[Xort]

It take a true believer to ignore the IPCC's past adventures with the truth.

The climate changes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However the question becomes what amount of driving force does CO2 have. The answer based on actual science shows that the wave lenghts CO2 absorbs energy on are already near to 100% absorbed. Which is why even massive incresses in CO2 have almost no forcing power on the average global temperature.

This is why all models need other postive forcing factors to reach any real change in temperature. But those models also need to ignore negitive forcing factors or else the whole system don't do much of anyting.

The global warming movement got it's big push when people stopped being scared of terrorists and the economy was good. Now everyone is worried about the economy, and even Europe is giving up on some of it's own attempts at green self destruction as the Euro zone economy has some real risks.

As the people said what will be the new terror of the population? Well it's already here for the Americans, Guns killing people, and Gun Grabbers trying to ban firearms.

Maybe the Indians in Canada will piss off enough people off to open up a good old civil disorder threat.

[desertdude]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Interesting. So, following on, are you suggesting that that 265 billion dollar industry is a waste that produces nothing?

Maybe, maybe not, but the point was they make that kind of money out of an exaggerated threat. There was a building industry and jobs before GC too, as the article states 10 years ago it was so the green was so small it was unquantifiable, but with in 10 years, that's an extra 265 billion dollars, the price for going green and who ends up with bill for those extra 265 billion ? That's also one of the points, the green movement has become too big to fail now and that's why the science has to justify it to keep it going.



When I was younger, all I ever heard was the next ice age is around the corner, the earth is cooling down, then it became the Ozone layer and with in years anyone stepping out into the sun will be burnt into a crisp like vampires do in a movie Then came the millenium bug, people spent and made millions off a precieved or exaggerated threat, SARS, and now we have Global Warming, so call me a bit skeptical when next earth ending disaster which can only be avoided if I start paying a lot of money to avoid is about to occur.

Gunnair Gunnair:

If so, you and Bart have at least one thing in common, if not, then your point begins it's way to being moot.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, although I dunno what his exacts beliefs are in this matter, nor do I really care.

Gunnair Gunnair:

Green architecture, for instance. On the Island, it makes more energy efficient buildings that are heated more efficiently, use that heat more efficiently, and in the long run, will cost less than a standard building in it's fuel consumption. Some have 'green walls' as well - live walls with plants as well as live rooftops that also increase energy efficiency as well as removing CO2 from the local air.

That's just one example. Is it your position that that is a bad thing?

Never said everything was a negative it does some good too, these technologies would have made it through regardless as at the end of the day they are economical and that's the biggest factor, like double glazed windows. They were introduced long before the specter of global warming ever made an appearance. Adding the green label, makes it alright to charge more for such things.

[desertdude]

andyt andyt:

Real no not, I doubt we'll ever solve AGW. Not with 7 billion people who all want our lifestyle and more popping out every day. We'd better look at adaptation, whether it's man or nature made. We might have a hope there, I don't think we have a realistic hope of reducing man made CO2 to anything like what would be required.

Thats a reality too, when countries like China and India are starting to have their turn, the western world cannot come in and say, sorry folk you can't have any of that because you are going to fuck up the planet.

[Zipperfish]

Xort Xort:

It take a true believer to ignore the IPCC's past adventures with the truth.

The climate changes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However the question becomes what amount of driving force does CO2 have. The answer based on actual science shows that the wave lenghts CO2 absorbs energy on are already near to 100% absorbed. Which is why even massive incresses in CO2 have almost no forcing power on the average global temperature.

This might be true of you took the atmosphere as a monolithic slab. That of course, is not the case. The atmosphere at sea level is a lot different than that of the stratosphere. What happens, in effect, is that GHGs closer to the surface become close to saturated, so that most absorption of GHG happens at the next level higher up. If those become saturated, then the next level higher up absorbs upcoming longwave radiation. The net effect is that, as you add more CO2, (assuming an otherwise homeostatic system) the height at which heat energy is radiated to space increases, and the planet takes in more energy than it radiates (resulting in an increase in temperature, if referring to infrared radiation).

The atmosphere, in other words is a differential system with respct to longwave radiation absorbance. You have to do the radiation balance level by level, as you move up through the atmosphere. The physics works out a lot different at sea-level (high molecular density, lots of water vapour) to the statosphere (low molecular density, dry). Earth is not even close to saturation.

Besides, if the saturation argument held as you think it does, the runaway Greenhouse Effect of Venus couldn't have happened.

$1:

This is why all models need other postive forcing factors to reach any real change in temperature. But those models also need to ignore negitive forcing factors or else the whole system don't do much of anyting.

The saturation argument is kind of independent of the forcing argument. It's certainly not true that negative focring factors have been ignored, but I'd say there's less appreciation in the scientific literature for the forcing uncertainties.

$1:

The global warming movement got it's big push when people stopped being scared of terrorists and the economy was good. Now everyone is worried about the economy, and even Europe is giving up on some of it's own attempts at green self destruction as the Euro zone economy has some real risks.

