Global warming is about to become man-made

[fredtoast]

Fossil fuel fans are about to do a switch-a-roo and admit that man-made carbon emissions contribute to global warming. The reason is that they want to shift to natural gas which emitts much less CO2 than oil and coal. So to justify fracking they will start admitting that CO2 emissions from human sources contribute to global warming.

It may take a few months, but just bookmark this thread. It will be funny to see all the people who have been fighting against the science all these years finally come around. But it will be sad to see extensive fracking spread all over the country.

[jmccracky]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

Fossil fuel fans are about to do a switch-a-roo and admit that man-made carbon emissions contribute to global warming. The reason is that they want to shift to natural gas which emitts much less CO2 than oil and coal. So to justify fracking they will start admitting that CO2 emissions from human sources contribute to global warming.

It may take a few months, but just bookmark this thread. It will be funny to see all the people who have been fighting against the science all these years finally come around. But it will be sad to see extensive fracking spread all over the country.

I said this too a while back, but not on here. Good call Fred, and you are totally correct (or will be anyway!).

[Ron Mexico]

Fracking ***** for the environment too, but not nearly as bad as some of the less clean alternatives. Personally, I don't know whether or not climate change is caused by humans. It's obviously really happening, I just don't think there's enough evidence to say it's for sure caused by us. Especially considering the fact that it's happened before.....long before humans we're screwing up the planet by using fossil fuels.....

[fredtoast]

Meant to post this in the new P&R.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by Johnny Cupcakes

Fracking ***** for the environment too, but not nearly as bad as some of the less clean alternatives. Personally, I don't know whether or not climate change is caused by humans. It's obviously really happening, I just don't think there's enough evidence to say it's for sure caused by us. Especially considering the fact that it's happened before.....long before humans we're screwing up the planet by using fossil fuels.....

Yes it has happened before. And part of it may be a natural cycle, but if you just look at two simple undisputed facts, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and humans have been pumping millions of tons of extra CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 100 years, logic tells me we have to be causeing part of it.

[hollodero]

Originally Posted by Johnny Cupcakes

Fracking ***** for the environment too, but not nearly as bad as some of the less clean alternatives. Personally, I don't know whether or not climate change is caused by humans. It's obviously really happening, I just don't think there's enough evidence to say it's for sure caused by us. Especially considering the fact that it's happened before.....long before humans we're screwing up the planet by using fossil fuels.....

But consider the timespans. It's happening quite fast now (compared to earlier variations)... and also there's a fast change of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, undoubtedly caused by humans. I find it hard to deny that these two factors are connected.

"Evidence" is tough, for we're dealing with different complicated cycles here no one understands completely. I always felt that "strong hints" would have to be enough motivation to take that problem seriously - whereas just waiting for the 100% assurance/last and ultimate proof while not changing our ways before that seems quite irresponsible.

[jmccracky]

NASA scientists in the White House were pressured into being censored by the Bush administration with their global warming findings. I have read recently about two different scientists (two different times) who were actually paid to debunk global warming. They did their work, but after doing such work they found out that it's as bad as what most scientists are saying and that the speed of it is because of humans. HOWEVER....and this is what Fred was saying.........BOTH of these guys are for fracking now and I suspect they are being paid by someone.

And most scientists agree that it is worse because of humans. Not all of them are being paid to say this.

[Ron Mexico]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

Yes it has happened before. And part of it may be a natural cycle, but if you just look at two simple undisputed facts, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and humans have been pumping millions of tons of extra CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 100 years, logic tells me we have to be causeing part of it.

Originally Posted by hollodero

But consider the timespans. It's happening quite fast now (compared to earlier variations)... and also there's a fast change of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, undoubtedly caused by humans. I find it hard to deny that these two factors are connected.

"Evidence" is tough, for we're dealing with different complicated cycles here no one understands completely. I always felt that "strong hints" would have to be enough motivation to take that problem seriously - whereas just waiting for the 100% assurance/last and ultimate proof while not changing our ways before that seems quite irresponsible.

Oh, I don't dispute the fact that humans are causing irreversible damage to the atmosphere, and the entire planet for that matter. That will not change either. We're WAY too reliant on fossil fuels to turn back now, but it would be nice to see an attempt to slow down the problem.

So, I know that we have an impact, but I'm on the fence about whether our impact is speeding up the process THAT fast. CO2 levels have definitely increased at a higher rate this century, but there have always been a lot of spikes and dips in the levels. The high levels at the moment could easily be because of us, but it could also be part of a really, REALLY big cycle.

[jmccracky]

Originally Posted by Johnny Cupcakes

Oh, I don't dispute the fact that humans are causing irreversible damage to the atmosphere, and the entire planet for that matter. That will not change either. We're WAY too reliant on fossil fuels to turn back now, but it would be nice to see an attempt to slow down the problem.

