The Ruckers Forum

Forum » Rugby » General Stuff » Moz saw this re climate change
Login to reply
 
 
 
3212 Topic: Moz saw this re climate change
Beeno1

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 10856
Moz saw this re climate change
December 07, 2012, 12:50:24

and it backs up your contentions.

As the total failure of every climate accord, from Kyoto to Doha, to get those nations whose CO2 emissions are rising to agree to policies to cut them becomes more and more obvious, so the risible public statements of Global Salvationists become ever more strident and frankly, ridiculous.

The aim was to reduce the rate of growth of CO2 emissions if not reverse that growth, instead human CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere at an ever faster rate as less developed countries strive for the material standard of living enjoyed for decades by more developed countries. They aren't going to change their energy policies because a bunch of open toe sandal wearing hippies masquerading as NGOs tell them they must.

Fortunately, the total failure of these social engineering cabals thinly disguised as climate gatherings is irrelevant because all the climate models have been proven to wildly exaggerate the consequences of increasing CO2.
Of the three emissions scenarios (No increase, Reduced rate of increase and Business as Usual) at the core of the IPCC projections, the actual increase since 2000 is very significantly greater than business as usual but the projected consequences are wholly invisible.

In terms of statistical significance, global mean temperatures have not risen for more than 15 years, sea surface temperatures have not risen for 10 years, there has been no increase in the rate of sea level rise for 90 years
. True, arctic sea ice extent & volume has declined but antarctic sea ice extent & volume has increased, land ice extent and volume remains in dispute with as many peer reviewed papers saying it's increasing as saying it's decreasing.

Trends in extreme weather are down, there are fewer or no changes in frequency of droughts, floods, cyclones, tornados and heat waves. Regions with 20th century records of water shortages now have too much precipitation, while others with a history of major flood events are drier.

In short, the post modern 'science' of climate change is discredited while the serious science of astronomy increasingly indicates that the next 20-40 years are going to be characterised by solar activity at Maunder Minimum levels, when winter temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were 2-3°C cooler than in the modern warm period.

It doesn't matter how often or how loud Global Salvationists wail, it's going to be clear within 2 years that the temperature forcing due to CO2 ppm increase is overwhelmed by natural variations
.

Image
 

Seems this whole climate change businss is being discredited by real science.


Jalapeno!

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 602
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 07, 2012, 13:27:22

Looks to me like u just included a few graphs to try and give yr ignorance some credibility. The graphs u put up mean absolutely nothing. Here's a graph that is actually relevant in terms of how temperatures are increasing & what we can attribute those increases to:

 

File:Climate Change Attribution.png

 

U see.... forgetting for a moment yr laughably ignorant (& unreferenced) notion that mean temperatures haven't increased for the last 15 years........it's not only about mean temperatures rising and falling, it's what we can attribute those rises and falls to. Even idiots know that global temperatures on earth have risen and fallen dramatically for billions of years but this is the first time that mankind is actually causing climate change...... & that is worrying........ unless yr so selfish and inconsiderate that u only worry about yr own generation and not the future of mankind & the planet..... which is what you climate denialists seem to be doing.

 

Not suprised to see that u are one of the global warming denialists, Baboon-ou. Only the hopelessly stupid and naive are still trying to pretend that global warming is not a real and serious threat. Science has accepted global warming as a fact and it won't be long before people like u (and Moffie by the sounds of it) will be ridiculed to the same extent as Young Earth Creationists or members of the Flat Earth Society.

 

Don't say u weren't warned!


Beeno1

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 10856
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 07, 2012, 14:31:39

rooitwit you complete dope  we are heading for colder times not hotter. But I guess a gullible oak like you would be the first to caught out!

In short, the post modern 'science' of climate change is discredited while the serious science of astronomy increasingly indicates that the next 20-40 years are going to be characterised by solar activity at Maunder Minimum levels, when winter temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were 2-3°C cooler than in the modern warm period.

 bunch of open toe sandal wearing hippies masquerading as NGOs tell them they must.

but the projected consequences are wholly invisible.

It doesn't matter how often or how loud Global Salvationists wail, it's going to be clear within 2 years that the temperature forcing due to CO2 ppm increase is overwhelmed by natural variations.

Hope you are getting the picture rooitwit. Some climatologist I recall think we are heading for an ice age and any warming effect if it happened should be welcomed.

