Lancer

"How They Faked Global Warming" [REOPENED: Read post 354]

3,566 posts in this topic

El_Cid, you say that oil is the bad boy in the world, due to polluting etc. What about the coal industry? They're just as bad (if not worse), yet you only target oil. Is there some agenda there?

Share this post


Link to post

Every nation uses oil, but not everyone uses coal. If coal production were to cease, countries like Australia would have major problems, but ones like Canada would still be able to light up like a Christmas tree.

Share this post


Link to post

Australia has no coal?

Share this post


Link to post

Yes but coal contributes as much AGW as oil (give or take a percent or two). Both represent ~35% each of contribution, with gas coming in third at 20%. Just seems like a reasonable question to ask considering the extreme hatred of oil versus no mention of coal.

Share this post


Link to post

Hm. The complaints you cite really actually appear to be mostly with technological progress generally. Or at least it appears to be a frustration that technological progress has externalities and you want to move beyond those externalities.

 

My opposition to your statement is that I believe very much that when it is financially feasible we will move beyond the externalities that can be moved passed; but that some externalities will always remain...

 

I also apparently am more willing to accept trade offs. For example, I have had relatives die of cancer, but even if cancer's rise is in large part human caused (which is very possible), I don't really have an issue with it. Thanks to the wonder of plastics (bottled clean water for the 3d world), (prosthetics), and rubber (better transportation), people's life expectancy has rose despite the apparent increase in toxicity and 'bad things'. All around the world life expectancy has grown by leaps and bounds due to oil and gas.

 

>>To add insult to injury, they as an industry, are one of the richest industrial blocks in the world(taken as a whole) and while they could be using their vast wealth to arrive at solutions to the problems of today, they prefer to protect share holders and CEO's bonus pay over the

 

As far as 'huge bonuses'... I don't see ExxonMobil or any oil companies on this list: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/top-ceo-bonuses-2010-heinz-oracle-cisco-nike/story?id=12404900 And ExxonMobil is one of the 3 biggest companies in the world in terms of revenue.

 

Are the bonuses large.. yes. If the CEOs produce then they deserve bonuses.

 

I won't argue with you if you state that all CEOs are in general awarded much higher bonuses as a percentage of income earned for the company-- I have some issues with the structure of a lot of the things that go on in voting for corporate board salaries-- but, once again, that's not a complaint that's specific to the oil companies, it's a 'herd' complaint. 'Everyone' is doing it, so while it's a problem- it's a structural one rather than an oil-specific one. I'd rather seek a structural solution than to just demonize one part of the issue.

 

The company also gives money to charitable organization (in excess of what makes sense to give--that is, they give more than they can use as tax deduction material) http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/community_wwgiving_report.aspx

 

Still not sure once again why they should be building windmills. The companies have VASTLY increased efficiency in withdrawing oil from the ground and in reducing loss and flaring and other things that lead to pollution and loss of hydrocarbons.

 

Self-Serving, yes, they probably are as a company--all companies are self serving. Even Google... Especially Google. What corporate model do you think that all companies should pursue? Can you name a sustaining model that would help human society and still result in technological progress? What is it that you want--I've heard you describe what you want, but can you name a few companies or countries where what you want has worked?

 

 

My issues with 'Big Oil'(and when i use that word i include all large scale oil production, private/nationalized etc) is that behind the carefully crafted modern PR exterior they are still at root responsible for most of the worlds impending environmental problems, be it CO2 and global warming(or cooling if you go that way) and sea acidification. They are the driving power behind the agri petro-chemical companies that have added lots of toxicity into the natural environment(so much that all living things born on the planet today will carry some of that toxicity within them, from baby polar bears in the Artic, to marine mammals to your kids, and many of these chemical compounds are one of the base causes of cancers etc). Add the plastics industry into the mix, and from the floating island of plasitc in the pacific to just about any local beach you might care to visit these days full of non-biodegradable plastic, derived from the Big Oil companies waste/spare product; we are litterally drowning in toxic waste, from a litteral sense to a genetic one.

 

To add insult to injury, they as an industry, are one of the richest industrial blocks in the world(taken as a whole) and while they could be using their vast wealth to arrive at solutions to the problems of today, they prefer to protect share holders and CEO's bonus pay over the real important and grown up responsible things they could be doing. And don't even get me started on how for years they have slowed down progress on 'green' technologies. They just don't care about anything other than profit now, which is quite reminiscent of our financial institutions, and look at where that got them(well ok they did get a huge slab of free money, that we will all have to pay back, and our childrens children will probably be doing so too).

 

Bottom line is they(as an industry) are just as corrupt and self-serving as the financial markets. The same thought processes, the same type of people running it, the same pattern of destruction and eventual failure(which might include the demise of our species). Great guys ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Yes but coal contributes as much AGW as oil (give or take a percent or two). Both represent ~35% each of contribution, with gas coming in third at 20%. Just seems like a reasonable question to ask considering the extreme hatred of oil versus no mention of coal.

 

Its amazing to me that half the US is very hot, I'm freezing my balls off this summer on the Oregon Coast. Some dark part of me wants to do what someone suggested and burn some coal to warm up. Then again, I live very close to the Pacific...

 

Here's some good news. All we have to do is tell Pakistan that India thinks they are gay and *Poof* No more global warming. :nod:

 

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nuclear-war-winter-global-warming-environment-science-climate-change/

 

Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years

 

Regional war could spark "unprecedented climate change," experts predict.

.

 

 

 

 

 

A nuclear bomb explodes in a test on the Mururoa atoll in French Polynesia in the early seventies.

 

Photograph from AP

.

