http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

Why does Schneider push the hoax of "fossil fuels"? Of course, that is a rhetorical question because he also pushes the hoax of "global warming".

Almost everything in this science of CAGW is too overstated - in 1979 Stephen Schneider was telling us the CO2 will rise +20% at the end of century and in middle of 21st century "will double".
In fact now we have 2010 and CO2 have risen 13.7% since 1979, 5.5% since 2000. So he overstated the figure - 2.4 times than actually was the reality.
It reminds me the fishermen who show me using their hands how big the fish they caught was to win attention. It is more like an activism than a serious science...

And your evidence for this all being a hoax is.....?

A one in a million video!
Really shows the CO2 problems' insignificance.

It's not even a "problem". It will just mean slightly healthier plants that will in turn produce slightly more oxygen that all living things need. I mean we are talking about an insignificant amount of CO2 here. If the enviroment were really a concern, the government would be pushing solars panels for home heating. That alone would redice human contributio of CO2 to virtually nil. Do we see that happening? No. Why? Because oil sales is the military's life-blood and the psychological arm-twist for war, as in, "Those Arabs are sitting on our oil!". This is why we will see the rebirth of 'peak oil'- to make up for any profits lost in sales by increasing the price per barrel while 'global warming' is pushed.

Almost everything in this science of CAGW is too overstated - in 1979 Stephen Schneider was telling us the CO2 will rise +20% at the end of century and in middle of 21st century "will double".

In fact now we have 2010 and CO2 have risen 13.7% since 1979, 5.5% since 2000. So he overstated the figure - 2.4 times than actually was the reality.
It reminds me the fishermen who show me using their hands how big the fish they caught was to win attention. It is more like an activism than a serious science...

It's not even a "problem". It will just mean slightly healthier plants that will in turn produce slightly more oxygen that all living things need.

I mean we are talking about an insignificant amount of CO2 here.

If the environment were really a concern, the government would be pushing solars panels for home heating. That alone would reduce human contribution of CO2 to virtually nil. Do we see that happening? No. Why? Because oil sales is the military's life-blood and the psychological arm-twist for war, as in, "Those Arabs are sitting on our oil!". This is why we will see the rebirth of 'peak oil'- to make up for any profits lost in sales by increasing the price per barrel while 'global warming' is pushed which may result in a slight decrease in oil sales.

Admins, mods, can someone please embed the above video?

Much thanks!

A one in a million video!
Really shows the CO2 problems' insignificance.

quest you did one helluva a synopsis, bravo! one thing i don't get is why you bother w/ omega at all? self loathing types are a real downer...i mean... i'm exhaling poisonous gas and so.... therefore you are to...you're bad. what a joke.

that video so rocked..so simple even a complete dolt should get it. co2, plants love it. plants are good. what is not to get???

That being said, the NWO/911 wanted to believe the warmists' CO2=warming assertions because it helped them in their goal of winding down the economy by eliminating jobs while simultaneously enriching themselves through plan-B, carbon trading and carbon taxes.

And that quote comes from where?

That video should be embedded alright, in a block of concrete and placed into the ocean crust near a subduction zone.

Why?

Because it is inaccurate, the proportion of CO2 from human activity, and misleading because it bypasses atmospheric science. It is nowt but propaganda.

If you want to believe Voodoo Science then do so Quest but don't try to encourage others to make the same mistake.

Brother Tam,

And don’t forget that “Natural Gas”…Methane…when exposed to Oxygen and heat gives off CO2 and water.

Our original atmosphere and fresh water oceans came from this reaction. So that about 100 million years?

Just guessing but I would think that “Global Warming” comes from “Space” like Sun spots or Super novae.

Brother Tam,

And don’t forget that “Natural Gas”…Methane…when exposed to Oxygen and heat gives off CO2 and water.

Our original atmosphere and fresh water oceans came from this reaction. So that about 100 million years?

Just guessing but I would think that “Global Warming” comes from “Space” like Sun spots or Super novae.

Omega, not for nothing, but your posts are taking on the appearance of spam. I'll be ignoring them in the future.

'it is NOT a result of the minute amount of CO2 man produces, .02 percent. That's where the warmists screwed up big-time.

