Global warming........hmmmmmmmmm.

[louixo]

Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?

ProfessoIan Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.

Born 12 February 1946 (age 67)
Residence Australia
Nationality Australian
Fields Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering
Institutions University of New England,University of Newcastle,University of Melbourne,University of Adelaide
Alma mater University of New South Wales,Macquarie University
Thesis The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976)
Notable awards Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal (2003), Clarke Medal (2004)
r Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.

PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.

Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life. I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.

I don't really want to rain on your parade too much Mr. Gore, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.

Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over One year - think about it.

Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario. I believe most intelligent people know that's just greedy power-hungry politicians trying to get into our hard-working pockets to further their "careers", this so they don't have to work for a living!

Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention 'Global Warming'
anymore, but just 'Climate Change' - you know why?
It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.

And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.
It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
But, hey, relax......give the world a hug and have a nice day!"

 

[davekc]

In a related development this week.
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore tells US Senate there is "no proof" humans cause climate change - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent

 

[Turtle]

The biggest problem is the science itself, and he's right, history will back him up, because as it stands right now, there is no scientific evidence to support human-caused climate change. We certainly play a part in it, because we're here and every living thing on the planet plays a part in it. What they've done is use theory and logic to draw conclusions, and label as evidence, what appears to be nothing more than illusory corollary. They draw a graph of temperatures that show a warming trend, and then draw a graph CO[SUP]2[/SUP] emissions, and when they overlay them the graphs match up, and they immediately connect the two as if they must be connected. They do that because we know that high enough levels of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause runaway greenhouse effect. It's logical. But, they don't really know what those levels actually are.

It's kinda like the logic and theory behind why salt in your diet is bad for you. The idea salt will increase your blood pressure has to do with osmotic pressure. Osmosis is the movement of a solvent (in this case water) across semi-permeable membranes (like cell walls), from areas of lower solute concentration (in this case salt) to areas of higher solute concentration. This naturally equalizes the solute concentration on both sides of the membrane. This osmotic pressure is also why salt can be used to preserve meat.

So, the theory goes, that when we eat too much salt, our bloodstream has more sodium in it than the surrounding areas of our body. This causes the water in those areas to be pulled into our bloodstream. The increase in water within the arteries and veins causes an increase in the pressure within those arteries and veins. The salt itself also acts like an irritant within the arteries causing them to constrict. This too is thought to increase your blood pressure.

The theory seems, on the surface, very sound. After all, we can make the process of salt pulling water through membranes happen time and time again in the lab. The question is, does this actually happen within our bodies, and does this actually cause long term hypertension?

Turns out, nope.

Most of this came from a study by Brookhaven National Laboratory's Lewis Dahl claimed that he had "unequivocal" evidence that salt causes hypertension. He induced high blood pressure in rats by feeding them the human equivalent of 500 grams of sodium a day. (Today the average American consumes 3.4 grams of sodium, or 8.5 grams of salt, a day.) It's science!

Dahl also discovered population trends that continue to this day to be cited as strong evidence of a link between salt intake and high blood pressure. People living in countries with a high salt consumption, like as Japan, also tend to have high blood pressure and more strokes. High blood pressure, high salt, ipso facto wham bam there's the correlation! Except no such link could be found within populations, which means there must be other factors at work and the perceived link is incorrect.

It's CO[SUP]2[/SUP] and temperature graphs. It's an illusory corollary. Despite theory and logic and osmotic pressure, not a sinlge study has found a real, actual link between salt intake and high blood pressure, other than studies that must make assumptions. But many people, the medical community included, hold onto that notion like it is Gospel.

The controversy over the benefits, if any, of salt reduction now constitutes one of the longest running most vitriolic and surreal disputes in all of medicine. It's just as hot of a topic in the world of medicine as climate change is in the environment world. Study after study show an increase in the death rate of those with coronary artery disease who go on reduced salt diets compared to those who eat just as much salt as they way. And more and more studies are showing the correlation between temperature rise and CO[SUP]2[/SUP] emission might be an illusory one.

 

[davekc]

Interesting comparison yet strikingly similar.

 

[muttly]

Very frustrating to read the OP article and know it won't dissuade our current batch of political leaders. They will continue to be full steam ahead in their quest to tackle this global warming thing. Regardless of the repercussions their citizens have to endure with the unnecessary dictates,the contradictory evidence that exists,and the futility of their efforts to reduce carbon emission. Even if they could, it wouldn't matter as much as a bucket of spit..

