Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Cl

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740

    U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Cl

    U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...8-3c63dc2d02cb

    Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

    The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

    Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)


    This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.

    Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

    “Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]

    Scientists from Around the World Dissent

    This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)

    Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”

    This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about half a dozen” skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK)

    The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

    Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

    The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”

    A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) ]

    The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.


    Examples of “consensus” claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:

    Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006 - LINK)

    CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): The scientific debate is over.” “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” (LINK)

    On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” (LINK)

    Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” (LINK)

    Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.”

    Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case. (LINK)

    The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears. (LINK)

    ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (LINK)

    Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:

    Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!”

    Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote.

    Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote.

    Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

    Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.

    France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac­ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!”

    Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”

    Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases. “

    Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.”

    Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”

    Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at University of Columbia expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.

    India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.”

    USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.”

    Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

    New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.”

    South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.”

    Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: ““We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.”

    Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.”

    Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”

    China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.”

    Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.”

    Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.”

    Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.”

    USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

    Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

    The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK)

    Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)

    The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK )

    UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.”

    The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate.” (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century” (LINK)

    A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes.” (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears"

    With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the “silent majority” of scientists.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    US
    Posts
    744
    But....but....but, they had a CONSENSUS!!!!!!

    IPCC = The word of God right?


    Idiots, all of them. Thankfully the common sense movement is gathering steam and it will hopefully displace the rabble rousing alarmists.

    Gore wins the Nobel Prize? What's next? Putin wins Man of.....ahh, nevermind.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Looks interesting, will be nice reading on the train ride home. The tone of the introduction realy stinks though.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740

    Gore camp reaction

    Gore camp reaction ...
    drudge report
    More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says.

    The scientists — many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis — cast doubt on the "scientific consensus" that man-made global warming imperils the planet.

    "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit," said Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, one of the researchers quoted in the report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

    "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached," Mr. Tennekes said in the report.

    Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report debunks Mr. Gore's claim that the "debate is over."

    "The endless claims of a 'consensus' about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day," he said.

    After a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil Corp.

    Exxon Mobil spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories.

    "Recycling of that kind of discredited conspiracy theory is nothing more than a distraction from the real challenge facing society and the energy industry," he said. "And that challenge is how are we going to provide the energy needed to support economic and social development while reducing greenhouse-gas emissions."

    The Republican report comes on the heels of Saturday's United Nations climate conference in Bali, Indonesia, where conferees adopted a plan to negotiate a new pact to create verifiable measurements to fight global warming in two years.

    In the Senate report, environmental scientist David W. Schnare of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said he was skeptical because "conclusions about the cause of the apparent warming stand on the shoulders of incredibly uncertain data and models. ... As a policy matter, one has to be less willing to take extreme actions when data are highly uncertain."

    The hundreds of others in the report — climatologists, oceanographers, geologists, glaciologists, physicists and paleoclimatologists — voice varying degrees of criticism of the popular global-warming theory. Their testimony challenges the idea that the climate-change debate is "settled" and runs counter to the claim that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.

    The report's authors expect some of the scientists will recant their remarks under intense pressure from the public and from within professional circles to conform to the global-warming theory, a committee staffer said.

    Several scientists in the report said many colleagues share their skepticism about man-made climate change but don't speak out publicly for fear of retribution, according to the report.

    "Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," atmospheric scientist Nathan Paldor, professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said in the report.

    The IPCC has about 2,500 members.
    HEATED DEBATE

    The following are comments from some of the more than 400 scientists in a Republican report on global warming:

    "Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double, man would not perceive the temperature impact."

    Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences

    •"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] number — entirely without merit. ... I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

    Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute

    •"The hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The [greenhouse-gas] hypothesis does not do this. ... The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

    David Wojick, expert reviewer for U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

    •"The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming."

    Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo-Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

    •"There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried."

    Anton Uriarte, a professor of physical geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain

    Source: Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee
    Last edited by Logan13; 12-21-2007 at 11:54 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,365
    WELL HERE IS THE PROBLEM..


    We take OIL, or COAL, other SOLID ELEMENTS,,, and we turn them into energy, and we convert them into a GAS.

    This GAS is released...
    and its not like it eventually falls back down to earth and turns back to a solid.

    NO..

    it stays a gas.
    Whether that is the main cause of global warming or not, it is still a problem.
    -------------
    Volcanic activity has been blamed for global warming millennia+ ago
    and it still probably plays a part today also..

    but.. If we look way back to the time of dinosaurs.. the earth was a warmer planet than even today.. Than it cooled down and had ice-ages..

    now it has started warming up again..
    More volcanic activity? possible
    but also Humans activity..
    Caveman playing with fire.. starting forest fires.. burning down forests, causing the extinction of animals.

    Burning down forests to create farmland.. Thousands and thousands of years ago..

    We've been creating emission for a very long time.
    Today we do it with our cars and buses, and industry.

    I really do not give a rats *** about global warming, but I do find it insulting to my common sense when people try to tell me that Human Kind plays absolutely no role in what is happening to the planet.

    We are the predominant living species on the planet, and shape the Earth on a daily basis, and we also are the only ones aside from Mother nature, that have the ability to change the nature of elements and things around us.

