Group Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: DAB
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Views 2412 views
  • Likes 3 likes
  • Comments 27 comments
Related
Recommended

Why I want to speed up Global Warming!

DAB

As some of you have seen in past posts, I completely reject the current effort to concern the public about global warming.

 

Mostly I object to the blatant scare tactics and lack of any scientific information that supports their position that we should work to stop it.  This last point is the really ludicrous goal.  When you do the math, we mortal humans have very few options when it comes to altering a natural planetary cycle.

 

So I went to the impeachable data source, the Geologic Record.  The data is very clear.  The earth has alternated between cold earth and warm earth states for the last 2.5 BILLION years.

When you add the Ice Core data, it shows that the cycle has been running about every 100,000 years for the last 700,000 to 800,000 years.

Almost all of the cycles have repeated like clockwork completely without any HUMAN involvement at all.

This last part is key.  The anti-global warming faction want to blame the industrial development by humans as the cause for the latest cycle.  rubbish!

 

The eco faction claims that burning the rain forest and burning fossil fuels has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and that is the cause of global warming.  Unfortunately, the math just does not work for this claim.

First of all, they are trying to use the Ice Core data as their source for comparing the CO2 levels.  They only made one tiny mistake.  The Ice trapped the CO2 level at about 10,000 feet (3000 meters) or higher.  They then want to compare those values to the current CO2 levels as measured at sea level.  When you look at the atmosphere density numbers, you would need to read twice or three times that sea level data to match the expected CO2 levels trapped in the ice.

 

Note, all of this data is in a paper published by a Polish Geologist who correctly measured the physical process of how the CO2 is first trapped and then dissolved into the water crystals as the weight of the ice compresses each snow level into glacial ice.  His research shows a very clean natural cycle by which the CO2 is removed from the atmosphere on the onset of global cooling.  Over the 50,000 years of the cycle, the CO2 levels are slowly reduced until they reach their minimum levels at the peak of the Ice age, some 12-14,000 years ago.

 

As the planet naturally warms, the ice releases the trapped CO2 until the levels reach their peak in about another 35,000 years from now.  No magic, no Human involvement, just a clean well defined natural cycle.

The latest NASA satellite measured the CO2 accumulations around the planet.  They confirmed that you have the highest concentrations of CO2 in the areas where we see melting ice.  In the high mountains and on both poles.  There were no abnormal CO2 levels in ANY of the industrial centers around the world.  So stopping the use of fossil fuels is not going to have ANY affect on the global warming cycle.

 

Now lets talk about the consequences of global warming.  The Eco factions have claimed that we will all drown as the sea levels rise as the ice melts.  That's not what the Geologic record says.

Yes, the ice will release a lot of water, BUT, ice takes up 10% more volume than water!  So we should se a net reduction in sea levels as the ice melts.

As for the land locked ice, yes it will add some additional water, but they are overlooking one important fact.  As the earth warms, there will be a tremendous absorption of water into the atmosphere.  One clear normal cycle is that warm air can hold a lot more water than cold air.  So as the earth warms, we will see a significant rise in humidity into the upper latitude regions that are currently very dry.

 

When we look into the Geologic Record, we see that a warm earth creates a huge amount of arable land up to the 70 degree latitude level.  That means we will get a huge amount of land to grow crops and support the population.  I do not see that result as being bad for humans.

 

We have also been told that the warming earth will create huge mega storms.  Again, science shows a much different result.  As the seas and the atmosphere warms, it will actually get MORE stable.  Why?  Storms are caused by the mixing of cold dry air and warm moist air.  With warm areas up to the 70 degree latitude area, the amount of cold dry air will be reduced by over 60%.  Most of the earth will experience the afternoon rain forest effect where we will get a short down pour in the late afternoon with just localized thunderstorms.  No mega hurricanes or typhoons, just consistent rain fall.  Most importantly, we will see rising humidity into areas that are now dry arid regions.  The deserts will bloom again!