 

[Turtle]

Another example of illusory corollary that can fool scientists is the discovery of cold fusion. Fusion takes place when atomic nuclei fuse together to form new type of atomic nucleus. It's what happens all the time inside stars like the sun, at millions of degrees, because you need that kind of heat and pressure to force atomic nuclei together. Cold fusion is where it happens at room temperature, where you see energy being consumed and then have excess heat and energy given off above that which is consumed. Basically it's done by conducting electrolysis experiments using a palladium or some other suitable material cathode, and heavy water within a calorimeter, an insulated vessel designed to measure process heat. When more heat is produced that the energy originally available, viola!

Nearly every decade since the 1920s some research team announces that they've finally got it, and within months it's shown to be nothing more than the same illusory corollary. It's not unlike the perpetual motion machine that mysteriously gives off more electricity than it consumes, or HHO gizmos that run a car on water.

Illusory corollary can be a vicious prankster.

Illusory corollary (or correlation) is, of course, where you see a correlation between two things, particular cause and effect, where no such correlation actually exists, one doesn't actually have anything to do with the other. For example, you forgot your pencil at home today, which means you're gonna have a math test at school, because every time you forget your pencil there's a math test. You've just sat down and ordered a nice dinner, and the phone rings with dispatch on the other end with a load you can't turn down. Superstitions, like every time you wear your lucky socks you hit a home run. You believe that people from small towns are nice, so when you meet someone nice you assume they are from a small town.

But those are easy ones to spot. It's when the mind makes connections that don't really exist. Illusory correlation is a logical error that can lead to mistaken conclusions. The ones in science are sometimes tougher to spot, and a lot of scientists get fooled. You can often spot them in whatever new research study that gets released. Like, there was one recent study that indicated a link between men who take fish oil supplements and prostate cancer. It showed men with high levels of fish oil in their system had high rates of prostate cancer. That could very well be an illusory correlation because all the men tested were of the age where prostate cancer manifests itself, and they are also of the age where men tend to take fish oil pills to help reduce their cholesterol. The study could have just as easily shown that men over 50 with prostate cancer tend to be right handed.

But in the end the scientific method eventually gets it right, as peer review, observation and experiment, and efforts to replicate the results end up supporting or refuting the theories. It just takes more time than some want to put up with.

 

[letzrockexpress]

The biggest problem is the science itself, and he's right, history will back him up, because as it stands right now, there is no scientific evidence to support human-caused climate change. We certainly play a part in it, because we're here and every living thing on the planet plays a part in it. What they've done is use theory and logic to draw conclusions, and label as evidence, what appears to be nothing more than illusory corollary. They draw a graph of temperatures that show a warming trend, and then draw a graph CO[SUP]2[/SUP] emissions, and when they overlay them the graphs match up, and they immediately connect the two as if they must be connected. They do that because we know that high enough levels of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause runaway greenhouse effect. It's logical. But, they don't really know what those levels actually are.

It's kinda like the logic and theory behind why salt in your diet is bad for you. The idea salt will increase your blood pressure has to do with osmotic pressure. Osmosis is the movement of a solvent (in this case water) across semi-permeable membranes (like cell walls), from areas of lower solute concentration (in this case salt) to areas of higher solute concentration. This naturally equalizes the solute concentration on both sides of the membrane. This osmotic pressure is also why salt can be used to preserve meat.

So, the theory goes, that when we eat too much salt, our bloodstream has more sodium in it than the surrounding areas of our body. This causes the water in those areas to be pulled into our bloodstream. The increase in water within the arteries and veins causes an increase in the pressure within those arteries and veins. The salt itself also acts like an irritant within the arteries causing them to constrict. This too is thought to increase your blood pressure.

The theory seems, on the surface, very sound. After all, we can make the process of salt pulling water through membranes happen time and time again in the lab. The question is, does this actually happen within our bodies, and does this actually cause long term hypertension?

Turns out, nope.

Most of this came from a study by Brookhaven National Laboratory's Lewis Dahl claimed that he had "unequivocal" evidence that salt causes hypertension. He induced high blood pressure in rats by feeding them the human equivalent of 500 grams of sodium a day. (Today the average American consumes 3.4 grams of sodium, or 8.5 grams of salt, a day.) It's science!