    Mother Natures, and Humans are the major reasons for any change of this planet.

  6. #6
    If global warming is here then we cant stop it there is other stuff like perma frost that releasing several million time of fumes that are causing it.
    This is about money
    dose any body remember the Ozone craze in the 80s funny how after it was found to have been discovered in the early 1900's this also went away!!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,365
    Quote Originally Posted by 39+1 View Post
    If global warming is here then we cant stop it there is other stuff like perma frost that releasing several million time of fumes that are causing it.
    This is about money
    dose any body remember the Ozone craze in the 80s funny how after it was found to have been discovered in the early 1900's this also went away!!
    I dont think it went away..
    They still tell us to put on Skin protection during the summer..

    and now they have like SUN RISK EXPOSURE WEATHER MAN segments on TV.
    telling us if today is a dangerous day or not..

    I think the broader ozone layer discussion has faded, but what has increased are the effects of the ozone layer thing.. which is "be more careful outdoors, wear skin protection" "weather reports on dangers"

    they even got smog reports for pollution now too,, even though overall i think we talk less about pollution than we did before.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Pooks View Post
    WELL HERE IS THE PROBLEM..


    We take OIL, or COAL, other SOLID ELEMENTS,,, and we turn them into energy, and we convert them into a GAS.

    This GAS is released...
    and its not like it eventually falls back down to earth and turns back to a solid.

    NO..

    it stays a gas.
    Whether that is the main cause of global warming or not, it is still a problem.
    -------------
    Volcanic activity has been blamed for global warming millennia+ ago
    and it still probably plays a part today also..

    but.. If we look way back to the time of dinosaurs.. the earth was a warmer planet than even today.. Than it cooled down and had ice-ages..

    now it has started warming up again..
    More volcanic activity? possible
    but also Humans activity..
    Caveman playing with fire.. starting forest fires.. burning down forests, causing the extinction of animals.

    Burning down forests to create farmland.. Thousands and thousands of years ago..

    We've been creating emission for a very long time.
    Today we do it with our cars and buses, and industry.

    I really do not give a rats *** about global warming, but I do find it insulting to my common sense when people try to tell me that Human Kind plays absolutely no role in what is happening to the planet.

    We are the predominant living species on the planet, and shape the Earth on a daily basis, and we also are the only ones aside from Mother nature, that have the ability to change the nature of elements and things around us.

    Mother Natures, and Humans are the major reasons for any change of this planet.

    Carbon dioxide may remain a gas, but it is absorbed by plant life. The plants then release oxygen back into the atmosphere. This is taught in 5th grade science.......... Do I need to explain why the sky appears to be blue as well?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,365
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    Carbon dioxide may remain a gas, but it is absorbed by plant life. The plants then release oxygen back into the atmosphere. This is taught in 5th grade science.......... Do I need to explain why the sky appears to be blue as well?
    If it were that easy, I think we'd all have a plant, at the end of our tailpipe, converting Carbon dioxide right back to Oxygen before it ever even exits into the atmosphere..

    Big Oak tree's used as filters in Industry smoke stacks..

  10. #10
    Dizz28's Avatar
    Dizz28 is offline I reject your reality and substitute my own
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Homeless...
    Posts
    6,170
    It sorta is that simple... Here's the equation:

    6 CO2(gas) + 12 H2O(liquid) + photons → C6H12O6(aqueous) + 6 O2(gas) + 6 H2O(liquid)
    (carbon dioxide) + (water) + (light energy) → (glucose) + (oxygen) + (water)

    But remember, land bound plants aren't the main supplier of oxygen on Earth. Algea are responsable for 80%+ of the worlds oxygen production. Produced by Photosynthesis as the above equation explains

    And here's and example of how it's used practically:

    Algae Bioreactors are used by some powerplants to reduce CO2 emissions. The CO2 can be pumped into a pond, or some kind of tank, on which the algae feed. Alternatively, the bioreactor can be installed directly on top of a smokestack. This technology has been pioneered by Massachusetts-based GreenFuelTechnologies.

    An article I found about it: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...erplants_x.htm
    This is one of the companies pioneering in this technology: http://www.greenfuelonline.com/
    Last edited by Dizz28; 12-23-2007 at 03:09 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Dizz28 View Post
    It sorta is that simple... Here's the equation:

    6 CO2(gas) + 12 H2O(liquid) + photons → C6H12O6(aqueous) + 6 O2(gas) + 6 H2O(liquid)
    (carbon dioxide) + (water) + (light energy) → (glucose) + (oxygen) + (water)

    But remember, land bound plants aren't the main supplier of oxygen on Earth. Algea are responsable for 80%+ of the worlds oxygen production. Produced by Photosynthesis as the above equation explains

    And here's and example of how it's used practically:

    Algae Bioreactors are used by some powerplants to reduce CO2 emissions. The CO2 can be pumped into a pond, or some kind of tank, on which the algae feed. Alternatively, the bioreactor can be installed directly on top of a smokestack. This technology has been pioneered by Massachusetts-based GreenFuelTechnologies.
    Thank you. This is a great example of what we all should know, but somehow forget about while being force-fed the whole "sky is falling" mantra........