 

 






 

 


Beeno1

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 10856
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 07, 2012, 14:47:55

Rooitwit just to help you see the folly of your ways and how you hav been duped read this:

TEN MYTHS of Global Warming

 MYTH 1:  Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT:  Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.


MYTH 2:  The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase. FACT:  Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

 MYTH 3:  Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT:  Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

 

MYTH 4:  CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT:  Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".

Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.


MYTH 5:  Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT:  Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.


MYTH 6:  The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT:  In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1)     “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute  the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2)     “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming. 


MYTH 7:  CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT:  This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is.  CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included  CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.


MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT:   There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale.  Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.


MYTH 9:  Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

FACT:  Glaciers have been  receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.


 
MYTH 10:  The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT:  The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica. 

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise

Seeing the light rooitwit. Admit it - you have been conned much like the Y2 con

 


Jalapeno!

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 602
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 07, 2012, 14:56:19

Baboon-ou, I'm afraid yr wasting yr time copying and pasting all this ignorant and stupid hogwash cuz Im not reading it.

 

Before u have a cry about that, ask yrself this question........... if someone gave u a book to read and said that reading it would make u believe in the tooth fairy, would u waste yr time reading the book?


Beeno1

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 10856
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 07, 2012, 15:04:39

rooitwit please - you are not reading it becuase it conflicts with your brainwashed views.

You probably think the climate is a reality because of all the hot air that surrounds you ! Bwahahahahahaha

I am glad you have got past believing in the tooth fairy rooitwit but some day you might realise that is not much too shout about. Come on let the light shine in!

 

 


Jalapeno!

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 602
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 07, 2012, 15:44:10

LMAO! I love the irony of u saying rooitwit this and rooitwit that while saying things like "brainwashed" and "let the light shine in" at the same time!

 

Ive asked u before to put up some links to rooitwits old posts so I can see for myself what the fuss is about but u chickened out. I'd still like those links cuz Rooitwit/Rooinek/Rooiass sounds like a legend who obviously kicked yr ass (and Moffie's) so hard that yr still crying about it.

 

Anyway, I see I hurt yr feelings when I said I dont read yr rubbish. Don't feel too bad Baboon-ou, it's not really personal. If a vervet monkey was given a typewriter to play with then I wouldn't bother reading the output for much the same reason as I don't read what u write on here.


bluebok

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 1147
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 07, 2012, 16:13:31

A truly rugby related thread! LOL. Still interesting I guess. I am kinda on the fence with this one. There is evidence for and against global warming and the reasons for it, but it all comes down to one thing. When the environmentalists do the tests the results show that there is global warming and that it is man's fault. And when the Oil companies etc do the same tests, they show the opposite. Bottom line, when you throw enough money at researching something, you can either prove, or disprove whatever you want. I have the following view, when a glacier breaks through my back door here in pretoria, or when I have to catch a boat from here to Joburg, then Global warming will be real...until then, I'll let those for and those against go back and for leaving nothing but questions.  


Beeno1

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 10856
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 07, 2012, 16:14:48

Wahhahahahahaha you don't read what I write on here you say. Jallopy your creds now well and truly shot! Hahahahahahaha


carpetmuncher

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 1396
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 07, 2012, 16:20:09

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

 

the global warming myth is just complete and utter hogwash. the tests by real sciencetists proves that the earth has not risen in temp in the last 16 odd years and has even in some parts of the world lowered than normal. 95% of the earth heat comes from the sun via solar flares and there has been increased activty in that front. the whole agenda of the so called co2 convention is to try and stop 3rd world countries of gaining any form of economic freedom. co2 by its nature does not increase temp. even planets like mars's ice caps on its poles are melting so can you tell me that my SUV here is melting mars's ice ?????

 

they want to enforce that carbon tax just to finance some more programs and the global warming myth is just another ponce making money scheme. its based on lias and deception but the poor basterds that believe this hog wash are the worst

 

why do you think the likes of the west are so mellow in regards to signing the kyoto agreements amoung others ???

 

to stats that i have seen the mid 1600's the world ave temp was at lot higher that what it is now. its just  a cycle that we are going through. no amount of human interaction can cause this type of warming.


Beeno1

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 10856
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 07, 2012, 16:31:59

Rooitwit something else for you to chew on. Much more is going on in the world than we the masses might think.

