• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

ExxonMobil muddies global warming science

chaim

Veteran
Jan 25, 2005
1,994
137
✟25,371.00
Faith
Other Religion
You may want to get off your high horse there. The Milankovitch (I butchered the spelling pretty badly on my last post) is a well know theory of orbital dynamics that helps to explain ice ages. If you want to learn more about it, look it up - it will be in any good planetary science text. And no, I nor anyone else, can prove it. There is no such thing as proof in science so you (and all the people who clamor for "proof" of global warming) need to learn a little more about how science works.


All of you: Post proof or retract.
 
Upvote 0

jgarden

Senior Veteran
Jan 1, 2004
10,695
3,181
✟106,405.00
Faith
Methodist
You may want to get off your high horse there. The Milankovitch (I butchered the spelling pretty badly on my last post) is a well know theory of orbital dynamics that helps to explain ice ages. If you want to learn more about it, look it up - it will be in any good planetary science text. And no, I nor anyone else, can prove it. There is no such thing as proof in science so you (and all the people who clamor for "proof" of global warming) need to learn a little more about how science works.
The problem is that the supporters of the "Milankovitch Theory" won't have to suffer the consequences of their decision - all of our descendents will.

The "Milankovitch Theory" is being taken totally out of context. It might very well explain "Ice Ages," etc. but they were not the result of a recent intrusive man-made "pollution" in the atmosphere.

We have all seen beaches signed off because of man-made "pollution" in the water. Unfortunately a man-made "polluted atmoshere" cannot be signed off.:bow:
 
Upvote 0

chaim

Veteran
Jan 25, 2005
1,994
137
✟25,371.00
Faith
Other Religion
I think you may be missing my point. I am claiming that the Milankovitch theory explains PREVIOUS ice ages - and NOT the current warming. I agree with the scientific consensus that the current warming is anthropogenic.

We are actually in agreement.


The problem is that the supporters of the "Milankovitch Theory" won't have to suffer the consequences of their decision - all of our descendents will.

The "Milankovitch Theory" is being taken totally out of context. It might very well explain "Ice Ages," etc. but they were not the result of a recent intrusive man-made "pollution" in the atmosphere.

We have all seen beaches signed off because of man-made "pollution" in the water. Unfortunately a man-made "polluted atmoshere" cannot be signed off.:bow:
 
Upvote 0

DieHappy

and I am A W E S O M E !!
Jul 31, 2005
5,682
1,229
54
✟34,107.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The basis of global warming is really quite simple -
- CO2 absorbs strongly in the Infrared
- atmospheric CO2 levels are rising dramatically due to land use changes and fossil fuel burning
- As a result the earth is warming
Not that hard to understand and the data is freely available:

CO2 cross section:
http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Formula=co2&NoIon=on&Units=SI&cIR=on

I understand chemistry, which is why it's easy to believe that CO2 will block the sun's energy from reaching the planet causing global cooling. I also understand that over 96% of photosynthesis comes from the ocean, not our rainforests and that a large portion of the CO2 emitted during any typical year comes from volcanoes.


Without cause and not going back very far


Again, only going back 120 years. Pretty colors and all, but if I accept that the earth a degree warmer now than it was when Benz was tinkering in his garage, that doesn't help find the cause.

If you really want to get into it you can even download the climate models and run them yourself.

But those models are based on someone else's interpretation of the data. Where is this data?

To address the point about global cooling - still no one has provided a single reference to the scientific literature. Newsweek and a forgotten greenpeace flyer is not exactly proof that this was the prevailing view of climate scientists. Secondly - why does what people may or may not have thought in the 70's matter?

It matters because they used the chemical properties of CO2 and a few decades of temperature charts (surface, not as accurate as the NASA one we have today) to determine that we were headed for a man made ice age. I'll try to look for more because I know I've read prevailing scientists opinions about global cooling.

As to whom do you trust, tens of thousands of PhD scientists and respected scientific institutes who have collectively done millions of hours of research, or the oil companies and politicians who have done no research? The decision is pretty easy for me. Or even better - go read the papers and look at the data yourself.