 

As for living conditions, we will need much less energy to keep warm.  We should also need almost no cooling as the temperature will stabilize at about 85 degrees F for year round temperatures.

With the constant rain fall, we should have plenty of fresh water falling from the sky, so we can provide clean drinking water just about everywhere.  Hydro power can dominate the reduced energy needs of the population and we can use canals and small boats for efficient transportation.

 

I do not know about you, but I am not finding anything to fear here.

 

Plus we have a lot of time to prepare for the event.  We are currently about 13,000 years into the 50,000 year global warming cycle.  So there is absolutely no need to panic.  Yes, we will have some localized flooding along the way, but we have those every year anyway.

 

So while I am sitting in my home with the outside temperature at 30 degrees F, and oh by the way, we have spent much of the last six weeks below that temperature, I find it very desirable to have an early global warming cycle.  So I plan to burn fossil fuels, increase my carbon foot print and put as much CO2 into the atmosphere that I can and I urge all of you to do the same.

Plus I plan to beat any Eco person I meet with a stick, just to get warm. image

 

So I say enough with this Chicken Little doom and gloom propaganda about global warming.  The SCIENCE says don't panic, common sense says don't panic and the Eco people have not provided one shred of supportable data that says we should panic.  So just say "I want Global Warming and I want it NOW!" and join me in silencing these worry warts who know nothing of value.

 

Just my opinion,

DAB

Parents

  • In general I would say to DAB - I can see why you think you might be onto something here, but as I understand it the science does not support your argument.

     

    A lot of people who are concerned about the economic consequences of climate mitigation seek refuge in the natural historical climate cycles. Yes it's true that the earth warms and cools - very very slowly, but the problem is that it should currently be cooling, not warming. Furthermore, the last time it warmed by the factor of the past 150 years, it took mother nature 8,000 years to manage it.

     

    It's essential to understand that the chief danger from climate change is not the direct effect of the weather on humans - serious though this already is for many. It is the effect on agriculture, and the ecosystem services which support it - which have largely been taken for granted until relatively recently. Your ambitions for the climate would be catastrophic for the organisms which deliver clean air, clean water and productive soil, as well as allowing for massive shifts in the distribution of predatory pests and microbes, without allowing sufficient time for interdependent ecosystems to adapt. Listen to Farming Today each morning, (that's BBC by the way), and you'll soon understand the devastating effect of the current very minor changes to weather patterns on UK farms, and the situation elsewhere in the world is already vastly worse.

     

    Historically, climate change has occurred for two reasons:

     

    1) Slow change caused largely by fluctuations in solar forcings (on cycles we understand pretty well, with a couple of small question marks). These have had major consequences for life on Earth, but on the whole it has adapted and flourished as a result (with casualties and winners, as expected though evolution, along the way).

     

    2) Rapid change caused by a) volcanic emissions - which only last for a few years and have had little effect on the ecological footprint during the holocene, and b) major externalities such as the meteor that did for the dinosaurs - and in fact a large percentage of the species on earth at the time.

     

    We are looking at something much closer to 2b today - with almost certainly major loss of life though wars over resources, and starvation due to collapse of food systems, long before by any by heat, thirst or drowning.

     

    As for the veracity of the science, we can now put the argument to bed. There is 97% agreement by those qualified to speak on this (and it is after all very complicated) working under the closest scrutiny applied to any science since the Enlightenment. The consensus is a dynamic thing, based on argument and disagreement, yet there is remarkable unanimity - further endorsed by the signatures to IPCC5 of 193 heads of state - most of whom would FAR rather believe you than the scientists!

