Lies and misinformation of the deniers

Warm air holds more water than cold air...it is a fact...make of it what you will.

 

"common sense" once led us to believe that there was nothing living too small to see and they certainly would not cause fevers - "common sense" also had us believing the sun orbited Earth and that the Earth was flat

Just because you find this counter intuitive does not make it untrue

 

Most thing that are counter intuitive, aren't true.

CO2 is the boogie man because the climate models didn't predict the rise in temp they were seeing. The scientists needed an explanation. Socialist, which had infilterated the Greens', needed a way to stifle capitaism. A carbon economy puts out CO2, CO2 is a greenhouse gas - a match made in heaven (if you are a socialist, hell if you are a capitalist).

Could the problem be CO2, sure. But, how do you determine the effect CO2 has on the total greenhouse effect. You can't hold everything else constant and add CO2 and measure the difference.

As complex as the climate models are, they are too crude. Anything nearing the needed complexity would take longer to run on the fastest supercomputer than the actual climate change.

 

Cue the the Twilight-Zone music....

 

No that is a theory but you can believe it. I guess all those factories and cars back then caused it LOL


Funny thing is when I show NASA and water vapor no response. It shows you have nothing because warming is natural climate change

 

Yes - a theory that has stood since the 1800s is one that you can generally believe

Yes. That is correct. I 'm glad you have heard of the Industrial Revolution.

 

Another attempt to deflect from the point of this thread : Lies and misinformation of the deniers.

But to answer your question and help you learn a little about the physics of CO2's effect on the temperature of the atmosphere you can start here at the scienceofdoom site.

When you get done understanding the science come back and we can have an honest discussion without the paranoia and conspiracy theories.

 

Back on topic, from the scienceofdoom site more misinformation by the deniers, Gehrlich and Tseuschner:

 

Retreat into politics = confirmation the science doesn't support denial.

 

based on the evidence NASA isn't the issue, it's your inability to understand the most basic science of any sort...

 

Taking a statement out of context trying to eliminate the scientific content - that is politics.

Please read on....

Politics can't pollute pure science, but it can co-opt uncertain science for political gain.

Add a few vitriolic talking point, hide the cost, and ignore the fact that there are no viable alternative energies on the horizon, and you have a full blown politcal campaign.

 

what do you know about alternative energies?

I am inclined to see an element of protectionism going on here - the sinmple fact that the fossil fuels lobby is a huge contributor to the various arms of the denialist campaign, and the spread of misinformation, suggests that some of those non viable alternatives may be more viable - or closer to viability - than you think.

 

if you are using "socialist" or "socialism" as a justification of your argument, it is clear that you are more interested in the politics of the issue rather than the science of the issue.

when people do this, they simply demonstrate their lack of understanding.

it is not just climate scientists you need to discredit - it is a vast number of scientists from various disciplines who are seeing significant changes in ecosystems and species distribution and behaviours, among other things.

and then, you'll also need to convince non human species as well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14576664

 

I have been following the progress of alternative energies, looking for anything that looks viable.

For transportation fuel, the best appears to be oil from algae, which can be cracked to diesel, gasoline and propane - which fit into existing infrstructure, and important consideration. Algae is best because the oil yield per acre is doable, and it doesn'rt require cropland . Every other plant based oil has a max yield of 1/10 algae's conservative figure, and requires crop land.

Butonal (alcohol) replaces gasoline directly, not ready for commercial production.


For electrical generation:

Photo voltaic has a low efficiency, but more importantly, even with a smart, nation wide, grid, can't provide more than 8 hours a day of power.

Sunlight melting salt (thermal storage for 24/7 operation), running a stirling cycle engine has much efficiency, but has several wearout mechanisms. A lot of prototypes, nothing significant in the field. Salt also runs steam engines, which are deployed in a few locations. No excitement.

Wind, land intensive. Tidal and wave, lots of bugs to work out. Geothermal, hugely corrosive.

Nuclear - NIMBY, hydro, NIMBY anbd enough to augment, but not replace.

How much have you studied alternative energies?

 

You present these as all or nothing - and that of course is completely bogus.

Ever driven through the windy parts of TX, there is just a bit of open space there....

Are you really saying my brother hasn't cut his electrical bills by 60% with solar, because he has...

Are you really saying that capturing tidal energy is an impossible technical challenge?