  12. #12
    Dizz28's Avatar
    Dizz28 is offline I reject your reality and substitute my own
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Homeless...
    Posts
    6,170
    Some more to add to this.. Sorry for the multiple posts....

    A GreenFuel installation requires no retooling of existing facilities. Ongoing site operations are not interrupted, and the host facility is not exposed to hazardous materials or other risks.

    A single pass through the GreenFuel system significantly reduces carbon dioxide in the waste gas. Using the sun as a source of energy, algae convert the CO2 into valuable compounds. Growing up to 30 times faster than other terrestrial plants, algae are regularly harvested for conversion into biofuels, feed, or can be recycled back to the host facility. Recycling algae in a closed system reduces the need for fossil fuels.

    ....In addition, the system does not require fertile land or potable water.


    So not only can you use Algae to scrub the emissions, they can harvest it for energy and feed for livestock. A truely renewable resource
    Last edited by Dizz28; 12-23-2007 at 08:12 PM. Reason: misspelled a word

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    This is taught in 5th grade science.......... Do I need to explain why the sky appears to be blue as well?
    They teach Rayleigh scattering in fifth grade?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    So Cali. Inland Empire
    Posts
    1,223
    cool thanks for the read.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern View Post
    They teach Rayleigh scattering in fifth grade?
    It is often taught as the Tyndall Effect. And yes my nephew, a 5th grader, has been taught this in class.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Logan13 View Post
    It is often taught as the Tyndall Effect. And yes my nephew, a 5th grader, has been taught this in class.
    Nice. the little I can remember of science classes in 5th grade sucked royaly.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    6,359
    Well now I have read through this report twice. I was suprised that there was quite alot of climate scientist, atmospheric scientists, geologists ect in there. I counted around 150 that should know what they are talking about.

    There rest seemed to have no experience with climate science and no relevant academic degree. What the hell does economists for instance know about climate science? The report would be more serious if they cut out the unrelevant stuff. For instance it seemed to have a fetisch about polar bears, I dont know how many in the reportthat mentioned that the polar bear population is growing without giving any comment whatsoever about climate science.

    Anyway, the relevant scientists more or less had the same objections. Many of them said the sun is more important and plenty where refering to the hypothetical sun-cosmic ray-cloud connection that is proposed by Svensmark. If the hypothesis is strenghtened by the CLOUD experiment at CERN it will be very interesting. If its not however that objection is destroyed entirely. It also seems like Svensmark has been toying around with the statistics to get the nice match betwen solar activity and temperature but I havent looked into that yet, if its true it also largely kills the objection. A few other said the sun where more important without giving a specific mechanism for the effect.

    The other big objection among most was that there is still so much unknown about various atmospheric processes that we cant say for sure if co2 has a significant effect. The main unknowns beeing precipitation and cloud formation. The IPCC also admits as far as I know that cloud formation is a big unknown. But its hard to get a good view on how important cloud formation processes realy is and how much the global cloud cover varies over time.

    One other frequent objection is that the absorption band that co2 covers is more or less saturated already and that a dubbling of co2 wont have a large effect. Should be quite easy to check and it makes sense considering how absorption works.

    There was a few other objections that popped up quite frequently that I cant remember right now. I have filled half a notebook with stuff I want to look into deeper. The report had more meat then I was expecting and was very interesting to read.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern View Post
    Well now I have read through this report twice. I was suprised that there was quite alot of climate scientist, atmospheric scientists, geologists ect in there. I counted around 150 that should know what they are talking about.

    There rest seemed to have no experience with climate science and no relevant academic degree. What the hell does economists for instance know about climate science? The report would be more serious if they cut out the unrelevant stuff. For instance it seemed to have a fetisch about polar bears, I dont know how many in the reportthat mentioned that the polar bear population is growing without giving any comment whatsoever about climate science.

    Anyway, the relevant scientists more or less had the same objections. Many of them said the sun is more important and plenty where refering to the hypothetical sun-cosmic ray-cloud connection that is proposed by Svensmark. If the hypothesis is strenghtened by the CLOUD experiment at CERN it will be very interesting. If its not however that objection is destroyed entirely. It also seems like Svensmark has been toying around with the statistics to get the nice match betwen solar activity and temperature but I havent looked into that yet, if its true it also largely kills the objection. A few other said the sun where more important without giving a specific mechanism for the effect.

    The other big objection among most was that there is still so much unknown about various atmospheric processes that we cant say for sure if co2 has a significant effect. The main unknowns beeing precipitation and cloud formation. The IPCC also admits as far as I know that cloud formation is a big unknown. But its hard to get a good view on how important cloud formation processes realy is and how much the global cloud cover varies over time.

    One other frequent objection is that the absorption band that co2 covers is more or less saturated already and that a dubbling of co2 wont have a large effect. Should be quite easy to check and it makes sense considering how absorption works.

    There was a few other objections that popped up quite frequently that I cant remember right now. I have filled half a notebook with stuff I want to look into deeper. The report had more meat then I was expecting and was very interesting to read.
    Thank you. Somehow I thought that you would be the one to break it down for us.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •