The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Bart007]

Is Global warming occuring because humans iin the 20th century are filling our atmosphere with enormous amounts of CO2? Or is it politicians manipulating the voting public using fear?

Yes, we are experiencing global warming. It is caused by changes in radiaition output in the sun. It is not caused by humans emmiting CO2 in the Atmosphere.

Al Gore is completely wrong, over 18,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition rejecting Al Gore's claims that humans are the cause of Global warming.

Most probable cause of the recent global warming is changes in radiation from the sun.

We are currently undergoing global warming, this has been ongoing since 1900 AD. We just came out of the mini ice age that occurred from 1370 AD until 1900 AD. We have a ways to go before we reach the global temperatures that we had 1,000 years ago. Greenland was actually green back then. Perhaps it was the more violent storms on the Atlantic that delayed the discovery of America by Europeans until 1492 (aside from the viking explorers and settlers that came to Greenland and North America).

In the medieval global warming, England was wine country, the Vikings and Sweden had population explosions and they necame world powers. Greenland was green and the vikings had settlements on the coast of Northern Greenland. There was a mini ice age before and after the Medieval warm period. Prior to the dark ages ice age, there was a Roman warm period that was much warmer than the temperatures today.

Some politicians and their allies tend to replace science with scare tactics in an effort to rally people behind them and thereby influence election outcomes.

here: watch, listen, learn, and enjoy.

[QED]

My eye is drawn to the linearity of the slope leading out of the Great Depression in construction material usage. I guess it's too much to hope that this mirrors global industrial activity - but it just seems to need too many impossible translations to get any real alignment. What can you see?

I see that the global temperature and human industrial activity have (in general) a positive correlation.

Not surprising, since we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that extra CO2 in the atmosphere traps light rays and results in a greenhouse effect.

So you say, but it seems to me that you're asking to make huge changes in the Western way of life on the basis of a qualitative rather than quantitative assessment of the data. If you wish to point to an apparent correlation like this, and claim it represents a true link then it seems only reasonable to ask for an explanation for any significant deviations. The linear rise in material consumption immediately following the Great Depression is not reflected in the Global temperature plot -- which sets out with a much shallower slope for the three decades following the temporary dip supposedly due to the Depression.

It may well be true that CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere in greater quantities than the planet has ever experienced before and this might be considered a sufficient reason to cut our emissions -- but such a reaction would be taken in the absence of a scientific understanding of the ability of the biosphere to cope through self-regulation and also, if increased solar irradiance is the primary factor, the removal of particulates associated with the burning of fossil fuels might make things worse not better. Another potential disaster for this policy which I feel very strongly about would be a knee-jerk reaction towards increased use of nuclear fission. This is why I raised the political perspective -- whereby security of energy resources is, I think, the real motivator.

Consider the remarkable turn-around that Bush seems to be making recently -- of all the individuals who might be expected to want to see less dependence on Oil -- Bush has to be the least likely. Call me a cynic, but I don't think he likes being so dependent on Iranian Oil reserves. With current technologies, demands can't be met by US reserves -- isn't it 60% now that's supplied from foreign sources? If the demand was reduced to the point where Texan Oil alone could supply, I don't think he'd be too displeased. Meanwhile, another round of Nukes would spring up in every territory and the filthy legacy of this would stretch far out into our Children's future.

Just keep it in mind that this issue may not be quite so black & white.

[Goat]

My eye is drawn to the linearity of the slope leading out of the Great Depression in construction material usage. I guess it's too much to hope that this mirrors global industrial activity - but it just seems to need too many impossible translations to get any real alignment. What can you see?

I see that the global temperature and human industrial activity have (in general) a positive correlation.

Not surprising, since we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that extra CO2 in the atmosphere traps light rays and results in a greenhouse effect.

So you say, but it seems to me that you're asking to make huge changes in the Western way of life on the basis of a qualitative rather than quantitative assessment of the data. If you wish to point to an apparent correlation like this, and claim it represents a true link then it seems only reasonable to ask for an explanation for any significant deviations. The linear rise in material consumption immediately following the Great Depression is not reflected in the Global temperature plot -- which sets out with a much shallower slope for the three decades following the temporary dip supposedly due to the Depression.

It may well be true that CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere in greater quantities than the planet has ever experienced before and this might be considered a sufficient reason to cut our emissions -- but such a reaction would be taken in the absence of a scientific understanding of the ability of the biosphere to cope through self-regulation and also, if increased solar irradiance is the primary factor, the removal of particulates associated with the burning of fossil fuels might make things worse not better. Another potential disaster for this policy which I feel very strongly about would be a knee-jerk reaction towards increased use of nuclear fission. This is why I raised the political perspective -- whereby security of energy resources is, I think, the real motivator.

Consider the remarkable turn-around that Bush seems to be making recently -- of all the individuals who might be expected to want to see less dependence on Oil -- Bush has to be the least likely. Call me a cynic, but I don't think he likes being so dependent on Iranian Oil reserves. With current technologies, demands can't be met by US reserves -- isn't it 60% now that's supplied from foreign sources? If the demand was reduced to the point where Texan Oil alone could supply, I don't think he'd be too displeased. Meanwhile, another round of Nukes would spring up in every territory and the filthy legacy of this would stretch far out into our Children's future.

Just keep it in mind that this issue may not be quite so black & white.

we get a good part of our oil imports from canada, the rest come from south america.

I don't think we get much oil from Iran at all

[McCulloch]

we get a good part of our oil imports from canada, the rest come from south america.

I don't think we get much oil from Iran at all

Energy Information Administration, Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

[center]Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)[/center]

[mrow]Country[mcol]Mar-07[row]CANADA[col]1,780 [row]MEXICO[col]1,621 [row]NIGERIA[col]1,290 [row]SAUDI ARABIA[col]1,216 [row]VENEZUELA[col]1,036 [row]ANGOLA[col]696 [row]IRAQ[col]523 [row]ALGERIA[col]501 [row]KUWAIT[col]288 [row]BRAZIL[col]209 [row]RUSSIA[col]193 [row]ECUADOR[col]191 [row]COLOMBIA[col]108 [row]LIBYA[col]105 [row]CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE)[col]79

[The Persnickety Platypus]

So you say, but it seems to me that you're asking to make huge changes in the Western way of life on the basis of a qualitative rather than quantitative assessment of the data. If you wish to point to an apparent correlation like this, and claim it represents a true link then it seems only reasonable to ask for an explanation for any significant deviations. The linear rise in material consumption immediately following the Great Depression is not reflected in the Global temperature plot -- which sets out with a much shallower slope for the three decades following the temporary dip supposedly due to the Depression.

We have all ready established that there are other less significant factors that play into the equation.

It does not matter exactly how close the temperature/CO2 correlation is. What matters is that there is a correlation.

It may well be true that CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere in greater quantities than the planet has ever experienced before and this might be considered a sufficient reason to cut our emissions -- but such a reaction would be taken in the absence of a scientific understanding of the ability of the biosphere to cope through self-regulation

The biosphere has no way of regulating human contributions. Human industrial acts can effect the atmosphere, but the atmosphere has no way of counter-effecting human industry. Our contributions are not a part of the natural scheme. Only when we remove our contributions from the equation can we expect the planet to be able to cope.

and also, if increased solar irradiance is the primary factor, the removal of particulates associated with the burning of fossil fuels might make things worse not better.

So the consumption of fossil fuels is causing the problem, but stopping the consumption could make it worse?

If that is the case, then there is no solution, and we are all going to die. But seriously, what is the science behind this particulate issue?

This is why I raised the political perspective -- whereby security of energy resources is, I think, the real motivator.

Hey, whatever it takes.

Even without global warming as an issue, decreasing dependence on fossil fuels is an important objective, due to the obvious fact that they are going to run out. Then there is the issue of energy security, of course.

Maybe Global Warming advocates need to start stressing these issues more, perhaps to win over those who are not convinced by straight, simple science.

Just keep it in mind that this issue may not be quite so black & white.

How about really dark grey and off-white?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

we get a good part of our oil imports from canada, the rest come from south america.

I don't think we get much oil from Iran at all

But we probably could be.

This would explain why the Bush administration is so interested in "freeing" countries with large, yet unstable oil supplies (as opposed to freeing Saudi Arabia, who is ruled by arguably the most oppressive regime on earth, yet makes up for it by giving a very reasonable price on crude).

[QED]

It does not matter exactly how close the temperature/CO2 correlation is. What matters is that there is a correlation.

That sounds like a politician's answer You realise it gives license to hold up any two datasets and cherry-pick the similarities. The differences are where the real meat lies.

The biosphere has no way of regulating human contributions. Human industrial acts can effect the atmosphere, but the atmosphere has no way of counter-effecting human industry.

I think you'll find (surprisingly) that the major limiting factor on the abundance of vegetation is the availability of carbon in the atmosphere. I picked this up in a science book recently -- I wish I could recall where.

Our contributions are not a part of the natural scheme. Only when we remove our contributions from the equation can we expect the planet to be able to cope.