I guess I'll have to look at the data myself because I have a hard time believing a group who's primary source of funding is from scare tactics. As I said before, you could believe the CDC and the WHO about second hand smoke, but if you read the data and understand it, you find out the lies they spread. You could believe Merck and Phizer about safety or you could read the studies and be able to predict that people would drop dead and the drug would get pulled. I've seen the lies before, forgive me for not being ready to trade my car in on an ox just yet.
 
Upvote 0

tollytee

Well-Known Member
Feb 19, 2005
1,234
108
68
Sun Valley, Nevada
✟1,910.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Republican
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.


"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."


http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Your right. How, exactly did the Finger Lakes become a geographical reality without ExxonMobile?

A liberal reporter came to my shop to exact evidence that the cars of our planet were the cause of killing it.

After the interview, she was mad, moody, and did want to talk to us anymore. To break the ice, I offered her a ride in my racecar and she accepted. After I made her file her story in her pants, I put a probe in my exhaust pipe and showed her that my car on the track does not produce hydrocarbons or carbon monoxides any more than her Toyota Sequoia. While I am sure that she was impressed with my scientific data, she was more interested in the contents of the human stomach. She sure did study it alot.

Respectfully,

Tolly

p.s. I never did hear her interview on the radio.
 
Upvote 0

rppearso

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2006
796
24
Alaska
✟1,061.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
I like being able to put gas in my car and heat my home with natural gas. The engineers and scientists for oil companies and contractors are some of the brightest in the world and I work for an oil company contractor as an engineer doing work on very sensitive issues. Oil industry has corruption just as much as the next corporation. Even if global warming is our fault, you have to ask yourself, are you willing to chop wood with an ax to heat your home and ride a horse to work? Alternative energys do not even come close to providing the needed Kw or BTU energy to supply power grid.
 
Upvote 0

SallyNow

Blame it on the SOCK GNOMES!
May 14, 2004
6,745
893
Canada
✟33,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I like being able to put gas in my car and heat my home with natural gas. The engineers and scientists for oil companies and contractors are some of the brightest in the world and I work for an oil company contractor as an engineer doing work on very sensitive issues. Oil industry has corruption just as much as the next corporation. Even if global warming is our fault, you have to ask yourself, are you willing to chop wood with an ax to heat your home and ride a horse to work? Alternative energys do not even come close to providing the needed Kw or BTU energy to supply power grid.

Yes, they do. The kind of energy generation just varies from place to place. Solar, wind, tidal power... all supply clean, plentiful power. But of course, you can't use tidal power in the Nevada desert... you have to solar power and wind power. You can only use limited solar power in, say, Prince Rupert, British Columbia, one of the most cloudy places on Earth, but you can use tidal power, waterwheels, and of course, wind power to augment the solar power.

It's silly, in fact, it is pretty much a lie, now, to call solar, wind, and tidal powers 'alternative energies'. They are cleaner, plentiful, and less deadly energies, and they are very viable.

And there is also little need to totally switch to clean energies. Hybrid cars, cities that operate grids that use both, say, nuclear power and wind power already exist, and do not have problems with power shortages.

For the foreseeable future, yes, we will still need some things to be run off of natural gas and even fuel. But we can switch to bio-diesel, we can build homes that are more energy efficient, and many power grids could easily build clean energy generating plants rather than ones that destroy respitory systems, that create unhealthful smog, and that are just, well, dirty.
 
Upvote 0

Alarum

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2004
4,833
344
✟6,792.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Democrat
I like being able to put gas in my car and heat my home with natural gas. The engineers and scientists for oil companies and contractors are some of the brightest in the world and I work for an oil company contractor as an engineer doing work on very sensitive issues. Oil industry has corruption just as much as the next corporation. Even if global warming is our fault, you have to ask yourself, are you willing to chop wood with an ax to heat your home and ride a horse to work? Alternative energys do not even come close to providing the needed Kw or BTU energy to supply power grid.
As an engineer, therefore, you know the difference between the following two reasons a solution is not implimented:
1) It is physically impossible, or vastly impractical
2) It is not cost-effective

Alternative energy is sitting in number two. We know the technology works. We know it works reliably. We just do not have the manufacturing process to produce it cost effectively.