Dahl also discovered population trends that continue to this day to be cited as strong evidence of a link between salt intake and high blood pressure. People living in countries with a high salt consumption, like as Japan, also tend to have high blood pressure and more strokes. High blood pressure, high salt, ipso facto wham bam there's the correlation! Except no such link could be found within populations, which means there must be other factors at work and the perceived link is incorrect.

It's CO[SUP]2[/SUP] and temperature graphs. It's an illusory corollary. Despite theory and logic and osmotic pressure, not a sinlge study has found a real, actual link between salt intake and high blood pressure, other than studies that must make assumptions. But many people, the medical community included, hold onto that notion like it is Gospel.

The controversy over the benefits, if any, of salt reduction now constitutes one of the longest running most vitriolic and surreal disputes in all of medicine. It's just as hot of a topic in the world of medicine as climate change is in the environment world. Study after study show an increase in the death rate of those with coronary artery disease who go on reduced salt diets compared to those who eat just as much salt as they way. And more and more studies are showing the correlation between temperature rise and CO[SUP]2[/SUP] emission might be an illusory one.

Salt contains Sodium.
Sodium causes water retention.
Water retention creates swelling (Edema)
edema puts undo pressure on the capillaries,
resulting in elevated blood pressure (Hypertension).

GW? It's probably happening. Climate change is inevitable but it's not likely we are causing it. The earth is aproximately 7 1/2 Billion years old. The human race is roughly 100,000 years old unless you believe Ken Ham. The Industrial Revolution only began about 175 years ago. It's not us. The planet might have a fever as Al Gore once said but it is due to the natural progression of things. Humans didn't cause the Ice Age. We weren't even here. Stuff happens. In the immortal words of Hank Jr.: One thing's for sure. We're all just passin' through...

 

[Turtle]

Salt contains Sodium.
Sodium causes water retention.
Water retention creates swelling (Edema)
edema puts undo pressure on the capillaries,
resulting in elevated blood pressure (Hypertension).

Yes, exactly. That's the logic and common sense that has been proven not to be what happens in the human body.

It's Time to End the War on Salt - Scientific American

 

[LDB]

There's one obvious solution. Use Morton Light Salt which is half salt and half not salt. Then it doesn't matter which side is correct. You've got it covered.

 

[Turtle]

There's one obvious solution. Use Morton Light Salt which is half salt and half not salt. Then it doesn't matter which side is correct. You've got it covered.

I just use salt the way I want. I do stay away from caned soups, especially Campbell's Soup, because they tend to have an obscene amount of sodium added. There's no reason to add that much salt to soup.

 

[muttly]

I'd stay away from those salt substitutes also. Along time ago in trying to cut a lot of salt out of my diet, I used it too much and wound up with a lot of potassium in my system. Luckily I had a test around that time and was discovered. so the Doc said 'Umm, I think you should lay off that stuff.' I would have been an illusory correlation statistic:' Person dies from taking too little of salt'.

 

[Big Al]

Most of these so called forecasters can not get the 5 day forecast right let alone multiple years in the future. Weather runs in cycles 30 to 50 years and that is what these global warming Chicken Little screamers should understand. Of course it does not help their argument because so many profit from their stand, i.e. Al Gore, etc.

 

[Turtle]

Who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear, and what are their motives?

“A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.” - Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore, Jan 2011

“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth, who now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - Canadian Minister of the Environment, 1988

These are some of the quotes of the people of United Nations to organize an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said back in the days when the organization was just getting started.

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science' - Forbes

 

[layoutshooter]

Does anyone know the total output combined of all the wind generators in the US?

 

[skyraider]

Does anyone know the total output combined of all the wind generators in the US?

No, but Im rubbing my crystal balls to find out.

 

[layoutshooter]

No, but Im rubbing my crystal balls to find out.

I don't want to know about that.

 

[muttly]

Climate Change is a fact of life..the science is not settled and 97% consensus on Global Warming is a math myth | Follow The Money

 

[Turtle]

Does anyone know the total output combined of all the wind generators in the US?

It's three percent of that of Congress.

Actually, as far as electrical output, it's a bunch:
Wind power by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[layoutshooter]

Yes, congress does produce far more "wind power" than the industry does, more crap power too.

Waste Management produces 550 mega watts from landfills. I wonder how much they are subsidized? We know wind power is heavily subsidized. I would also think that landfill gasses are a more reliable source than wind.