I'd agree with this. It's Mazlow's Hierarchy of Needs. As we address our immediate problems, like shelter, food and security, our awareness expands to the next level. That's why countires where starvation and strife are the norm aren't all that concerned with global warming.

The tragedy there is, of course, that as global warming manifests itself over the next century or two, they will be in the most disadvantaged position to pay the "adaptation costs" and will suffer disproportionately.

edited for atrocious spelling

[Gunnair]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Gunnair Gunnair:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

You mean the fossil fuel industry that does MORE than just provide resources for power generation? That fossil fuel industry?

You mean the Green industry taps out at power generation and nothing more?

Well, I can't say as I'm aware of any commercial/consumer by-products from solar and wind power but feel free to enlighten me.

Aside from energy? Is that not enough?

[EyeBrock]

The problem to me is that we have dozens of schemes where political animals tried to further their own positional power by using our tax dollars to subsidise profit making companies, such as Samsung in Ontario, as they use the public purse to develop products at a profit. Many on the left were feting these ‘green entrepreneurs’ as next big thing.

I became suspicious because of the ardent zeal of those trying to ram this stuff down our throat.

Why sell something so hard if it’s a good product? Maybe because the product wasn’t as advertised.

It turns out that the deals we struck were financially very poor for the tax payers and awesome for the cash flow of the ‘green entrepreneurs’.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Gunnair Gunnair:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Gunnair Gunnair:

You mean the Green industry taps out at power generation and nothing more?

Well, I can't say as I'm aware of any commercial/consumer by-products from solar and wind power but feel free to enlighten me.

Aside from energy? Is that not enough?

Well that was disappointing. Here I was expecting to be enlightened with facts. You suggested that it does more than provide energy.
Oil provides energy as well as by-products used to make over 6000 consumer/commercial goods, hundreds of which are used daily by the average person.
Might I suggest you sell your current computer and buy one made from the by-products of wind or solar. What's that? There's no such thing? Well I'll be sheep dipped.
C'mon Gunny, just name ONE consumer good that can be produced/manufactured with the by-products of wind or solar, just one.

[Gunnair]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

The problem to me is that we have dozens of schemes where political animals tried to further their own positional power by using our tax dollars to subsidise profit making companies, such as Samsung in Ontario, as they use the public purse to develop products at a profit. Many on the left were feting these ‘green entrepreneurs’ as next big thing.

I became suspicious because of the ardent zeal of those trying to ram this stuff down our throat.

Why sell something so hard if it’s a good product? Maybe because the product wasn’t as advertised.

It turns out that the deals we struck were financially very poor for the tax payers and awesome for the cash flow of the ‘green entrepreneurs’.

Political animals are tied to a lot of corporate schemes, I'm not sure why 'green' industries should be so different. I'd posit that the auto sector bailouts fall in this category to but it appears they got a pass.

[Gunnair]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Gunnair Gunnair:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Well, I can't say as I'm aware of any commercial/consumer by-products from solar and wind power but feel free to enlighten me.

Aside from energy? Is that not enough?

Well that was disappointing. Here I was expecting to be enlightened with facts. You suggested that it does more than provide energy.
Oil provides energy as well as by-products used to make over 6000 consumer/commercial goods, hundreds of which are used daily by the average person.
Might I suggest you sell your current computer and buy one made from the by-products of wind or solar. What's that? There's no such thing? Well I'll be sheep dipped.
C'mon Gunny, just name ONE consumer good that can be produced/manufactured with the by-products of wind or solar, just one.

Well, I'm trying to understand here why you would be disappointed. Solar and wind make power - that's their point. If you want by products, one can look at the manufacturing jobs they create.

What's the byproduct of diesel fuel outside of its use as a fuel?

I know what your point is but it's an apples and oranges argument. The position you appear to be taking is that since the only thing you can get from wind and solar is energy, we shouldn't bother. We need a panacea energy source that provides heat, fuel, and icecream.

[EyeBrock]

Gunnair Gunnair:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

The problem to me is that we have dozens of schemes where political animals tried to further their own positional power by using our tax dollars to subsidise profit making companies, such as Samsung in Ontario, as they use the public purse to develop products at a profit. Many on the left were feting these ‘green entrepreneurs’ as next big thing.

I became suspicious because of the ardent zeal of those trying to ram this stuff down our throat.

Why sell something so hard if it’s a good product? Maybe because the product wasn’t as advertised.

It turns out that the deals we struck were financially very poor for the tax payers and awesome for the cash flow of the ‘green entrepreneurs’.

Political animals are tied to a lot of corporate schemes, I'm not sure why 'green' industries should be so different. I'd posit that the auto sector bailouts fall in this category to but it appears they got a pass.

I don't agree with subsidising foreign companies full stop. The Ontario Liberals were queueing up to dole out our cash to GM and Ford.