     

    There is of course a massive amount of misinformation in the internet - and you can find very convincing-looking websites to support any hare-brained theory you like, from chemtrails to HAARP to World Trade Building Three (not to mention Elvis still being alive and working in a chip-shop). And it's even possible that buried within one of these rants there's something that would change the whole story - because there are still a few gaps an anomalies in IPCC5, and no science is ever fully proven. (Actually all the emerging science has the situation far FAR worse than IPCC5 - which barely  mentions the terrifying likelihood of major methane release from melting permafrost and acidifying oceans - but let's not go there today)!

     

    Oddly enough, many of the skeptic websites are run by retired TV weathermen and semi-pro metrorologists (many of whom are also linked to Big Oil or Big Man in the Sky agendas, but we can safely ignore them in this debate). Maybe the genuine ones just can't let go of decades of habitual methodology - which sadly no longer works because the underlying physics is changing.

     

    If anyone wants a reliable website to test out the various theories - and by reliable I mean endorsed by genuine climate scientists (and no, they're not just in it for the money - there would be FAR more to be made from 'proving' that we could carry on as before - and they're not environmentalists either, except perforce - many might have agreed with your take on the world, DAB, until the data became incontrovertable)... if you want some guys to trust go here:

     

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/

     

    The argument against your theory, DAB, is top of the list.

     

    It's a darn nuisance this is happening, and yes, it's going to cost a bomb and dramatically affect all our lives. But it IS fixable if we stop looking for reasons not to take action, and instead put our considerable skills into working out how to turn adversity to advantage.

     

    Tom

  • in reply to Former Member

    Hi Tom,

     

    My point is that science does support my position.  It does not support the argument that any human activity has affected the cause of global warming and it certainly does not support any significant change in global warming.  The math just does not work to support their claims.

    The change in agriculture is precisely the issue.  We know from the ice core data that we are just beginning to enter a rapidly changing rate of change.  There will be disruptions in local conditions and I agree, we need to be spending resources to better understand how we can adapt our agriculture to the changing conditions.  We cannot change why it occurs, we can only address how we can compensate.

    The slow rate of change and abnormal events are part of the global cycle.  Volcanoes are one of several natural phenomena that can drastically affect the short term climate.  We also have comet strikes, asteroids and massive earthquakes as other big players.  We are at much higher probability of their changing world climate than we can ever expect from human caused changes.

    As for the 97% agreement by Ecologist, if you check closely, you will find that they agree that global warming is occurring, not that humans are the main cause.

    Plus, to get your Phd, you have to agree with the academic view of the universe.  That does not make their position truth or science, just a political necessity to get your degree and grant money to keep you employed.  The heads of states agree to capture their large block of votes.  Agreeing costs them nothing and gives them an edge over their opponents.  No surprise there, just political reality.

    I also agree that the amount of misinformation, both pro and con, is massive.  It is no wonder that a lot of people have been led to believe the politically correct theory of bad industry.  It reminds me of the big event about the ozone holes at the north and south pole.  Remember how these same ecologist convinced everyone to replace there fluorocarbon chemicals for CO2?  Guess what happened to the ozone hole.  NOTHING, its still there.  Why?  Because like global warming, it is the result of natural interactions between the ozone and strong magnetic fields at the poles.  The holes had always been there, are still there and will be there long after we are gone.

    So I tend to not believe anyone who claims that little amounts of anything, little on a global level, can change what will happen on the rest of the planet.  As I said, the math just does not work when you look at the volumes involved and the natural process for the atmosphere to move and disperse ground level gases.

     

    As too your last point, I agree.  We can flog the dead horse all we want.  The only productive thing we can do is to prepare for the eventual consequences.  Global warming will only stop if something really bad happens.  If it stops, then 6.5 Billion people will die.  Those are true facts, if Global warming stops.  If we do not continue to warm, then we will return to cold earth.  Cold earth will only support a population we saw thirteen thousand years ago, something on the order of a couple of million people I believe.

     

    Do not misunderstand my position.  I want Global warming to continue and I want people to stop any activity that will slow or end it.  The results of those conditions will be tragic.