President Obama is on a path toward establishing a one-world government. This is the warning of Christopher Monckton, a former major policy adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
In December, world leaders will descend upon Copenhagen to sign a United Nations climate change treaty that will succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which is aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and set to expire in 2012. An agreement has been drafted.
The goal of the Copenhagen treaty is to erect an international cap-and-trade regime to curb carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, said to be responsible for man-made global warming. Recently, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned of a “climate catastrophe” - a rising wave of floods, droughts and shrinking food crops - unless the treaty is signed. Mr. Brown even said global warming would inflict more damage than both world wars and the Great Depression combined; the world has only several weeks to save itself from impending doom.
If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice,” he said. Mr. Brown has thus outdone former Vice President Al Gore in fear-mongering and inciting public hysteria.
Global-warming alarmists are using the myth of climate change to impose an embryonic socialist world government. Following the collapse of communism, the West’s progressive elites desperately searched for a viable ideological alternative. They found it in environmentalism.
Although the Green movement wraps itself in the flag of empirical science, it represents the very opposite: a dogma that provides meaning and purpose to its rabid followers. The ideology justifies massive tax increases and government control of the economy; it seeks to cripple free enterprise and curtail market-driven growth. Many of today’s Greens are yesterday’s Reds. (AKA rootwit - hahahahahahahaha)
Global warming is the greatest fraud of our time. The overwhelming scientific evidence shows that, rather than getting hotter, the Earth’s temperatures are cooling. Increasing numbers of leading scientists are challenging the flawed computer models used by eco-alarmists.
Mr. Gore and his supporters cannot answer several simple questions. If the Earth’s temperatures are no longer rising, then how can CO2 emissions be responsible for global warming? How could previous dramatic increases in global temperatures - such as the end of the Ice Age - have taken place without concentrations of CO2? The answer is obvious: Carbon emissions are not connected to fluctuations in global temperatures. (Bwahahahahahahaha its hialrious really)
The mad drive for an international cap-and-trade system is really geared toward achieving the left’s long-sought goal: the destruction of democratic capitalism and national sovereignty. The Greens are poised to succeed where the Reds failed.
The Copenhagen treaty must still be negotiated. Final agreement is far from certain, especially from emerging industrial powers like China, India and Brazil. Yet the draft version is clear about the treaty’s essential elements.
It calls for a massive transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world. The United States would be forced to spend billions of dollars a year in foreign aid to pay for a so-called “climate debt” - a provision to punish wealthy countries for having historically emitted large amounts of CO2, while compensating poor ones for not contributing to greenhouse gases.
The Copenhagen treaty seeks to implement a bureaucratic redistributionist agenda; it is a way for Third World kleptocracies to extort enormous sums of money from America and other rich nations.
Moreover, Mr. Monckton points out that, in paragraph 38, Annex 1, the Copenhagen draft calls for a U.N.-created “government” responsible for taxation, enforcement and redistribution. In other words, the draft treaty explicitly demands that the world body erect an international mechanism with the power to impose emission-reduction targets for each country, determine acceptable levels of CO2 and levy global taxes.
The United States would lose control over its environmental policy. Also, it would sign its death warrant as a functioning democracy, enabling the United Nations to administer a fledgling world government possessing the authority to regulate and tax the American economy. The treaty is a sword aimed at the heart of our national sovereignty.
If Mr. Obama signs the Copenhagen treaty, he “will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your prosperity away forever,” Mr. Monckton recently told an audience in Minnesota. “I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created.”
Yet the U.S. Senate can avoid this disastrous course. A supermajority of 67 votes is required to ratify the treaty. In 1997, the Senate in a 95-0 vote rejected the Kyoto Protocol, thereby preventing the United States from joining. Mr. Monckton believes that, in order to avoid defeat, Mr. Obama will try to circumvent the ratification process. If he does, he will spark a political revolt that will make the Tea Party protests look tame by comparison.
Mr. Obama has vowed to create a “green economy” based on “green-collar jobs” and “a green New Deal.” The Copenhagen treaty would enable him to accomplish his revolutionary ambitions. It would mark his Cultural Revolution - the permanent transformation of America.

Rooitwit if you dont read views contrary to your own how will you ever progress. Talk about being narrow minded!!!.


Beeno1

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 10856
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 07, 2012, 16:35:19

Muncher I think this world order story has truth in it. 