If they can't make money selling us cars then they deserve to go bust.

If they can't build windmills that make electricity at a rate we can live with, then they are not a viable replacement for oil and gas (yet) and we shouldn't use tax cash to fund them.

This 'oil and gas companies did it too' argument is pretty high-school and doesn't stand up as a a credible stance.

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Well that was disappointing. Here I was expecting to be enlightened with facts. You suggested that it does more than provide energy.
Oil provides energy as well as by-products used to make over 6000 consumer/commercial goods, hundreds of which are used daily by the average person.
Might I suggest you sell your current computer and buy one made from the by-products of wind or solar. What's that? There's no such thing? Well I'll be sheep dipped.
C'mon Gunny, just name ONE consumer good that can be produced/manufactured with the by-products of wind or solar, just one.

Ooooh. Over 6000! Here's another interesting number--combustion of fossil fuels (i.e to create energy) accounts for over 95% of anthropgenic CO2 emissions. Indeed if you cut down the amount of oil you burned, you'd have even more oil available for those important petroleum-based products, and still reduce CO2 emissions.

As for by-prducts, hmmm, let me think. You can make 6000 things out of oil...now what can we make out of sunlight? Hmmm...how about photosynthesis, the basis of all life on the planet?

[andyt]

Meh, plants are for pussies. We all know that real men eat meat.

[Xort]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

This might be true of you took the atmosphere as a monolithic slab.

How about as closed gas system with wind mixing and currents?

$1:

That of course, is not the case. The atmosphere at sea level is a lot different than that of the stratosphere.

In the mixture of gasses? Or just in terms of pressure? It's drier and doesn't have as many ground produced particulate matter, but it's not hugely different in what it's made out of.

$1:

What happens, in effect, is that GHGs closer to the surface become close to saturated, so that most absorption of GHG happens at the next level higher up.

If the absorbtion specturm is saturated higher up doesn't have anything to absorb as the sorce of energy is reflected energy from the ground. If ground level grabs 99% of the energy, all you might capture at higher levels is the remaining 1%.

$1:

If those become saturated, then the next level higher up absorbs upcoming longwave radiation.

You have mixed up what becomes saturated with what. The gas isn't saturated in how much it can absorb. IE well it has 100 Watts anything extra is going to get by. But rathert it is absorbing 99% of the energy in that wavelenght, it's abosorbtion is saturated.

$1:

The net effect is that, as you add more CO2, (assuming an otherwise homeostatic system) the height at which heat energy is radiated to space increases, and the planet takes in more energy than it radiates (resulting in an increase in temperature, if referring to infrared radiation).

Only for the smallest portion of energy.

$1:

The atmosphere, in other words is a differential system with respct to longwave radiation absorbance. You have to do the radiation balance level by level, as you move up through the atmosphere. The physics works out a lot different at sea-level (high molecular density, lots of water vapour) to the statosphere (low molecular density, dry). Earth is not even close to saturation.

At the wave lenghts that CO2 absorbs it's already sucking up almost 100% of the energy. Overall the atmosphere could absorb a lot more energy at a lot more wavelenghts, which is why we can see, and use radio and RADAR for example, but CO2 doesn't change those absorbtion wavelenghts.

$1:

Besides, if the saturation argument held as you think it does, the runaway Greenhouse Effect of Venus couldn't have happened.

Venus has an atmosphere so thick it's close to water at the surface. Saying Venus has a high temperature because it has a high percent of CO2, is stupid. If you reduced the amount of atmosphere to a lower overall amount you would get a much lower overall temperature. For example, if ultra high amounts of CO2 drove run away greenhouse effects, then surely Mars with it's near pure CO2 atmosphere would be an oven. It's not.

$1:

The saturation argument is kind of independent of the forcing argument. It's certainly not true that negative focring factors have been ignored, but I'd say there's less appreciation in the scientific literature for the forcing uncertainties.

Some models have ignored all negitive forcing, as well as all other positive forcing in order to get changing the amount of CO2 to have any power to raise or lower the temperature.

Not all, but some models.

$1:

The tragedy there is, of course, that as global warming manifests itself over the next century or two, they will be in the most disadvantaged position to pay the "adaptation costs" and will suffer disproportionately.

I don't think that's well supported. If anything the people that have market trade with the largest number of climate regions would be the most negitively affected. If you believe the prediction that AGW will only cause negitives.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

As for by-prducts, hmmm, let me think. You can make 6000 things out of oil...now what can we make out of sunlight? Hmmm...how about photosynthesis, the basis of all life on the planet?

That isn't a by product of solar power generation.

[Tyler_1]

andyt andyt:

Meh, plants are for pussies. We all know that real men eat meat.

Especially on New Years Eve!
Just saying.

[Gunnair]

DonnaWho DonnaWho:

andyt andyt:

Meh, plants are for pussies. We all know that real men eat meat.

Especially on New Years Eve!
Just saying.