    The results of Global warming will cause localized issues, but will benefit everyone in the long term.

    As I also said, we have no reason to panic.  The natural process takes many thousands of years.  The year to year and century to century rates of change are measurable, but mostly insignificant.  We have the time to adapt and find solutions to keep food production at a high level throughout the process.  All you have to do is look at the changes in just the last 1000 years and you get a good idea about what we can expect in the next 1000 years.

     

    The law of the planet is "Adapt or Die!", I suspect that it is also the law of the universe.  Standing still is not an option, the planet is constantly changing and we have no choice.

    I just want everyone to stop blaming imaginary causes and focus on how best to deal with the slow changes.  We have the science and we have the technology.  CO2 capture is a futile effort so we just need to stop wasting resources in that area.  We should concentrate on ways to move or create large quantities of clean water and food so that we can survive.

     

    DAB

  • in reply to DAB

    So when you say Ecologist, you are referring to the Journal? I see.

     

    I do have a friend who subscribes to your view and because I respect his thinking I've looked carefully at the evidence, and found nothing to support it. The consensus is clearly in favour of a man-made phenomenon, and the hockey stick has now been verified by sufficient data for no-one in the community to question it seriously - though I assume you must reject it outright?

     

    When you say the maths does not add up - what maths exactly does not add up? And on what grounds can you be sure your maths is superior to the published maths?

     

    What is your view on methane clathrate?

     

    And please see my reply above.

     

    Thank you

  • in reply to Former Member

    Hi Tom,

     

    If you want me to agree with consensus then you have to prove to me it is based upon more than politics.

     

    Issue 1, where is the data they use to reach their conclusion, since they have dismissed the verifiable geologic and Ice core data, I am at a loss where they have come up with data that is accurate, temporally meaningful, verified, validated, and available for anyone to assess.  The last batch of data presented was admittedly faked.  So show me the data.

     

    Issue 2, what models and algorithms are they using to predict the dire consequences?  What are its variables and constants.  Where are the sensitivity analysis that identifies which variables have the most effect.  Where are the validation reports showing that the model outputs have been independently verified and validated.  What current data is being feed into the model and how accurately does it predict the future and on what time scale.  The current models used for weather prediction are only accurate at about 90% for fifteen minutes in the future and only for small local areas.  They are useless for anything beyond that time frame.

     

    Issue 3,  show me how a 0.01% change in CO2 levels can affect the entire planet?  The volumetric issues are crucial, you just can't look at a microcosm of data and extrapolate it to planetary effects.

    Everyone is underestimating the global effects of air mixing, up and down drafts, cyclonic activity, lightning, aircraft, volcanoes, evapotranspiration, ocean currents and the constantly growing number of people on the planet.

     

    The system is just too big and has too many variable for any computer model to predict anything about the future.  You can do projections, but they are just tossing dice for accuracy. 

     

    Your skeptics web site is the best political spin zone I have ever seen.  Its whole purpose is to plant doubt in everyone's mind that the detractors are a bunch of nut jobs.

    The tactic of killing the messengers is not science, it is propaganda at its most effective level.

     

    So I would like to continue this discussion, but you have not provided any information that changes my thesis that global warming is natural and not to be feared.

    You have shown that the political issues and propaganda on the issue is to be greatly feared.  After all, the only viable solution to the doom and gloom is to eliminate human activity across the planet.

    I for one object to that insinuation.

     

    As for my anger, you have interpreted my passion for anger.  In fact, you have provided me with more entertainment than I have had in months.  Thank you for your time, but I remain a non-believer and will continue to press my agenda until I am shown independently verified and validated processes that will put the "smoking" gun in the hands of humans.

    Until then, none of your arguments would survive scrutiny in a court of law and a jury of normal "humans".

     

    Let me know when you have the proof I need, but I truly doubt that you can provide it.