"More or less in balance" isn't "a cop out". There's a pretty good understanding of the short term and medium term carbon cycle that dominates the carbon flux between the atmosphere and biosphere, and on longer periods, the atmosphere and terrestrial environment.

So to answer your first question:

["How much out of balance does it have to be before you consider it not in equilibrium?"]

If atmospheric CO2 levels haven't varied much more than about 20 ppm (maybe 30 ppm according to some plant stomatal index analyses) around 280 ppm for the last 10,000 years before the 20th century, one can conclude that the system has been more or less in balance. It's not "a cop out" to state the obvious. The flux of carbon into the atmosphere has been reasonably closely balanced by the flux out of the atmosphere for vast periods of time before the 20th century.

And if one considers the 10 million years before the 20th century, the atmospheric CO2 seems to have been pretty much near equilibrium. So if one considers only the interglacial periods, the atmospheric CO2 was below or around 300 ppm during this entire period according to the proxy record:


e.g. Pearson, PN and Palmer, MR (2000) "Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years" Nature 406, 695-699.

M. Pagani et al. (2005) "Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Paleogene", Science 309, 600 – 603.

T. K. Lowenstein and R. V. Demicco (2006) "Elevated Eocene Atmospheric CO2 and Its Subsequent Decline" Science 313, 1928.

R. M. DeConto et al (2008) "Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation" Nature 455, 652-656


Note that it's worth distinguishing the interglacial and glacial periods here, since the shift of atmospheric CO2 down to around 170-180 ppm during glacials is similarly part of the short term carbon cycle that relates to the distribution of carbon between the terrestrial biosphere, oceans and atmosphere. In this case it's the temperature-dependent element of the cycle and its response to very slow insolation variation (Milankovitch cycles).

So we can talk about being "near equilibrium" or "more or less in balance" in quite explicit terms:

(i) On the timescale of 1000-10,000 years, the relatively fixed amount of ACCESSIBLE carbon distributing between the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere has maintained an atmospheric CO2 concentration that has undergone relatively little variation (the overall variations during 1000's of years of the order of the changes now occurring in about a decade).

(ii) on the timescale of 10 million years the longer term carbon cycle involving the sedimentation of carbon as carbonates in the deep oceans and the slow release of carbon from ocean plate subduction and volcanic activity has also been more or less in balance. The atmospheric CO2 record of the last 10 million years suppoorts that conclusion.

(iii) On top of the equilibrium carbon distributions of the carbon cycle on the millions of years timescale, insolation variations (Milankovitch cycles) cause very slow requilibration of CO2 between the atmosphere and ocean/terrestrial environments.


Now something quite different is happening. A massive store of excess carbon inaccessible to the carbon cycle for many 10's of millions of years is being rapidly reintroduced into the system in an extraordinarily short time period. Not surprisingly the atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising very rapidly indeed. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is out of equilibrium (there's a large nett flux into the atmosphere from previously long-sequestered sources), and the atmospheric CO2 concentration is being driven up towards some new equilibrium concentration.

And the above also address your second question:

["How does all that CO2 locked up as carbonate sediment compare to the oil/gas/coal deposits?"]

That's not quite a relevant question. Considering carbonate sediments and their formation, the long term paleoCO2 record of the last 10 million years or so indicates that carbonate sedimentation has been pretty much in balance with the return of CO2 from subducted carbonate back through volcanoes into the atmosphere.


...where the "out of balance" element has arisen is the awesomely rapid oxidation and return to the atmosphere of massive stores of carbon previously sequestered out of the short and medium carbon cycles for 10's and 100's of millions of years.

Note that dynamic systems CAN be in equilibrium. In general they fluctuate around equilibrium states. Of course one can raise semantic issues about the extent to which a particular fluctuation constitutes a departure from equilibrium. But it's quite easy to be explicit and define exactly what one means by the particular equilibrium in question.

Tume, I watched the Schneider "interview" a few times and IMO, it is apparant he is reading from a script, literally. Watch his eyes. He has been told what he is going to say. It is obvious he is the waterboy for a bogus agenda, these are NOT his objectfive, heart-felt opinions. He's a politician.

