|
Post by twawki on Oct 17, 2008 7:44:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Oct 17, 2008 9:30:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 19, 2008 9:00:00 GMT
For a history of the agw campaign... the Corporate ClimateSee how it all began & where they recruited this season's players.
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Oct 29, 2008 20:13:22 GMT
Peak Oil Link: For all those interested in some of the facts associated with Peak Oil and some discussion of the REAL implications (we don't talk about them enough, presumably because they are so "negative"), check out the following very lucid discussion: www.postpeakliving.com/peak-oil-primerThe bottom line is that the amount of energy that we get from a given resource always follows a "bell" curve (or something close), i.e. up and then down. All wells, all fields, all producing countries and then ultimately the whole world must follow this kind of function. Unfortunately, our economic system assumes cheap and every increasing amounts of energy in total (and per person!). Some of major assumptions that we have made over the years, e.g. suburban living, personal cars, air travel, importation of food from half-way across the world, increasing "standard of living", are major contributors to the drop in the availability of inexpensive oil and will probably become very rare once the peak has take hold.
|
|
|
Post by catfishkhan on Oct 29, 2008 22:12:26 GMT
Looks like lots of sensationalism to me. Consider this quote from the site: I guess the volt (http://gm-volt.com/) and other all/partial electric cars just don't exist and can never possibly exist according to that site. Humans adapt to things that change, be it the climate or available resources.
|
|
|
Post by magnus on Oct 31, 2008 1:49:43 GMT
Peak Oil Link: For all those interested in some of the facts associated with Peak Oil and some discussion of the REAL implications (we don't talk about them enough, presumably because they are so "negative"), check out the following very lucid discussion: www.postpeakliving.com/peak-oil-primerThe bottom line is that the amount of energy that we get from a given resource always follows a "bell" curve (or something close), i.e. up and then down. All wells, all fields, all producing countries and then ultimately the whole world must follow this kind of function. Unfortunately, our economic system assumes cheap and every increasing amounts of energy in total (and per person!). Some of major assumptions that we have made over the years, e.g. suburban living, personal cars, air travel, importation of food from half-way across the world, increasing "standard of living", are major contributors to the drop in the availability of inexpensive oil and will probably become very rare once the peak has take hold. Is this relevant? "In the Americas, proven oil reserves have increased from 170 billion barrels to 180 billion barrels over the last two decades, according to the 2008 Statistical World Review from British Petroleum. In Europe and Eurasia, proven oil reserves almost doubled, from 76 billion barrels to 144. Africa's proven oil reserves did double, from 58 billion barrels to 117. Even the Asia Pacific region, where China and India are reputed to be sucking up everything in sight, has increased its proven reserves. And the Middle East, the gas tank of the world, shows no sign of slowing down -- its reserves soared by almost 200 billion barrels, from a whopping 567 billion barrels to a super-whopping 756.
[...]
...the oil shale in America's Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, contains 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil, with as much as 1.1 trillion barrels of oil recoverable, an amount comparable to the reserves of four Saudi Arabias. Oil shale becomes recoverable at $95 a barrel, it determined. With oil now trading at $140 a barrel, oil shale exploitation is now very much economic.
[...]
Most of the oil we know about lies in the well travelled portions of the globe. But most of the world remains unexplored -- the interiors of Africa, Asia and South America have seen relatively little oil exploration. Oil exploration in the oceans, too, is in its infancy. For all practical purposes, mankind has limitless oil supplies available to it. The story is similar for natural gas and coal, the other major nonrenewable sources of energy.";-) www.financialpost.com/analysis/columnists/story.html?id=b23cb885-2a26-47bf-b02b-446fa1d057be&p=2
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 3, 2008 8:56:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Nov 9, 2008 20:11:04 GMT
Here's another site that hasn't been given much attention here: co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1487(one of a series of articles on AGW by Stephen Wilde, a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968) A snippet: "The recent global warming spell was never a result of any greenhouse effect. It was entirely a result of THWBE whereby heat already stored in the oceans and released by a positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation supplemented a historically high level of solar irradiation. With the Pacific Decadal Oscillation now in decline and solar irradiation now falling we are already in very different times." It is to be noted that the ocean makes up ~70% of the Earth's surface and has an absorbtion ratio (1 - albedo) about 30% higher than the land surface average. The ocean should be the most important system in any climate model, by far. But guess what?
|
|
|
Post by solartrack on Nov 19, 2008 18:00:23 GMT
I didn't see a best fit thread so as a link I'm positing here:
Long and funny, it would be interesting to see one of the AGW supporters here address each article.
Turn your sound up and put your feet up for a tour of the insanity a recent Nobel prize winner has visted on us.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Nov 24, 2008 14:27:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Dec 4, 2008 6:15:01 GMT
Hello all i think this is the best thread to post in, follow the link and when it opens there will be a PDF called the skeptics handbook it discussess the way to debate GW with a believer, there are some very good tips in here that should serve you well on this site also it is quite a funny read. The rest of the site is worth the read as well. Have fun joannenova.com.au/global-warming/Regards Crakar24
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 7, 2008 3:22:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Dec 9, 2008 5:24:12 GMT
Here is a link i am sure all/most of you are aware of, i started to read it but gave up due to the stupidity of what was said. Here is a quick over view.
It is a how to talk to a climate skeptic coaching manual and how one might debate a topic for example
Skeptic: Sats show cooling Believer: the Sats are wrong! and look if we manipulate the data like this we can show a warming WTF!!!!!!! Of course there was no mention of the years of weather baloon data that back up the pre manipulated Sat data, could the thermometers also be wrong?
Heres another one
Skeptic:Antarctic ice is growing Believer:Yes Arctic ice might be growing and even if it is it proves it is warming (i kid you not)
and another
Skeptic:Antarctic sea levels are falling Believer: Yes thats right sea levels are rising Skeptic:Antarctic sea levels are falling Believer: Yes thats right sea levels are rising Skeptic:Antarctic sea levels are falling Believer: Yes thats right sea levels are rising
last one
Skeptic:Oct 08 GISS records are a copy of Sept 08 etc Believer: They start with Hansens resume and go on to state he is the most respected scientist in his field with impeccable qualifications and experience Skeptic:How could you make a mistake like that? Believer:"The problem was a program glitch of some sort" and anyway "nobody's perfect"
There is a lot more of this type of crap have a read if you feel like a giggle.
forgot the link realclimate.org of course
|
|
|
Post by ayjoso on Dec 18, 2008 1:10:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jan 2, 2009 19:12:21 GMT
I found the information here -- climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/the-southern-oscillation-and-the-sun-2/ -- to be worth a read. The author of the post, Earl Happ, makes the case that the La Nina just begun will not survive into spring, and he uses solar cycle research in support of his argument. I've only read the post once, probably not enough to take it in completely. I'll be curious what others here think about it!
|
|