So, I know that we have an impact, but I'm on the fence about whether our impact is speeding up the process THAT fast. CO2 levels have definitely increased at a higher rate this century, but there have always been a lot of spikes and dips in the levels. The high levels at the moment could easily be because of us, but it could also be part of a really, REALLY big cycle.

Good point. And that's kind of how I look at it. It's just the cautious side of me coming out.

[tbone77]

Originally Posted by Johnny Cupcakes

Oh, I don't dispute the fact that humans are causing irreversible damage to the atmosphere, and the entire planet for that matter. That will not change either. We're WAY too reliant on fossil fuels to turn back now, but it would be nice to see an attempt to slow down the problem.

So, I know that we have an impact, but I'm on the fence about whether our impact is speeding up the process THAT fast. CO2 levels have definitely increased at a higher rate this century, but there have always been a lot of spikes and dips in the levels. The high levels at the moment could easily be because of us, but it could also be part of a really, REALLY big cycle.

No, co2 has never doubled like this in such a short timeframe. Not without catastrophic repurcussions. do some research.

[Stewy]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

Fossil fuel fans are about to do a switch-a-roo and admit that man-made carbon emissions contribute to global warming. The reason is that they want to shift to natural gas which emitts much less CO2 than oil and coal. So to justify fracking they will start admitting that CO2 emissions from human sources contribute to global warming.

It may take a few months, but just bookmark this thread. It will be funny to see all the people who have been fighting against the science all these years finally come around. But it will be sad to see extensive fracking spread all over the country.

Firstly only an un-educated fool would debate that man contributes to the gases linked to GW. The true debate is two fold: #1 - How much CO2 are we putting into the air (it is entirely un-measureable) and #2 - How much man has contributed overall to the temperature rise.

Funny thing is that most people pro-man contributed GW fail to understand or inform thep ublic of is that CO2 isn't even the most important GW gas according to the theories.....that's water vapor. And the importance of Water Vapor vs. CO2 as a contributor to the GW is multi-fold.

WTH are you talking about? What does coal and/or natural gas have to do with frac'ing? (it's not fracking; it's short for fracturing). What BS politically driven pseudo-science have you been reading now?

I can see I'm going to have to repost my series of posts on GW, that I put on the Klostch forums a few weeks ago.....but then again I've posted the same sutff here before.....multiple times.....and I see it's been conveniently ignored.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with frac'ing. At all. For those who think there is you obviously have no clue how it's done or the pre-cautions the industry takes to protect and preserve water tables. Here are soem frac'ing facts for the ignorant:

#1 - Most water tables are within 1,000 of the surface.
#2 - Most wells have AT LEAST 3 sets of casing across all water tables and 3 separate leayers of cement back to surface down to 1,000' specifically to protect said water tables.
#3 - Most HCydrocarbon reservoirs are at depths 5,000-30,000' below the surface with another 1-4 strings of casing on top of the ones at the surface (see diagram below)
#4 - Frac'ing happens THROUGH casing so it is projected horizontally and it is designed and controlled to project horizontally, not vertically. It is a very well understood and skilled engineering proceedure, not some yahoo's out with a pump blowing up the ground under your feet.
#5 - Most frac'ing releases the pressure it pumps immediately in a Pump, Prop, Release because all frac's (beside Acid Frac's) pump sand in the formation to open up and keep open the pores. The pressure opens the pores, the sand slurry goes into the pores. The sand stays the liquid part of the slurry comes back.
#6 - The liquid portion of the frac slurry is measured in barrels and what is put into the ground compared to with what comes back, and in most cases they recover at the surface all of the liquid.
#7 - Lost liquid slurry is almost always lost to the HC reservoir and not up the borehole due to cement and multiple layers of 1/2 steel casing, and again is almost negligible in volume lost.
#8 - In most of the country, aside from Appalachia, frac'ing is at such depths as to make concerns to human or water table safety laughable.

[Stewy]

Originally Posted by tbone77

No, co2 has never doubled like this in such a short timeframe. Not without catastrophic repurcussions. do some research.

This is crap. All we know is the last 150 years of human history, and CO2 hasn't been measured even that long. Just temperatures.

Do some research yourself. The Cretaceous period saw global temperatures on averge 10 degrees C higher than now with Diosaurs living in Antartica and the North Slope Alaska. Guess all the Dino crap created alot of CO2.

And like I said CO2 isn;t even the most important GW gas, that's water vapor. But let's not confuse fact with fear mongering.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by Stewy

And like I said CO2 isn't even the most important GW gas, that's water vapor. But let's not confuse fact with fear mongering.

But the level of water vapor has not been artificially elevated over the last 100 years. So what does that have to do with anything? Let's not confuse red herrings with science.