Anyhow before they outlaw tennis I must have one last game!

 


Beeno1

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 10856
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 07, 2012, 16:42:28

Muncher thanks for the link I have copied it and will read it later.  Apaprently also the more CO2 the faster plants and particualry trees grow - they love it. However I do not blieve in unsustainable growth and degradation of the planet.

Beeno has left the building!


Jalapeno!

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 602
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 07, 2012, 18:20:29

Interesting. So your response to me telling u that I don't read yr long-winded, stupid & poorly-written diatribes is to put up a long-winded, stupid & poorly-written diatribe?

 

Not sure why u think I might be interested in yr bizarre conspiracy theories & I honestly thought I'd made that clear, but in case yr still confused, I'm not in the slightest bit interested in yr idiotic rambling copy & pastes & I'm not reading them. Sorry.


mozart

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 7755
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 07, 2012, 20:37:12

Wow Rooinek's own chart shows a massive(sarcasm intended),  0.4 degree temperature change in 100 years. That with increased sun activity, recovery from the Little Ice Age of the Middle Ages and massive tinkering with measurement sites.

 

Why am I not impressed?


Jalapeno!

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 602
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 07, 2012, 20:56:05

"Why am I not impressed?"

 

Uhhhhmmm . . . because you're very, very stupid?


mozart

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 7755
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 07, 2012, 21:56:54

But not gullible and not a bare faced liar like you ....heh?


mozart

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 7755
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 07, 2012, 23:05:16
Daily Averages & Records -  °F | °C

Date Average
Low
Average
High
Record
Low
Record
High
Average
Precipitation
Average
Snow
Jul 1 59° 81° 45° (1965) 95° (1953) 0.12" NA
Jul 2 60° 81° 45° (2001) 95° (1952) 0.11" NA
Jul 3 60° 81° 48° (1986) 96° (1949) 0.11" NA
Jul 4 60° 81° 47° (1972) 97° (1949) 0.11" NA
Jul 5 60° 81° 45° (1972) 97° (1990) 0.11" NA
Jul 6 60° 81° 45° (1965) 96° (1988) 0.11" NA
Jul 7 60° 81° 47° (1979) 96° (1977) 0.11" NA
Jul 8 61° 81° 48° (1979) 98° (1980) 0.11" NA
Jul 9 61° 81° 51° (1952) 96° (1989) 0.11" NA
Jul 10 61° 82° 50° (1953) 97° (1974) 0.11" NA
Jul 11 61° 82° 48° (1968) 97° (1989) 0.11" NA
Jul 12 61° 82° 51° (1975) 95° (1954) 0.11" NA
Jul 13 61° 82° 51° (1964) 94° (1995) 0.11" NA
Jul 14 61° 82° 46° (1950) 102° (1995) 0.11" NA
Jul 15 62° 82° 48° (1987) 100° (1995) 0.11" NA
Jul 16 62° 82° 48° (1987) 96° (1995) 0.11" NA
Jul 17 62° 82° 52° (1976) 94° (1997) 0.11" NA
Jul 18 62° 82° 47° (1979) 97° (1966) 0.11" NA
Jul 19 62° 82° 47° (1979) 96° (1991) 0.11" NA
Jul 20 62° 82° 51° (1951) 97° (1991) 0.11" NA
Jul 21 62° 82° 48° (1950) 100° (1991) 0.11" NA
Jul 22 62° 82° 49° (1970) 98° (1983) 0.11" NA
Jul 23 62° 82° 51° (2000) 96° (1965) 0.11" NA
Jul 24 62° 82° 50° (2000) 94° (1999) 0.11" NA
Jul 25 62° 82° 51° (1978) 94° (1999) 0.12" NA
Jul 26 62° 82° 48° (1977) 99° (1955) 0.12" NA
Jul 27 62° 82° 48° (1977) 100° (1955) 0.12" NA
Jul 28 62° 82° 50° (1977) 95° (1988) 0.12" NA
Jul 29 62° 82° 50° (1981) 96° (1983) 0.12" NA
Jul 30 62° 82° 49° (1981) 97° (1999) 0.12" NA
Jul 31 62° 82° 50° (1971) 101° (1999) 0.12"

 

 

These are the records for Chicago in July....the hottest month.....from the war to the present. You will note, there is no hottest day set in the period after 2000....for any day in July.