     

    DAB

  • in reply to DAB

    I've done a bit of lateral research and I can see where you're coming from, but in saying the "skeptics web site is the best political spin zone I have ever seen" you have made it impossible for me to respond in the terms you ask, as it suggests you will only dismiss my own arguments as political spin, and I really don't have time for that.

     

    I hope at least that some of your readers will visit https://www.skepticalscience.com/ (others are available) and follow some of the debates. The regulars (some of whom are colleagues of my colleagues) are very welcoming to people with your opinion, very well-informed, and very precise in keeping the discussion to the science. The points you raise in your OP are often floated, and often dismissed - but of course you have already given your reason for that.

     

    All the best

     

    Tom

  • in reply to Former Member

    Hi Tom,

     

    If I said anything offensive, I apologize.  This topic just gets my juices flowing.

    I encourage you to continue research on the subject.  If you do find the data I am searching for, please let me know.

    Thanks for the discussion.

     

    DAB

Comment Children
  • in reply to DAB

    Don, a final word if I may. If you really think you've spotted something crucial that hundreds of professional climate scientists have missed, why don't you float your ideas in a forum where you can advise them of their omission, instead of here. Over and out - Tom

  • in reply to Former Member

    Hi Tom,

     

    You do not need my permission to comment on any blog at Element 14, especially my own. 

    I greatly enjoyed your interaction as you have demonstrated you have both conviction and intelligence to at least discuss the issue.

     

    As you have shown, there are already a solid defense set up for ignoring non-believers.  I was neither surprised nor discouraged.  As I said the engineering metrics needed for their theory fails the giggle test and will eventually unravel.  I only wish that millions of people did not need to suffer while they defend their belief.

     

    I made this post as a prelude to a new blog on my upcoming book "I Killed Schrodinger's Cat!".

     

    I have made a very interesting discovery about the current scientific beliefs world wide and I am about to suggest a new way to view the universe and everything in it.

    I have followed the old scientific procedures of documenting my theory and then having it independently verified and validated.

    It works and it answers many questions about everything from subatomic issues to cosmology.

    The book is just the spark to initiate some discussions and hopefully some independent experiments to prove it is right.

    And yes, it will impact the current Ecological understanding on the planet.

     

    I indeed have new data that affects everything.  The science community is about to get a lesson in why "consensus" is a very dangerous way to proclaim what is and is not science.  It requires a willingness to think about the possibilities and consider all of the theories.  Fifty years ago there was no consensus on plate tectonics, now it is considered correct.

    For the last 85 years, physicists have clung to probability theory as an alternative to looking deeper into the how the universe works.

    In my observation, that consensus stifled physics and cosmology for all of those years.

     

    By using an open mind and considering "heretical" options, I have defined a theory that I am very confident will eventually prove it is true.

    Like Einstein, I used the old German gedunken exercises to explore how it might answer the many questions unanswered by Quantum Mechanics.

     

    So there is no final word to knowledge and understanding.  Our data, theories and beliefs change with demonstrated and independently verified facts.

    In my case, I applied a Systems Engineering approach to see if I could unravel the Universe.  My book will show that there is indeed a solution to many questions about how things might really work.

     

    Time will tell.  The same is true for the theory that man has caused Global Warming.  Maybe not in my lifetime, but eventually the data will prove what is true.

     

    Thank you for your time, it has indeed be fun.

     

    DAB

  • in reply to DAB

    FYI, it's 'gedanken', not 'gedunken'.

  • in reply to vsluiter

    Thanks Victor, the spell checker choked on the word.

     

    DAB

  • in reply to DAB

    While "gedanken experiment" is fine in English, I would write it as "Gedanken experiment" because German capitalizes all Nouns and to me it looks wrong if they're not capitalized image  Actually, the proper German word is Gedankenexperiment, one of those wonderful German compound nouns.

     

    I figure, if you're going to use high-brow words you might as well be as pedantic as possible image  Especially since Wiktionary is so close at hand.