No one is saying that the earth does not go through natural warming cycles. But that does not mean we are not making it much worse by pumping all that CO2 into the atmosphere.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by Stewy

#1 - How much CO2 are we putting into the air (it is entirely un-measureable)

No it isn't. We are able to measure how much oil, coal, and natural gas has been burned over the years, and we know how much CO2 is emitted from these sources.

Why would you say it is entirely unmeasurable? I am not saying we have an exact number, but the calculations are not that difficult to get a general idea.

[Stewy]

And for the record. I believe in conservation. I believe it's a benefit to us to keep things clean. I agree that humans are producing more CO2 than is natural. The debate is how much compared to the norm. And don't quote me amounts. You don't know, those who claim to know don't know. How much we produce is UNMEASURABLE. How much is in nature is UNMEASUREABLE. And what is normal? When do you start the clock on "normal" CO2 levels? 10 years ago? 50? 100? 1000? Whoops can't go back that far....no way to measure paleo CO2 levels. The climate secientists that you put so much faith in are the same ones using the same modified weather models who can't predict the weather a week in advance. And yet we're wanting to grant these individuals credance for something not days not YEARS but centuries in advance.

I know for a fact if the Oil Companies weren't regulated the world would be a bigger mess. All you have to do is look at places without rules like China, Russia, Brazil, Venezuala, etc. All this is good for the benefit of humans.

But please don't talk to me about Earth Conservation. All of this is about human conservation. The Earth will wipe us off it's butt and go back to it's 4.5 by normal once we wipe ourselves out and be just fine.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by Stewy

But please don't talk to me about Earth Conservation. All of this is about human conservation. The Earth will wipe us off it's butt and go back to it's 4.5 by normal once we wipe ourselves out and be just fine.

Silly me for worrying about us killing off all the humans. No need to worry about anything like that at all.

[Stewy]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

No it isn't. We are able to measure how much oil, coal, and natural gas has been burned over the years, and we know how much CO2 is emitted from these sources.

Why would you say it is entirely unmeasurable? I am not saying we have an exact number, but the calculations are not that difficult to get a general idea.

Because it's all just poorly understood estimates. And more importantly we can only come minorly close to measuring it in the US. How about all those un-regulated 2nd and 3rd world countries? How do you measure pollution outputs in countries that don't give out the data and as a matter of fact HIDE the data. And un-argualibly those countries are the largest contributors. That isn't science. It's guessing at it's worst. Really Fred do you knmow nothign about the scientific method? it isn;t about guess work, it about examining repeatable measureable facts and drawing conclusions based on those facts. When one can do no more than guess at global human emissions with error bars so larage as to make the numbers inconclusive at best, then how can they have any scientific credibility?

Oh and aside from human input try measuring natures input of CO2 into the atmosphere and we'll never understand that. Magmatic activity, vegetation, animal waste all of natures processes.....try going to measure that viably.

[Stewy]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

Silly me for worrying about us killing off all the humans. No need to worry about anything like that at all.

I'm not worried about it. *shrugs*

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

Fossil fuel fans are about to do a switch-a-roo and admit that man-made carbon emissions contribute to global warming. The reason is that they want to shift to natural gas which emitts much less CO2 than oil and coal. So to justify fracking they will start admitting that CO2 emissions from human sources contribute to global warming.

It may take a few months, but just bookmark this thread. It will be funny to see all the people who have been fighting against the science all these years finally come around. But it will be sad to see extensive fracking spread all over the country.

like anything..
they will make it out to be good or bad to push their agenda.

nothing new here.

[Stewy]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

But the level of water vapor has not been artificially elevated over the last 100 years. So what does that have to do with anything? Let's not confuse red herrings with science.

No one is saying that the earth does not go through natural warming cycles. But that does not mean we are not making it much worse by pumping all that CO2 into the atmosphere.

Umm it matters because the contribution of Water Vapor to the GW effect so far out weighs CO2's contribution that the amount human are affecting the GW Effect through CO2 contribution becomes important. And I'm not trying for Red Herrings at all. That's your life Mr. Lawyer not mine. Im a scientist. I deal with fact, not distraction, smoke mirrors and hearsay.

Not saying it isn't making it worse. How much worse is the debate. My postion is there's so much suposition, so much error in the measurements in nature and in what man produces, so many different viable conclusions that one can make from the data due to the error bars, that the evidence points to nothing that the Earth is warming. Are we contributing to it? Sure. How much? Anyone who says they know is lying or looking for more grant money.

[hollodero]

Originally Posted by Stewy

How much CO2 are we putting into the air (it is entirely un-measureable)

No it isn't...! Thanks to the Isotopes of Carbon. Actually it's quite accurate and measureable through the measuring of the 14C-Isotopes (because there are none of them in fossil fuels...)