As an engineer in the oil and gas industries, you also know we are near or past peak oil. You know that the concept of peak oil is not invalidated by new recovery methods or new discoveries of oil under an ocean, or in the frozen tundra. You know that it states that there is an economic peak of of production efficiency, a point where the advantages of mass production and improving technology are outweighed by the cost of finding, reaching, and transporting the oil, which results in steadily declining production. Additionally, the demand is increasing. Barring mild fluctuations, the price of oil will increase steadily. The average this decade will be higher than last decade, the average next decade will be higher than this one.

Alternative energy, meanwhile, is having a steadily decreasing cost as people discover new methods of mass production and design to maximize watt/$.

Sinking money into research so we will be aggressively poised to exploit regional differences in the steadily converging costs and smooth the transition between the two energy forms makes sound engineering sense.
 
Upvote 0

rppearso

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2006
796
24
Alaska
✟1,061.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
As an engineer, therefore, you know the difference between the following two reasons a solution is not implimented:
1) It is physically impossible, or vastly impractical
2) It is not cost-effective

Alternative energy is sitting in number two. We know the technology works. We know it works reliably. We just do not have the manufacturing process to produce it cost effectively.

As an engineer in the oil and gas industries, you also know we are near or past peak oil. You know that the concept of peak oil is not invalidated by new recovery methods or new discoveries of oil under an ocean, or in the frozen tundra. You know that it states that there is an economic peak of of production efficiency, a point where the advantages of mass production and improving technology are outweighed by the cost of finding, reaching, and transporting the oil, which results in steadily declining production. Additionally, the demand is increasing. Barring mild fluctuations, the price of oil will increase steadily. The average this decade will be higher than last decade, the average next decade will be higher than this one.

Alternative energy, meanwhile, is having a steadily decreasing cost as people discover new methods of mass production and design to maximize watt/$.

Sinking money into research so we will be aggressively poised to exploit regional differences in the steadily converging costs and smooth the transition between the two energy forms makes sound engineering sense.
I would generally agree with that, although new discovery wells, processes and pilot plants are being built on the north slope to meet demand. When we can economicly switch to alternative energy I wont have a problem, I do have a problem with people who only have broad knowlage of science and engineering issues that whine and cry about oil industrys and how they need to shut down. And hence that brings me back to my origninal argument, unless you have alot of money to set up your own wind power/fuel cell etc to include battery back up systems and integrate it into a home you are going to be chopping wood and riding a horse. And that does not include your vehical, which still needs gas no matter how many bells and whistles you put on it to get better milliage. The same people that whine and cry about big oil will still be whining and crying when they get the bill for the infrastructure upgrades to go to alternative energy, what you mean we the people have to pay for this, [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] thats an outrage.

Nuclear power and wind power. The power comparison between thoes two sources is night and day and to me putting up the wind mills is a political statement hey look at us we are running a grid with "alternative energy" oh yea and we have a nuclear power plant did we forget to mention that.

This nation is so energy hungry that alternative energy wont work without curving behavior, acomplished through steep financal costs, everyone wants to live in this utopia and no one wants to pay for it (including myself but thats why I dont complain about big oil). Everyone wants to drive escalades and take 45 min hot showers get into there escalade from there heated/airconditioned garage all on free alternative energy because it comes from nature. I have probably offended everyone on this forum now and will be cited because no one wants to hear reality.
 
Upvote 0

chaim

Veteran
Jan 25, 2005
1,994
137
✟25,371.00
Faith
Other Religion
I understand chemistry, which is why it's easy to believe that CO2 will block the sun's energy from reaching the planet causing global cooling. I also understand that over 96% of photosynthesis comes from the ocean, not our rainforests and that a large portion of the CO2 emitted during any typical year comes from volcanoes.

