Green Technology Warming Earth?

CaptainObvious · May 1, 2012

The manufacturing of one turbine produces 250,000 lbs. of CO2.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vCGuaRqv8No" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

futurecurrents · May 1, 2012

Quote from CaptainObvious:

So you didn't read the article. No surprise. Yes, there is near surface methane being released due to CO2, but where is all that CO2 coming from? Some of it man made? Sure! But there is much methane being released from deep water and that methane turns into CO2 as it rises to the surface. We have a combo of methane and CO2, but methane is the root cause of the warming, not CO2. From the article:
"In deep water, methane gas oxidizes into carbon dioxide before it reaches the surface. In the shallows of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, methane simply doesnât have enough time to oxidize, which means more of it escapes into the atmosphere".

Problem for the GW cult is it's really kind of difficult to find a way to tax the evil under water people producing all that methane.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ping-directly-Arctic-ocean.html#ixzz1tdNQvqjk

Yes methane eventually degrades into CO2 and water. But the amount of CO2 from methane in the atmosphere, if ALL the methane became CO2 the forcing of this CO2 can be estimated as follows.

methane is 20x greater in greenhouse effect

methane now accounts for 28% of temp forcing

thus the CO2 from the methane, if ALL the methane degraded into CO2, would be 1/20 ie . 05 times 28% = 1.4%.

Now this is an admittedly crude calculation but leads to the answer that the CO2 from oxidized methane now contributes no more than 1.4% to the warming.

Again, climatologists know about this. 97% of all the worlds climatologists and all the world's science organizations agree on the fact of man-made global warming due to CO2 from man's activities.

They also know how much fossil fuels we have burnt and are burning. From there it is simple math to determine how much CO2 we have put into the earth's atmosphere and oceans. Also, this CO2 has a certain isotope ratio. The CO2 in our atmosphere can be identified as from fossil fuel burning by this ratio.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/...-CO2-is-man-made-and-other-carbon-isotope-fun

Whack-a-mole. Whack!

futurecurrents · May 1, 2012

Quote from CaptainObvious:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vCGuaRqv8No" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I don't watch stupid vacuous emotionally warped videos. What's the gist of it? Show me an article. The data. I know how to read.

CaptainObvious · May 1, 2012

Quote from futurecurrents:

I don't watch stupid vacuous emotionally warped videos. What's the gist of it? Show me an article. The data. I know how to read.

I see you learned a new word, vacuous. I counter with being tired of reading posts from the vapid narcissists which make up the GW cult.:eek:

pspr · May 1, 2012

Quote from CaptainObvious:

I see you learned a new word, vacuous. I counter with being tired of reading posts from the vapid narcissists which make up the GW cult.:eek:

Psssst. (Futurecurrents only believes in "manipulated" data. None of this raw data that shows the real situation. To that he turns a blind eye.)

Ricter · May 1, 2012

Quote from CaptainObvious:

I see you learned a new word, vacuous. I counter with being tired of reading posts from the vapid narcissists which make up the GW cult.:eek:

You admit earlier that warming is occurring, but here you imply that those who believe it are cultists.

futurecurrents · May 1, 2012

Quote from CaptainObvious:

I see you learned a new word, vacuous. I counter with being tired of reading posts from the vapid narcissists which make up the GW cult.:eek:

Yeah sorry. but vacuous is so descriptive of the arguments coming from the wackos here.

futurecurrents · May 1, 2012

Quote from pspr:

Psssst. (Futurecurrents only believes in "manipulated" data. None of this raw data that shows the real situation. To that he turns a blind eye.)

Yes me and virtually all the world's climatologists and relevant scientists, we only like "manipulated data".

Been bitch-slapping any "bitches" recently douche-bag?

Quote from pspr:

You then slapped her senseless, of course.

jem · May 1, 2012

q. whats a climatologist without a govt grant?
a. unemployable.

http://www.climatepedia.org/about-climatologist-careers

Biggest Employers
34% of atmospheric scientists are employed by the federal government, most in the National Weather Service (NWS) [7]
NASA
NOAA
Environmental Consulting Firms -- (mostly total bullshit to comply with govt rules I am sure.)
Corporations: as an in-house environmental consultant (corps feeding on govt trough)

Universities â Research positions, teachers, and classroom or lab assistants (feeding on student loans to charge high tuition for useless degree)

The state that employs the most atmospheric scientists is Colorado, with 1,220 as of 2009. [12] One major reason for this is the National Corporation for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), located in Boulder. (more useless jobs)

CaptainObvious · May 1, 2012

Quote from Ricter:

You admit earlier that warming is occurring, but here you imply that those who believe it are cultists.

Of course it's occurring. The raw data shows that. The cultists have done a very good job of framing the argument. Anyone questioning the root cause is labeled a non-believer accross the board. Makes for effective rhetoric on the campaign trail. It's not the either/or debate they have turned it in to.