with deniers?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is there anything to the possibility most climate change deniers are religious and think God wouldn't allow dire consequences of global warming to effect his favorite little people? I remember a classmate in the 80s saying if Russia launched a nuclear attack against us, God would wave his hand and make the ICBMs vanish. The absurdity of that made it burn itself into my long-term memory. Is something similar going on though with deniers?

What dire consequences? Why is warmer bad?

 

[Dot Com]

Frank1400PennAve:

India says its carbon emissions will keep rising TheHill

India emits only 1.9 tons of carbon per person annually, less than the 5-ton international average. But it has 1.2 billion people and relies largely on coal for energy.

Mass of Earth atmosphere = 5.3 x 1018 km, or 5,300,000,000,000,000 tons

How many tons are those darn Indians generating?

you didn't read my link?

As long as we're on the topic, you DO know that different GHG's have different lifespans in the atmosphere. I believe CO2 is what? 30 years? Methane has a shorter life span but is more harmful in the short run.

Methane Emissions Climate Change US EPA

Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.

 

[jc456]

Frank1400PennAve:

India says its carbon emissions will keep rising TheHill

India emits only 1.9 tons of carbon per person annually, less than the 5-ton international average. But it has 1.2 billion people and relies largely on coal for energy.

Mass of Earth atmosphere = 5.3 x 1018 km, or 5,300,000,000,000,000 tons

How many tons are those darn Indians generating?

you didn't read my link?

As long as we're on the topic, you DO know that different GHG's have different lifespans in the atmosphere. I believe CO2 is what? 30 years? Methane has a shorter life span but is more harmful in the short run.

Methane Emissions Climate Change US EPA

Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.

yawn........................................

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is there anything to the possibility most climate change deniers are religious and think God wouldn't allow dire consequences of global warming to effect his favorite little people? I remember a classmate in the 80s saying if Russia launched a nuclear attack against us, God would wave his hand and make the ICBMs vanish. The absurdity of that made it burn itself into my long-term memory. Is something similar going on though with deniers?

Infallible way of telling if someone is a total fucking moron is when they call you a "DENIER!!!!!" for asking questions

100% Accurate

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank1400PennAve:

India says its carbon emissions will keep rising TheHill

India emits only 1.9 tons of carbon per person annually, less than the 5-ton international average. But it has 1.2 billion people and relies largely on coal for energy.

Mass of Earth atmosphere = 5.3 x 1018 km, or 5,300,000,000,000,000 tons

How many tons are those darn Indians generating?

you didn't read my link?

As long as we're on the topic, you DO know that different GHG's have different lifespans in the atmosphere. I believe CO2 is what? 30 years? Methane has a shorter life span but is more harmful in the short run.

Methane Emissions Climate Change US EPA

Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.

Once again, mass of Earth's atmosphere in tons = 5,300,000,000,000,000 tons

In their faked experiment, Mythbusters couldn't get methane to move the temperature needle at all and we know they had to cheat and move CO2 up to 7.3% to get any temperature increase there

 

[Dot Com]

Good denier thread. More of the same corp-sponsored propaganda but good nonetheless.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Good denier thread. More of the same corp-sponsored propaganda but good nonetheless.

Tell us again how those darn injuns are going to put tons of CO2 into the atmosphere

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[westwall]

Frank1400PennAve:

India says its carbon emissions will keep rising TheHill

India emits only 1.9 tons of carbon per person annually, less than the 5-ton international average. But it has 1.2 billion people and relies largely on coal for energy.

Mass of Earth atmosphere = 5.3 x 1018 km, or 5,300,000,000,000,000 tons

How many tons are those darn Indians generating?

you didn't read my link?

As long as we're on the topic, you DO know that different GHG's have different lifespans in the atmosphere. I believe CO2 is what? 30 years? Methane has a shorter life span but is more harmful in the short run.

Methane Emissions Climate Change US EPA

Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.

CO2 is between 5 and 15 years. Only in the fevered imaginations of the anti science AGW cultists is it over that. Regardless, the gasses you mention are TRACE gasses. They are less than 1% of the total atmosphere combined!

 

[bripat9643]

Not one person who has ever claimed to have debunked the climate change/global warming theories has ever offered an argument against a more important question,

Why shouldn't we proceed as if manmade global warming was an indisputable fact, SINCE...

...all of the measures proposed are environmentally sound and sensible actions to take,

whether global warming is happening or not?

Do you suppose it could be the trillions of dollars they will cost?

You stupid nimrod.

 

[bripat9643]

Is there anything to the possibility most climate change deniers are religious and think God wouldn't allow dire consequences of global warming to effect his favorite little people? I remember a classmate in the 80s saying if Russia launched a nuclear attack against us, God would wave his hand and make the ICBMs vanish. The absurdity of that made it burn itself into my long-term memory. Is something similar going on though with deniers?

I'm an atheist, so how does your lame theory explain me?

 

[Howey]

When you dig below the surface and steer clear of the hype and total bullshit the Warmers try to pass off as "Science" it becomes quickly apparent that AGW is the biggest scam in the history of science. I've excerpted part of a resignation letter Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara sent to the APS. You'll remember APS because the AGWCult trots out their "Endorsement" of the AGW scam as somehow significant and meaningful. You'll soon see there far less to this "endorsement" than meets the eye

"So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?"

US physics professor Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life 8211 Telegraph Blogs

Dude...Harold Lewis has been dead for three years. Can't you find any more (actually less) relevant climate change denier bullshit to spread in the compost heap of stupid?