 

By contrast there are three coldest days set in the period after 2000.

 

This is not consistent with warming temperatures in the Midwest. Some might argue this is random selection, but it's no more random than much of what the Warming Nutters give us.

 

So far we have a plausible theory but no clear cut proof of warming. Rooinek provides a graph that shows (very) slight warming coinciding with Greenhouse gasses going up. I think you would find the correlation even stronger with the number of partial, well funded scientists entering the field of Climate Change. The bias is massive.

 

But whatever the truth, they have no solution. The Kyoto treaty pushes back the temperature curve by 5 years at a monstrous cost. With the huge population we now have on Earth, the far bigger risk is falling short on energy and thereby triggering a famine with catastrophic loss of life.

 

Hell we can't even deal with our economic problems today. Let alone if industry is forced to use alternative, in many cases negative delivered energy, sources. And I exclude in this,  clean electric cars that are plugged into dirty coal!

 

Population growth is unsustainable....there is your root problem.


carpetmuncher

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 1396
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 11, 2012, 13:46:10

the economic woes are all down to derivative fraud by the major banks to try and defraud and steal money. pure corporatism is to blame as banks and finance houses are givin free reighn to operate as they please. the kyoto treaty's main purpose is to de industryalise the 3rd world and major countries to reduce the standard of living turning the masses into wellfare cases. nothing short of pure socialism and communism as most major enviromentalists/eco warriors have a strong commie background and upbringing,. they have the views that people are evil and world population is based upon there twisted views. i read one report stating that there is enough capacity for the world to even sustain a population of 32 billion with current off the shelf solutions.

 

people are resource obsessed but history has shown that humans always find alternative ways and means to attain energy. the real issue is that the main role players want to make money things like coal ext are being labelled as the culprit but coal cant be controlled and as such is being targeted. coal does not pollute more than any other energy source and is more eco friendly in the long run than nuclear power. the big energy players wants to shut down the competition and just make more money.

 

stats have shown the only true way to reduce population as one looks at europe and other developed areas is to create a stronger middle class and the net result is population that retracts where as the poor of the poor generally tend to produce children in the masses. studies have shown that wealth and properity generally leads to lower birthrates and the reverse is true.

 

the state should really cut back on welfare and lower taxes on the middle class. the few trying to support the many is a unsustainable model that will only cripple the middle class and create more poor people. less state and more personal wealth is the real answer


Beeno1

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 10856
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 11, 2012, 15:14:10

Muncher this is not the only mythy around. How about the peak oil myth. Read these extracts from an article I saw:

 