I think you need to review your thermodynamics. CO2 is a strong absorber in the thermal infrared band and is largely transparent at visible or solar wavelengths. As such it does NOT cause cooling by blocking the sun's radiation which is concentrated around 500nm.
The incoming solar radiation hits the earth, warms the earth, which then re-radiates as black body radiator in the the thermal IR. This is then trapped by CO2 (and water vapor) on its way back out to space causing the earth to warm. There are plenty of reliable references on the internet about how this works

Your understanding of the CO2 budget is also a little skewed. Firstly the contribution of Volcanoes to atmospheric CO2 is insignificant compared to anthropogenic sources, let alone bio-genic source. It is about 0.15Tg/year compared to 7 Tg/year from anthropogenic sources (More details at: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/programmes/landres/segs/downloads/VolcanicContributions.pdf )
You are correct about oceans being the largest CO2 sink - but I am not sure exactly how that relates.

Without cause and not going back very far



Again, only going back 120 years. Pretty colors and all, but if I accept that the earth a degree warmer now than it was when Benz was tinkering in his garage, that doesn't help find the cause.
You asked for the raw data - here it is. These are both instrumental records, if you want to go back further you need to use paleo-climatology such as ice core records. The data from these is also available:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/


But those models are based on someone else's interpretation of the data. Where is this data?
The models are based on one set of initialization data - the model produces the rest of the data. You can use the paleo- data above or current met to initialize the model. There is not 'interpretation' of the data.


It matters because they used the chemical properties of CO2 and a few decades of temperature charts (surface, not as accurate as the NASA one we have today) to determine that we were headed for a man made ice age. I'll try to look for more because I know I've read prevailing scientists opinions about global cooling.
Regardless of what was in the popular press, I haven't seen anything about global cooling in the scientific literature, so to compare it to global warming is not exactly fair.

Secondly I don't think any such global cooling theories had any thing to do with CO2.


I guess I'll have to look at the data myself because I have a hard time believing a group who's primary source of funding is from scare tactics. As I said before, you could believe the CDC and the WHO about second hand smoke, but if you read the data and understand it, you find out the lies they spread. You could believe Merck and Phizer about safety or you could read the studies and be able to predict that people would drop dead and the drug would get pulled. I've seen the lies before, forgive me for not being ready to trade my car in on an ox just yet.
I think you should look at the data yourself. However to claim that the source of funding for scientist is scare tactics is false. Take a look through the titles of funded research at www.nsf.gov and tell me how many of them sound alarmist. Also realize that if money was the issue, it would be completely in the interest of scientists to disprove global warming. Dick Lindzen is one of the best paid earth scientist around - he makes over $2000 a day being a spokesman for the western fuels association - not to mention all the global warming skeptics hansomly funded by Exxon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DieHappy
Upvote 0

Alarum

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2004
4,833
344
✟6,792.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Democrat
Nuclear power and wind power. The power comparison between thoes two sources is night and day and to me putting up the wind mills is a political statement hey look at us we are running a grid with "alternative energy" oh yea and we have a nuclear power plant did we forget to mention that.
I'd certainly agree. Barring a few regional areas with high wind speeds, wind power is not effective. For those regions its amazing. But in general, wind isn't that impressive.

The thing with alternative energy is that its a regional implimentation. For Iceland, with their copious volcanos and cold spots, geothermal power works wonders. Geothermal power is junk most places (I still don't know how they operate with their sort of steam quality, I'd hate to manage those turbines).

My strategy would be sink government money into creating efficient and cheap alternative energy sources, and allow private companies to impliment them in cost-effective ways.
This nation is so energy hungry that alternative energy wont work without curving behavior, acomplished through steep financal costs, everyone wants to live in this utopia and no one wants to pay for it (including myself but thats why I dont complain about big oil). Everyone wants to drive escalades and take 45 min hot showers get into there escalade from there heated/airconditioned garage all on free alternative energy because it comes from nature. I have probably offended everyone on this forum now and will be cited because no one wants to hear reality.
You think that's bad. You should have heard the reaction when I told people that $3 gas was an environmentalists wet dream. There's no faster way to make people stop driving SUVs and start carpooling and driving efficient cars than have $3 gallons of gas, I said.

Even the environmentalists hated me for that one.
 
Upvote 0