Hey bro' its folk like you endlessly repeating the 'Global Warming is a hoax' mantra without any supporting evidence and in the teeth of a growing body of evidence, to which I have cited sources, that are spreading spam, and thick at that.


It certainly isn't me who is 'nucking futz' and spreading bullshit and propaganda as I have amply demonstrated to anybody who

can truly think for themselves. (Nod to Tambourineman there and his New Age pseudo-science)

Thanks for giving me a mention, Omega, but none for spelling my name wrong.

So you must obviously think that spend fuel that turns to smoke and gas emissions,

which again cause the various particles making up the smoke and gases to separate

and revert back to their origin because of the depolarization that has taken place,

is nothing but "New Age pseudo-science"!

Fair enough, but then you owe us the courtesy to explain how it is that all other

'matter' produced by mother Earth, which of course includes our frail physical bodies,

all go through this process, but according to you, spend and 'dead' gas emissions are

exempted from!!

Please tell us why you think these gases are still 'alive' and active, and as such have

influence upon their surroundings in the form of a "greenhouse" type of effect or

whatever else.

Whatever.
CO2 molecules, and those of other GHGs, are sensitive to particular electromagnetic wavelengths which make them vibrate generating heat. This heat warms the atmosphere and in turn the ground. The increasing temperature differential between troposphere and stratosphere, as measured by satellites, is proof that the heating effect is real. Study black body radiation and quantum physics to understand more on this. You will also need a grounding in atmospheric science. I have provided links, again, in my last post to Quest to material that will help.

1) So I wrote from memory and used the spelling more common this side of the pond.

2) But that is small beer compared to how you insulted me by comparing me to Cheney and Bush. How dare you, how frigging dare you! You clearly have not seen many of my posts here relating to 9/11 etc.

3) As for not having an original thought - if only you knew.

4) What EXACTLY do you mean by 'depolarization'?

5) and as for:
Gases being alive and active, what is that supposed to mean?

6) The trouble with 'original thinking' is that it can often lead to foolishness if not tempered by knowledge and experience.

cooling due to Earths curvature

1) Not good enough excuse. Personally i apologize when making mistakes like that.

2) I did not compare you to bush and cheney, but to people like them.

4) I must obviously be ahead of time!

5) It means that some gases are still active, while others are no longer active. A great great difference!

the global warming camp loses another one:

http://climatedepot.com/a/7477/Leftwing-En...rld-middleclass

Too bad. That's how it is.

If you want to be a slapphead over it that's your problem.

Your tone from the beginning has been insulting and apparent given your level of understanding and how I have gone out of my way to help you learn the facts that is sad.

Even more sad is that you chose to ignore all the good stuff and persist with drivel.


Not good enough, go back and read your post again.

But then you mangle the language so much that I guess your words could mean just about anything.


No. You are helping to push mankind into a new dark age based upon fantasies.


That explains nothing.

things appear to be tilting toward (or past) ugly here gentlemen, so if i may interject - omega is a respected and long time member here, as are almost all you who disagree with him on this issue of global warming. so lets please stick to arguing facts and evidence as opposed to guessing what each others intentions and or personal shortcomings might or might not be. lets tone it down and stop being insulting, please. you are all better than that, please show it. save the snide tones for jfux and johnny come latelies but treat fellow members of long standing with proper respect.








or whatever - lol. eat each other alive. just dont harm the women and children...

so lets please stick to arguing facts and evidence as opposed to guessing what each others intentions and or personal shortcomings might or might not be. l

Brother Tam,

When I was in college, I did not agree with my professor on the “Big Bang” theory.

His solution was to “Dress down the student” as a mother would scold a child for being wet after a thunder storm.

Thugs beat people for being bad victims. Just eat the cold soup!

fair enough. does seem like we are in short supply of facts and evidence, imho.

Just testing that you actually watched it.

So. How far off was he? Orders of magnitude?

There was a post of your some while back where you went on about solar output at the start and made many erroneous statements. Firefighting the many here as I am I am afraid that my health went down before I could reply and then the thread vanished into the background. I have not forgotten it and had a reply worked out in thought. Time is pressing on me again now but I'll be back.

Unlikely Skeptic: A Liberal Environmentalist challenges Global Warming Theory