RC-Monster Forums - View Single Post - Another reason to convert from Nitro

Finnster · 04:34 PM

Wow, so much misinformation that you'd think you were getting your info from Hugo Chavez, the Saudi Royal Family or one of the other petrodictators or big oil interests spouting some sophistry.

Volcanoes:

Volcanoes are attributed to release 130-230M tonnes of CO2/yr. It is estimated that human activities released 27 B tonnes of CO2 in 2003, and rising every year, for a total of some 329B tonnes CO2 released since 1750. Simple math (worst case 230Mt/yr) gives you equal to over 1500 massive volcanic eruptions since 1750, and it would take over 120 massive eruptions per year to equal to the current rate of CO2 emissions. Basically one every three days. Where are all these massive volcanoes? By what mechanism are all these invisable eruptions increasing over time (as evidenced by the rate of change of CO2 content in the atm)?

A single large volcano has been shown to cause global cooling for a 1-3yr period after the eruption, yet 11 of the 12 hottest years on record have been in the last 12 years. How can this possibly be? Shouldn't we be buried in ash and freezing our asses off with all these volcanoes going off?

Solar activity:

Solar flares & sunspots go on a natural 11 yr cycle and solar output can rise and fall 0.1%, yet we have seen an accelerating increase in global temperatures. How are you associating a short term fluctuation with a longer term trend? How are you completely dismissing the effects of CO2 levels at their highest concentration for at least the last 650,000 years? The massive %increase in less than a century (a geologic instant) is completely unprecedented.
Known solar dimming periods have not been associated with exceptional cool global mean temps. Overall, the effects of sunlight on the planet are not well understood, cannot be predictive of climate effects (unlike CO2 emmisions have) and many studies on insolation have been confusing or contradictory.

Al Gore, Acid rain and Carbon trading:

Al Gore was also once criticized for being a board member of Occidental Petroleum. If he now also owns carbon credits, sounds like he is an investor hedging his bets, or at least putting money where is mouth is. You too can own carbon credits, tho its not doing well and is about to be delisted.

Besides, if AlGore was an all-powerful machvellian hegemon, shouldn't he have won the presidency and not lost to a one-term Texas Governor, whose only accomplishment prior to that had been several bankrupted businesses, alcoholism, and barely graduating college by the skin of his Daddy's endowments?

Its also ironic that the non-threat of acid rain and the stupidity of cap and trade is pointed to, where acid rain was signifigantly reduced by using a cap-and-trade program for sulfoxide, (which is the model for carbon cap and trade,) that reduced emissions 50% and at 10% of the projected cost. Naysayers also warned that it that it wouldn't work and would be a huge tax to energy consumers. huh.

Finnster's Wager:
God knows if CnT is a good idea for co2, China has to sign on or its no dice anyway, and scientific theories have changed or have been disproved in the past. I do know this however:

Risk Matrix: GW is real/not real vs acting/not acting:

I am right, GW and effects are real, we do act: We reduce dependance on oil from hostile foreign countries, avert lg scale sea rise and flooding and the economic damage, costal area impoverishment, and resource wars that are sure to follow, and the US develops green tech and other engery sources that we control and profit from. US trade deficit shrinks.

I am wrong, GW is not real, we do act: We shift to more expensive domestic energy supplies and economic growth may be lessened. 3rd world countries and non-pact signers benefit from cheaper oil costs due to less demand. Oil companies lose profits.

I am right, GW is real, we don't act: Precipitous increase in global temps, erractic climate changes, extreme weather patterns and coastal flooding. Leads to droughts in areas, mass displacement, starvation and economic disruption. Turmoil eventually leads to war, and US and West is blamed for being principal polluters, terrorism follows.

I am wrong, GW is not real, we don't act: We go on our merry way sending billions of dollars overseas to petrodictators as part of our massive trade deficit, we continue resource-security driven foriegn policy, fighting expensive wars and paying large foriegn assistance payments to undemocratic gov'ts to continue to provide diplomatic support and cheap oil exports in volitile areas of the world that are slowly running out of said resource.

Given these choices, not acting in mitigating our FF-based carbon consumption and pollution seems a highly illogical and counter productive decision.

