Global Warming Scam
- Thread starter Floyd
- Start date
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
The majority of Australians are convinced the evidence is in. I don't know what this 'scam' is actually supposed to be scamming.
i am honestly not sure what you are arguing here. please help. (no criminality intended!)
i'll come back to my definition below. first:
we agree that this period was the driest period since 1900.
we agree the title of the piece was "Statement on Drought for the 3, 6, and 10-month periods ending 31st October 2006"
we agree the A Met Office says there is a drought.
yes?
In statistics/geo-statistics defining a 100 year event requires more than 100 years of data, and one common definition of a 100 year event does not imply that such events occur at random (they may well occur in clumps.)
but in this thread you'll see people refer to a one thousand year event: it is rather difficult to define a one-thousand year event robustly with one hundred years of data. that is why i questioned the empirical relevance of any statement about a once in a thousand year event, given there are only 100 years of obs.
i'll come back to my definition below. first:
we agree that this period was the driest period since 1900.
we agree the title of the piece was "Statement on Drought for the 3, 6, and 10-month periods ending 31st October 2006"
we agree the A Met Office says there is a drought.
yes?
In statistics/geo-statistics defining a 100 year event requires more than 100 years of data, and one common definition of a 100 year event does not imply that such events occur at random (they may well occur in clumps.)
but in this thread you'll see people refer to a one thousand year event: it is rather difficult to define a one-thousand year event robustly with one hundred years of data. that is why i questioned the empirical relevance of any statement about a once in a thousand year event, given there are only 100 years of obs.
Here you are arguing that there is no drought? or that the graph is misinterpreted, given the Met office's header words "Drought intensifies"
So what exactly are they scamming us for? As I understand it a scam generally involves getting money off people for services or products that don't deliver. In this case, governments and energy businesses stand to lose money and have big problems coping, while the ordinary person will see very little effect on their lives. Is the government supposed to be scamming themselves or something?
Brian the Snail
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2002
- Messages
- 962
Okay, it's a fair cop. Carbon dioxide doesn't actually absorb infrared radiation. The clue is in the name- infrared. Obvious sign that it's part of a communist plot.
Also, we can dispell the ridiculous notion that burning fossil fuels will produce carbon dioxide. A molecule of CO2 is formed from the union of carbon and oxygen, and unions are a socialistic invention.
By the way, ever seen carbon dioxide? Thought not. Obviously then, CO2 is just an evil invention of known Marxist-Leninist organizations (NAS, Royal Society, AAAS, AGU, NASA, to name but a few) in their nefarious plans to bring down the World capitalistic system, and usher in a new socialist Worker's utopia.
And you have foiled their plans with your sooper skeptic skillz. Damn you!
Human activity (industrial and agricultural): approximately 27 billion tons of co2 per year
Volcanic activity: approximately 200-300 million tons of co2 per year
Plant activity:
aborbs approximately 450 billion tons of co2 per year
emits approximately 225 billion tons of co2 per year (excluding the co2 emissions from break down of down of dead plant matter)
You know i have no idea how you could have reached such a firm conclusion that it's a scam when you still have such questions
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
Let me get this straight. You're proposing a conspiracy of government suits and scientists who are hoodwinking the entire nation but offering no clear motive or evidence that they are actually doing so. In fact, you're not even offering a clear means for them to committ the crimes you're accusing them of committing. You're asking question about fundamental concepts you don't understand, but you hold to your accusation of foul play. Now you're accusing forum members you disagree with of being disninfo agents for the conspiracy.
Ever talked to anyone in the 9/11 Truth movement?
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
First of all, could you provide a source for those figures.
Many webpages on the carbon cycle give these figures. Here are a few that do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/iab/iab2-2.htm
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.html
Volcanoes aren't mentioned in the above because they are not significant as co2 sources. But they are mentioned here:
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
Last edited:
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 19,788
Re; C14 from fossil fuels, Of course it is up. We do burn fossil fuels. So the amount in the atmosphere is coming up along with our comsumption. But the environment makes and uses CO2, out from animals and fuels, in to plants and oceans. (I bet there is even a name for the CO2 cycle) Until our use of fossil fuel stabilizes, the ratios in the armosphere won't reach an equilibrium. The time lag between peak oil and peak C14 will probably tell us something very important?
A while ago, on this forum, I figured that at a guessed average fossil fuel consumption, we have burned enough to raise the temp 10 degrees. Yet the temp is only up one. Sort of hints that, per the Gaia theory, the earth can take care of itself, doesn't it?
And another point. Folks talk about the oceans soaking up heat, and tha albedo reflecting heat away, but I've never heard mention of the factor of the Earth's core as a heat sink. Oceans are big and deep, but the core is a huge mass in comparison. And it's temp is gosh darn stable. Whatever the amorphous atmosphere's warming is caused by, I just can't see it having any more effect than breathing on your car's cold engine to warm it up on a winter morning. It won't take long for the old equilibrium to return. Until the solar energy warms it up...
A while ago, on this forum, I figured that at a guessed average fossil fuel consumption, we have burned enough to raise the temp 10 degrees. Yet the temp is only up one. Sort of hints that, per the Gaia theory, the earth can take care of itself, doesn't it?
And another point. Folks talk about the oceans soaking up heat, and tha albedo reflecting heat away, but I've never heard mention of the factor of the Earth's core as a heat sink. Oceans are big and deep, but the core is a huge mass in comparison. And it's temp is gosh darn stable. Whatever the amorphous atmosphere's warming is caused by, I just can't see it having any more effect than breathing on your car's cold engine to warm it up on a winter morning. It won't take long for the old equilibrium to return. Until the solar energy warms it up...
Dr Richard
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 203
Perhaps because the Earth's core is, like, reeeeely hot? And therefore not that good as a heat sink for absorbing all of the supposed extra heat generated?
DeviousB
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2006
- Messages
- 374
Er, the clue is in the word fossil? As in been in the ground a very long time? Too old to carbon date? About the same C14 content as a T.Rex's first dump of the day (well, a little more)?
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
Interesting hypothesis. Let's test it with an all out global thermonuclear war.
No, it hints that you have no clue what you are talking about.
They call it the carbon cycle. Catchy eh?
Well if the Earth can take care of itself, it doesn't mean that it is going to take care of us...we will have to try and do that ourselves.
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
It all depends on what we mean by "take care of itself," doesn't it? I was simply trying to point out how very obvious it is that our decisions will impact our survival and quality of life as a species. The Gaia theory doesn't enter this discussion in any relevant way. The "Earth Mother" won't save us if we kill ourselves.
Exxon/Mobil and the other special interests funding junk science can indeed be fought. The rest of the civilized world (including California, but with the notable exception so far of the USA) is fighting against greenhouse pollution with efforts like carbon markets and the Kyoto accords. Rationality can win.