 

A bit testy are we?

All or nothing because the climate politicians say we have to reduce atmospheric CO2, that means stop all current production, and recapture what is there.

What other alternative energy sources have the potential to replace fossil fuels? Economic viability requires volume production.

Solar panels are just starting to get to volume, so the price has dropped to about $300 / 200W panel at the the consumer.

Your brother can, today. When 40% of the energy usesrs zero out their bill with solar, there will be extra power, with no where to go. Will your brothers power company afford to give that 40% free power?

How does "bugs to work out" translate into "an impossible technical challenge"?

One thing that can be done today to cut CO2 production, install water cooled, natural gas generators in all houses with natural gas. Run them when heat is needed, to heat water, to heat the house. Cogeneration is 90+% efficient, electricity is generation by power plant is 50%. That lost 40% provides "free" heat, and natural gas puts out less CO2 per watt than coal.

And, Exxon Mobil has bought, and funding, a company working on biofuel from algae. Algae is where fossil fuels came from.

 

lols - I haven't paid for electricity in over two years and I get a refund!

but apart from that, what you are suggesting is correct. the whole thing with alternative energies is that there will be various kinds suited to local conditions.

where I am there is plenty of solar power, and even in winter my electricity bill is low (not negative - so I use up some of the credits I have earned). In some regions tidal power would be better, and in some regions wind is pretty good. usually, not one of these (or a range of others) is sufficient alone.

a huge part of it is better design (of cities, including transport infrastructure, and buildings) as well, and more efficient use of resources.

the thing is that if money is invested in the research, a lot of things are pretty close.

 

Is Cap and Tax a scientific solution, or a poilitical one? Or throwing money at "green jobs"?

Is ALGORE a scare mongering politician, or a scientist?

Governments are seeing MMGW as a cash cow, a big scary problem, so big only gooberment can solve it - but what are they doing? They have no solution. The Cap & Tax dollars are not going to fund AE development, to buy land for wind mills (has government offered any of the millions of acres of land it owns for wind farms?). The tax $ are going into the general fund.

The problem isn't the scientists, it IS the politicians.

You want to spur AE development, fix a barrel of oil at $150 and let the free market take the reigns.

Read a few of my posts on methane hydrates.

 

The lifespan of CO2 is long enough that less use only delays, doesn't prevent MMGW (if the models are right).

As far as city design - how many roofs reflect less than 50% of the light they get. The albedo of the earth is 67%, some of that captured light being converted to food by plants, not converted to heat.

Any surface that reflects less than 50% adds heat to the system - and this is a system. Paint the planet white, and CO2 is no longer a problem, snow and ice is.

How many square feet of asphalt have we laid? 95% of the light converted to heat. I replaced my asphalt (5000 sq ft) driveway with light pavers, reduced the heat generation by 450MW per year.

Even wonder about the heat island effect? The tall buildings downtown, can be white, but after light bounces back and forth several times, losing 10% to heat each time... Sound and RF engineers use a chamber with attenuating cones called an anechoic chamber. - sky scrapers behave the same way with light.

 

reflecting heat at the surface seems to be a futile project...surface heat will always dissipate upwards ...the GHG happens at altitude it absorbs/delays whatever the IR from the surface from leaving so reflecting it upward is only doing what it will do anyways...the sun's output is relatively constant as is the planet's albedo and until the increase of GHGs so was the heat loss...
increasing the planets albedo is a waste of time if the GHG's continue to increase, blocked solar energy will only replaced by earth's own trapped IR energy cooking us from the inside out...

 

there you go, proving that to you it is a political argument.

you do realise that conservative governments outside the US in general recognise AGW is a major issue, don't you?

the disagreement is on how to deal with it.

 

Do you have a link that describes this magical process?

Everything I read puts the light converted to heat when it hits the ground, is the dominant source of IR / heat.

 

To quote you

What are the political solutions? Tax energy at a high rate, which increases the cost of everything,even though there are no viable alternatives energy sources?

What are their soultions?

 

A conservative government accepts AGW as a major issue? Name that country. Oh, and the U.S. is scarcely a conservative government.

 

it generally called an education...

the earth also supplies IR, and lot's of it...internal core is 5-6K, heat dissipates prevent dissipation with increased CO2 levels and temps build even if the earth albedo is increased...