	(#14)
Finnster KillaHurtz Offline Posts: 2,958 Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Bucks Co, PA	07.30.2009, 04:29 PM Wow, so much misinformation that you'd think you were getting your info from Hugo Chavez, the Saudi Royal Family or one of the other petrodictators or big oil interests spouting some sophistry. Volcanoes: Volcanoes are attributed to release 130-230M tonnes of CO2/yr. It is estimated that human activities released 27 B tonnes of CO2 in 2003, and rising every year, for a total of some 329B tonnes CO2 released since 1750. Simple math (worst case 230Mt/yr) gives you equal to over 1500 massive volcanic eruptions since 1750, and it would take over 120 massive eruptions per year to equal to the current rate of CO2 emissions. Basically one every three days. Where are all these massive volcanoes? By what mechanism are all these invisable eruptions increasing over time (as evidenced by the rate of change of CO2 content in the atm)? A single large volcano has been shown to cause global cooling for a 1-3yr period after the eruption, yet 11 of the 12 hottest years on record have been in the last 12 years. How can this possibly be? Shouldn't we be buried in ash and freezing our asses off with all these volcanoes going off? Solar activity: Solar flares & sunspots go on a natural 11 yr cycle and solar output can rise and fall 0.1%, yet we have seen an accelerating increase in global temperatures. How are you associating a short term fluctuation with a longer term trend? How are you completely dismissing the effects of CO2 levels at their highest concentration for at least the last 650,000 years? The massive %increase in less than a century (a geologic instant) is completely unprecedented. Known solar dimming periods have not been associated with exceptional cool global mean temps. Overall, the effects of sunlight on the planet are not well understood, cannot be predictive of climate effects (unlike CO2 emmisions have) and many studies on insolation have been confusing or contradictory. Al Gore, Acid rain and Carbon trading: Al Gore was also once criticized for being a board member of Occidental Petroleum. If he now also owns carbon credits, sounds like he is an investor hedging his bets, or at least putting money where is mouth is. You too can own carbon credits, tho its not doing well and is about to be delisted. Besides, if AlGore was an all-powerful machvellian hegemon, shouldn't he have won the presidency and not lost to a one-term Texas Governor, whose only accomplishment prior to that had been several bankrupted businesses, alcoholism, and barely graduating college by the skin of his Daddy's endowments? Its also ironic that the non-threat of acid rain and the stupidity of cap and trade is pointed to, where acid rain was signifigantly reduced by using a cap-and-trade program for sulfoxide, (which is the model for carbon cap and trade,) that reduced emissions 50% and at 10% of the projected cost. Naysayers also warned that it that it wouldn't work and would be a huge tax to energy consumers. huh. Finnster's Wager: God knows if CnT is a good idea for co2, China has to sign on or its no dice anyway, and scientific theories have changed or have been disproved in the past. I do know this however: Risk Matrix: GW is real/not real vs acting/not acting: I am right, GW and effects are real, we do act: We reduce dependance on oil from hostile foreign countries, avert lg scale sea rise and flooding and the economic damage, costal area impoverishment, and resource wars that are sure to follow, and the US develops green tech and other engery sources that we control and profit from. US trade deficit shrinks. I am wrong, GW is not real, we do act: We shift to more expensive domestic energy supplies and economic growth may be lessened. 3rd world countries and non-pact signers benefit from cheaper oil costs due to less demand. Oil companies lose profits. I am right, GW is real, we don't act: Precipitous increase in global temps, erractic climate changes, extreme weather patterns and coastal flooding. Leads to droughts in areas, mass displacement, starvation and economic disruption. Turmoil eventually leads to war, and US and West is blamed for being principal polluters, terrorism follows. I am wrong, GW is not real, we don't act: We go on our merry way sending billions of dollars overseas to petrodictators as part of our massive trade deficit, we continue resource-security driven foriegn policy, fighting expensive wars and paying large foriegn assistance payments to undemocratic gov'ts to continue to provide diplomatic support and cheap oil exports in volitile areas of the world that are slowly running out of said resource. Given these choices, not acting in mitigating our FF-based carbon consumption and pollution seems a highly illogical and counter productive decision. Last edited by Finnster; 07.30.2009 at 04:34 PM.