Well, I don't think we can draw such clear-cut divides between what is natural and what is not. It's all "grist to the mill" to the biosphere. I'm not advocating that it's a huge dustbin that we can dump anything we like into -- it's just that the climate on this planet has remained remarkably stable for vast stretches of time -- a homeostasis widely attributed to the presence of the biosphere.

and also, if increased solar irradiance is the primary factor, the removal of particulates associated with the burning of fossil fuels might make things worse not better.

So the consumption of fossil fuels is causing the problem, but stopping the consumption could make it worse?

What am I to make of the fact that you seem unaware of Global Dimming I wonder? I'm not ticking you off for not paying attention -- but your stance on global warming is not atypical and I think many people's opinions are formed in the absence of properly balanced information. I'm simply trying to raise the profile of issues that often seem to be overlooked in the current stampede towards a switch away from fossil fuels.

Even without global warming as an issue, decreasing dependence on fossil fuels is an important objective, due to the obvious fact that they are going to run out.

Sure. I thoroughly agree. But once again, look at the only real alternatives on the table now. I don't think a proper public debate ever took place about nuclear fission. Sadly, this particular technology seems tailor-made for the short-term political processes that are the only game in town. 200 years from now, all the nuclear plants currently in service around the globe will present a massive burden for countries that may or may not have the resources to deal with the issues. I happen to have a personal dislike of this form of energy supply. I welcome the development of nuclear fusion, photo-voltaic and other "clean" technologies -- but none of these are standing by to relieve our current dependence on fossil fuels. I happen to think that the reality of this sudden switch is one which will make a bigger mess of the place than is really necessary.

Then there is the issue of energy security, of course.

Well, you know what I think -- I think this is a bigger factor than most people realise.

[QED]

[center]Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)[/center]

[mrow]Country[mcol]Mar-07[row]CANADA[col]1,780 [row]MEXICO[col]1,621 [row]NIGERIA[col]1,290 [row]SAUDI ARABIA[col]1,216 [row]VENEZUELA[col]1,036 [row]ANGOLA[col]696 [row]IRAQ[col]523 [row]ALGERIA[col]501 [row]KUWAIT[col]288 [row]BRAZIL[col]209 [row]RUSSIA[col]193 [row]ECUADOR[col]191 [row]COLOMBIA[col]108 [row]LIBYA[col]105 [row]CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE)[col]79

Thanks for the figures McC. I'm no expert on US relations, but pretty much every one of those foreign sources has some bone to pick with Uncle Sam. Of course lucrative Oil exports are not something you give-up on a whim (unless you happen to be an Islamic nation turning to fundamentalism) but the demands of emergent nations are rapidly building leading to an inevitable reshaping of international trading.

[Furrowed Brow]

In order here are how large the oil reserves are in billion barrels.

1.Saudi Arabia 264.3
2. Canada 178.8
3. Iran 132.5
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 79.7
8. Russia 60.0
9. Libya 39.1
10. Nigeria 35.9
11. United States 21.4
12. China 18.3
13. Qatar 15.2
14. Mexico 12.9
15. Algeria 11.4
16. Brazil 11.2
17. Kazakhstan 9.0
18. Norway 7.7
19. Azerbaijan 7.0
20. India 5.8

[McCulloch]

In order here are how large the oil reserves are in billion barrels.

1.Saudi Arabia 264.3
2. Canada 178.8
3. Iran 132.5
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 79.7
8. Russia 60.0
9. Libya 39.1
10. Nigeria 35.9
11. United States 21.4
12. China 18.3
13. Qatar 15.2
14. Mexico 12.9
15. Algeria 11.4
16. Brazil 11.2
17. Kazakhstan 9.0
18. Norway 7.7
19. Azerbaijan 7.0
20. India 5.8

Some of these reserves are locked in Tar sands or off the Atlantic coast and are very difficult and expensive to extract.

[Furrowed Brow]

In order here are how large the oil reserves are in billion barrels.

1.Saudi Arabia 264.3
2. Canada 178.8
3. Iran 132.5
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 79.7
8. Russia 60.0
9. Libya 39.1
10. Nigeria 35.9
11. United States 21.4
12. China 18.3
13. Qatar 15.2
14. Mexico 12.9
15. Algeria 11.4
16. Brazil 11.2
17. Kazakhstan 9.0
18. Norway 7.7
19. Azerbaijan 7.0
20. India 5.8

Some of these reserves are locked in Tar sands or off the Atlantic coast and are very difficult and expensive to extract.

Ah that might explain why its the Saudis and not Canadians who have bought up large areas of Knightsbridge and Kensington in London, and most of the horses at the races are sheik owned and not Canadian.