Originally Posted by Stewy

How about all those un-regulated 2nd and 3rd world countries? How do you measure pollution outputs in countries that don't give out the data and as a matter of fact HIDE the data. And un-argualibly those countries are the largest contributors. That isn't science.

No they're not! How do you come up with that?
And how can you say it's un-arguably when you say yourself there's no data? But there is. You can estimate how much fossil fuels are burned in an underdeveloped third world country. China, well, that's something else. But don't blame the third world.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by Stewy

Because it's all just poorly understood estimates. And more importantly we can only come minorly close to measuring it in the US. How about all those un-regulated 2nd and 3rd world countries? How do you measure pollution outputs in countries that don't give out the data and as a matter of fact HIDE the data. And un-argualibly those countries are the largest contributors. That isn't science. It's guessing at it's worst. Really Fred do you knmow nothign about the scientific method? it isn;t about guess work, it about examining repeatable measureable facts and drawing conclusions based on those facts. When one can do no more than guess at global human emissions with error bars so larage as to make the numbers inconclusive at best, then how can they have any scientific credibility?

Oh and aside from human input try measuring natures input of CO2 into the atmosphere and we'll never understand that. Magmatic activity, vegetation, animal waste all of natures processes.....try going to measure that viably.

Third world countries only use a very small fraction of fossil fuels, Claiming that they are "un-arguably" the largest contributors is just completely false.

We have very accurate measures of world wide production of fossil fuels. The margin of error is not that large at all.

And since the natural output of CO2 does not vary that greatly there is no need to be concerned about its effect. The amount of animal waste, vegetation, and volcanic activity has not been elevated greatly over the last 100 years.

[Stewy]

I'll copy my posts from the other forums tonight if anyones interested. Lots of links and easy to understand information. None of it directly linked to the GW debate. Just multiple, wholey independent RELIABLE paleo temperture measurements from different data sources telling the same story over the last 2 million years. Quite compelling and you can draw your own conclusions.

And those posts will be the last I say about it since I tired of dealing others pseudo-science and ignorant rhetoric.

[Stewy]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

Third world countries only use a very small fraction of fossil fuels, Claiming that they are "un-arguably" the largest contributors is just completely false.

We have very accurate measures of world wide production of fossil fuels. The margin of error is not that large at all.

And since the natural output of CO2 does not vary that greatly there is no need to be concerned about its effect. The amount of animal waste, vegetation, and volcanic activity has not been elevated greatly over the last 100 years.

Way to pick your argument again Mr. Lawyer. let's ignore the fact that I mentioned China Russia and Brazil who are unagruably the largest contribtutors to pollution in the world. Can you not understand why you have absolutely no scientific credibility here Fred? Try UNDERSTANDING something instead of just trying to win every argument.

Again your WRONG about the amount of fossil fuels produced being known. We only know what's produced in REGULATED countries and sold to REGULATED countries. OPEC countries have a set amount they're supposed to produce, but they do not report to the world what they produce per well like regulated non-Opec countries. And how about your unregulated non-OPEC countries like China and Russia who sell to unregulated countries like Syria, Sudan, Jordan, etc. Really Fred are you this naive or just trying to win another argument?

Really how do you know netures CO2 content hasn't varied? Really? Do we know how many animals and organisms there are? How much total global vegetation there is now? Are there scientific studies about the CO2 output from every plant and an accurate measure of the numbers of every plant in the world? Or even a viable estimation?

Way to put your faith in the pathetically understood (human contribution) and dismiss the rest (natures contribution).

[hollodero]

Originally Posted by Stewy

How much we produce is UNMEASURABLE. How much is in nature is UNMEASUREABLE. And what is normal? When do you start the clock on "normal" CO2 levels? 10 years ago? 50? 100? 1000? Whoops can't go back that far....

You are at least aware of ice core drillings in the Antarctic, right?

Originally Posted by Stewy

Are there scientific studies about the CO2 output from every plant and an accurate measure of the numbers of every plant in the world? Or even a viable estimation?

Nope. Plants simply don't have a CO2 output. On the contrary.
You can, however, estimate how much CO2 gets bound by vegetation. Due to the Carbon isotop 13C.
- Really, are you a scientist?

Originally Posted by Stewy

let's ignore the fact that I mentioned China Russia and Brazil who are unagruably the largest contribtutors to pollution in the world. Can you not understand why you have absolutely no scientific credibility here Fred? Try UNDERSTANDING something instead of just trying to win every argument.

Unarguably.. right... btw. Brazil is actually considered quite climate-friendly. No way there are a larger contributor to pollution than the US (or Europe). NO WAY.

(But yeah, the Sudan pollutes our planet. And Syria gets huge amounts of oil from China. Allright.)