 

[Old Rocks]

Frank1400PennAve:

India says its carbon emissions will keep rising TheHill

India emits only 1.9 tons of carbon per person annually, less than the 5-ton international average. But it has 1.2 billion people and relies largely on coal for energy.

Mass of Earth atmosphere = 5.3 x 1018 km, or 5,300,000,000,000,000 tons

How many tons are those darn Indians generating?

you didn't read my link?

As long as we're on the topic, you DO know that different GHG's have different lifespans in the atmosphere. I believe CO2 is what? 30 years? Methane has a shorter life span but is more harmful in the short run.

Methane Emissions Climate Change US EPA

Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.

CO2 is between 5 and 15 years. Only in the fevered imaginations of the anti science AGW cultists is it over that. Regardless, the gasses you mention are TRACE gasses. They are less than 1% of the total atmosphere combined!

OK, what do real scientists have to say in articles published in peer reviewed journals?

http://download.springer.com/static...496_bc8d33cc16c86d31b78339821afd462d&ext=.pdf

The millennial atmospheric lifetime
of anthropogenic CO2
David Archer & Victor Brovkin
Received: 19 December 2006 / Published online: 4 June 2008
# The Author(s) 2008
Abstract The notion is pervasive in the climate science community and in the public at
large that the climate impacts of fossil fuel CO2 release will only persist for a few centuries.
This conclusion has no basis in theory or models of the atmosphere/ocean carbon cycle,
which we review here. The largest fraction of the CO2 recovery will take place on time
scales of centuries, as CO2 invades the ocean, but a significant fraction of the fossil fuel
CO2, ranging in published models in the literature from 20–60%, remains airborne for a
thousand years or longer. Ultimate recovery takes place on time scales of hundreds of
thousands of years, a geologic longevity typically associated in public perceptions with
nuclear waste. The glacial/interglacial climate cycles demonstrate that ice sheets and sea
level respond dramatically to millennial-timescale changes in climate forcing. There are
also potential positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle, including methane hydrates in the
ocean, and peat frozen in permafrost, that are most sensitive to the long tail of the fossil fuel
CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[Old Rocks]

Journal of Geophysical Research

Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time - Archer - 2005 - Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans 1978 ndash 2012 - Wiley Online Library

Enhanced Article (HTML) Get PDF (165K)
Keywords
Jump to…
Abstract
[1] A model of the ocean and seafloor carbon cycle is subjected to injection of new CO2 pulses of varying sizes to estimate the resident atmospheric fraction over the coming 100 kyr. The model is used to separate the processes of air-sea equilibrium, an ocean temperature feedback, CaCO3 compensation, and silicate weathering on the residual anthropogenic pCO2 in the atmosphere at 1, 10, and 100 kyr. The mean lifetime of anthropogenic CO2 is dominated by the long tail, resulting in a range of 30–35 kyr. The long lifetime of fossil fuel carbon release implies that the anthropogenic climate perturbation may have time to interact with ice sheets, methane clathrate deposits, and glacial/interglacial climate dynamics.

Jump to…
1. Introduction
[2] The idea that anthropogenic CO2 release may affect the climate of the earth for hundreds of thousands of years has not reached general public awareness. Goodstein [2004] reports that fossil fuel CO2 will disappear after a millennium. This misconception is widespread in scientific and public discussion. It certainly makes sense to focus our attention on the century timescale within which we live out our lives, and within which most of the CO2 will be absorbed by the natural carbon cycle. According to economic theory, application of a discount rate largely eliminates our concern about an effect that is projected tens of thousands of years in the future [Grossman and Krueger, 1995]. However, the long-term consequences of fossil fuel CO2 release have never reached the same level of public awareness and concern as does the production of long-lived nuclear wastes, for example.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Can dispute the sky is blue all you like. The sky's blue though just as climate change is happening.

Climate change is axiomatic. The climate has never been static.

The problem here is that a minute increase in temperatures has sparked a panic.

And the powers that be never let a crisis even an overblown one go to waste

 

[Old Rocks]

Online journal of the American Meteological Society. Looks like once again ol' Walleyes expects us to believe him in spite of what all the working scientists are saying.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Lifetime of Anthropogenic Climate Change: Millennial Time Scales of Potential CO2 and Surface Temperature Perturbations
M.Eby,K.Zickfeld, and A.Montenegro
School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

D.Archer
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

K. J.Meissner and A. J.Weaver
School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada





Abstract
Multimillennial simulations with a fully coupled climate–carbon cycle model are examined to assess the persistence of the climatic impacts of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It is found that the time required to absorb anthropogenic CO2 strongly depends on the total amount of emissions; for emissions similar to known fossil fuel reserves, the time to absorb 50% of the CO2 is more than 2000 yr. The long-term climate response appears to be independent of the rate at which CO2 is emitted over the next few centuries. Results further suggest that the lifetime of the surface air temperature anomaly might be as much as 60% longer than the lifetime of anthropogenic CO2 and that two-thirds of the maximum temperature anomaly will persist for longer than 10 000 yr. This suggests that the consequences of anthropogenic CO2 emissions will persist for many millennia.

 

[Old Rocks]

Can dispute the sky is blue all you like. The sky's blue though just as climate change is happening.

Climate change is axiomatic. The climate has never been static.

The problem here is that a minute increase in temperatures has sparked a panic.

And the powers that be never let a crisis even an overblown one go to waste

So you say, yet all the scientists studying the problem say differant.