by GEORGE WUERTHNER
No name is more closely associated with the concept of Peak Oil than geologist Marion King Hubbert. .In the 1956 meeting of the American Petroleum Institute in San Antonio, Texas,  Hubbert  presented a paper titled Nuclear Energy and Fossil Fuels where he suggested that overall petroleum production would peak in the United States between the late 1960s and the early 1970s. Since US oil production did indeed appear to peak in 1970, many Peak Oil advocates acclaim Hubbert as a prophet. However, an apparent peak in production does not necessarily represent a peak in oil availability, especially in a global market—something that Peak Oil
HUBBERT’S ERROR
The first problem with Hubbert’s prediction is that his estimates of total oil and gas reserves are far too low.
In his paper, Hubbert estimated that the “ultimate potential reserve of 150 billion barrels of crude oil for both the land and offshore areas of the United States.”  Hubbert’s estimate was based on the crude oil “initially present which are producible by methods now in use.”  Using the 150 billion barrel estimate he predicted US Peak Oil occurring in 1965. But to be cautious, he also used a slightly higher figure of 200 billion barrels which produced a peak in oil production around 1970—the figure that Hubbert advocates like to use to demonstrate that Hubbert was prophetic in his predictions.  However, by 2006 the Department of Energy estimated that domestic oil resources still in the ground (in-place) total 1,124 billion barrels.  Of this large in-place resource, 400 billon barrels is estimated to be technically recoverable with current technology.
This estimate was produced before horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing or fracking techniques were widely adopted which most authorities believe will yield considerably more oil than was thought to be recoverable in 2006.
It’s also important to keep in mind that “technologically recoverable” resources are not the “total” amount of oil thought to exist in the US, so the total in-place reserves are much, much larger. It does not take a lot of imagination to predict that many of these oil resources will eventually be unlocked with new technological innovation thus added to the total “proven reserves.”
Hubbert was even farther off in his estimate for global oil reserves, which is not surprising since in 1956 very few parts of the world had been adequately studied.  In his 1956 paper Hubbert  wrote that there was “about 1250 billion barrels for the ultimate potential reserves of crude oil of the whole world.” In his paper he estimated that the entire Middle East including Egypt had no more than 375 billion barrels of oil. Yet by 2010, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) estimated that just the “proven reserves” in Saudi Arabia alone totaled 262.6 billion barrels.  Similarly in his paper Hubbert uses an estimate of 80 billion barrels for all of South America, yet Venezuela has 296 billion barrels of proven reserves.
By 2000, the point when Hubbert estimated that we would reach global Peak Oil we would have only around 625 billion barrels of oil left. Just the 558 billion barrels of proven reserves known to exist in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela alone (and a lot more in-place resources) is nearly equal the total global oil supplies that Hubbert estimated would remain in global reserves.  Obviously once again Hubbert’s global estimates were way too low.
The world has already burned through more than a trillion barrels of oil, clearly demonstrating how far off his prediction of oil supplies were. The estimated “proven reserves” left globally are today more than 1.3 trillion for the top 17 oil producing countries alone.
PROVEN RESERVES Vs. TOTAL RESOURCES
To demonstrate how technology and price can affect “proven reserves” estimates, just a few years ago Canada’s “proven reserves” of oil were only 5 billion barrels. Today, due to higher prices and improved technology that makes tar sands production economically feasible; Canada now has “proven” reserves of 175 billion barrels of oil. Nothing changed other than the price of oil and the technology used to extract it. Oil companies knew there was a lot of oil in the tar sands, but it took a change in technology and price to move it into the “proven reserves” category.  Even more telling is that the total minimum estimate of in place oil for the tar sands exceeds 1.3 trillion barrels of oil. Keep in mind that 1.3 trillion barrels is more oil than Hubbert thought existed in the entire world when he presented his 1956 paper.
Unconventional oil reserves are oil or hydrocarbons found in geological formations other than a traditional oil reservoir. Examples of unconventional oil include  Alberta’s tar sands, oil shales of the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, the heavy oils of Venezuela,  and other non-traditional hydrocarbons. There are far more of hydro-carbons in these formations than traditional oil reservoirs—a fact that many Peak Oil advocates frequently ignore. Or if they acknowledge their existence, they dismiss them as uneconomical or technologically impossible to exploit and therefore will never make a significant contribution to global energy supplies.
Hubbert failed to appreciate the potential contribution of these unconventional sources of synthetic oil. For instance, he put the total for US oil shales at around a trillion barrels of oil equivalent. Recently the USGS estimated that the Green River drainage area of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah may contain as much as   4.2 trillion barrels of in place oil equivalent in oil shale deposits. To put this into context, the US currently consumes around 24 billion barrels of oil in 2010, so even if a fraction of these oil shales are exploited it will significantly increase available energy to the US.
With unconventional oils like tar sands, oil shales, heavy oils, etc. included, it seems we have huge amounts of potential energy–even acknowledging that much of that oil may not be extracted until some future date due to cost and/or lack of technology.
NATURAL GAS ESTIMATES
If correct, then his estimate of natural gas was also a vast underestimate.  This link shows that gas supplies are increasing well into the future.   And new estimates for gas hydrates (methane locked in frozen ice) suggests there may be twice as much energy locked in these resources than all the coal, oil, and traditional natural gas supplies combined.  One estimate suggests there may be a 3000 plus year supply of natural gas in gas hydrates. Whatever the ultimate number may be, the important point is that we are not in any danger of running out of fossil fuels in the near future.
How much on the ou Jallopy thinking we are running dry!! He just sucks it all up ! Hahahahahahaha. One battles to inclucate a critical faculty in rooitwit.

 


mozart

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 7755
RE: Moz saw this re climate change
December 11, 2012, 20:37:27

Until we get honest objective science, it's every man for himself. The Warming lobby is an intolerant juggernaught, that brooks no debate.

 

The new element in the equation is fracking, which has exposed vast reserves of gas.


Leave a reply:

You need to be logged in to leave a reply.
 
 

From The Sideline