 

 

Charles Q. Choi

 

for National Geographic News

 

Published February 22, 2011

 

 

Even a regional nuclear war could spark "unprecedented" global cooling and reduce rainfall for years, according to U.S. government computer models.

 

Widespread famine and disease would likely follow, experts speculate.

 

During the Cold War a nuclear exchange between superpowers—such as the one feared for years between the United States and the former Soviet Union—was predicted to cause a "nuclear winter."

 

In that scenario hundreds of nuclear explosions spark huge fires, whose smoke, dust, and ash blot out the sun for weeks amid a backdrop of dangerous radiation levels. Much of humanity eventually dies of starvation and disease.

 

Today, with the United States the only standing superpower, nuclear winter is little more than a nightmare. But nuclear war remains a very real threat—for instance, between developing-world nuclear powers, such as India and Pakistan.

 

To see what climate effects such a regional nuclear conflict might have, scientists from NASA and other institutions modeled a war involving a hundred Hiroshima-level bombs, each packing the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT—just 0.03 percent of the world's current nuclear arsenal. (See a National Geographic magazine feature on weapons of mass destruction.)

 

The researchers predicted the resulting fires would kick up roughly five million metric tons of black carbon into the upper part of the troposphere, the lowest layer of the Earth's atmosphere.

 

In NASA climate models, this carbon then absorbed solar heat and, like a hot-air balloon, quickly lofted even higher, where the soot would take much longer to clear from the sky.

 

(Related: "'Nuclear Archaeologists' Find World War II Plutonium.")

 

Reversing Global Warming?

 

 

The global cooling caused by these high carbon clouds wouldn't be as catastrophic as a superpower-versus-superpower nuclear winter, but "the effects would still be regarded as leading to unprecedented climate change," research physical scientist Luke Oman said during a press briefing Friday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C.

 

Earth is currently in a long-term warming trend. After a regional nuclear war, though, average global temperatures would drop by 2.25 degrees F (1.25 degrees C) for two to three years afterward, the models suggest.

 

At the extreme, the tropics, Europe, Asia, and Alaska would cool by 5.4 to 7.2 degrees F (3 to 4 degrees C), according to the models. Parts of the Arctic and Antarctic would actually warm a bit, due to shifted wind and ocean-circulation patterns, the researchers said.

 

After ten years, average global temperatures would still be 0.9 degree F (0.5 degree C) lower than before the nuclear war, the models predict.

 

(Pictures: "Red Hot" Nuclear-Waste Train Glows in Infrared.)

 

Years Without Summer

 

For a time Earth would likely be a colder, hungrier planet.

 

"Our results suggest that agriculture could be severely impacted, especially in areas that are susceptible to late-spring and early-fall frosts," said Oman, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

 

"Examples similar to the crop failures and famines experienced following the Mount Tambora eruption in 1815 could be widespread and last several years," he added. That Indonesian volcano ushered in "the year without summer," a time of famines and unrest. (See pictures of the Mount Tambora eruption.)

 

All these changes would also alter circulation patterns in the tropical atmosphere, reducing precipitation by 10 percent globally for one to four years, the scientists said. Even after seven years, global average precipitation would be 5 percent lower than it was before the conflict, according to the model.

 

In addition, researcher Michael Mills, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, found large decreases in the protective ozone layer, leading to much more ultraviolet radiation reaching Earth's surface and harming the environment and people.

 

"The main message from our work," NASA's Oman said, "would be that even a regional nuclear conflict would have global consequences."

Share this post


Link to post

Erm, Lancer, over 2,000 nuclear tests have been conducted the last 60 years. And especially in the first 20 years lots of them were open-air explosions. If a "regional" nuclear war would be enough to cool things down, it would have happened back then already.

Share this post


Link to post

Well yes, but I suspect that a few nukes in a very small time frame would have a greater effect than a larger number over a much larger time frame. Especially for India and Pakistan's eastern neighbours.

Share this post


Link to post

Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't that far apart seen on the global scene. And the first nuclear detonation happened barely 2 months beforehand.

 

But see for yourself. Here's a list of tests by country, year, yield, and some extra data.

500+ open air tests in total (those are the main dust-throwers).

Share this post


Link to post

@Dale, no i also include the coal industry in 'Big Oil', these are the energy producing companies(privite or otherwise) that simply put 'could do better' especially in terms of their responsibilities to pollute less.

 

Hm. The complaints you cite really actually appear to be mostly with technological progress generally. Or at least it appears to be a frustration that technological progress has externalities and you want to move beyond those externalities.

 

My opposition to your statement is that I believe very much that when it is financially feasible we will move beyond the externalities that can be moved passed; but that some externalities will always remain...

 

That is probably fair comment. I see alot of wasted opportunities that the energy sector(Big Oil) could have been on top of by now. I suspect we could have massively mitigated the pollution/toxicity issues of today if these companies had not been allowed to carry on as they traditionaly have done. The latest example i'll give is shale-oil/gas:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_oil_shale_industry

 

 

Most of the examples of this you will find on the net come from the usa, where the 'Big Oil' companies have a tradition(they like to export around the globe) of not giving a damn about anything other than their own profits. This is just the latest example of that long tradition.

 

I also apparently am more willing to accept trade offs. For example, I have had relatives die of cancer, but even if cancer's rise is in large part human caused (which is very possible), I don't really have an issue with it. Thanks to the wonder of plastics (bottled clean water for the 3d world), (prosthetics), and rubber (better transportation), people's life expectancy has rose despite the apparent increase in toxicity and 'bad things'. All around the world life expectancy has grown by leaps and bounds due to oil and gas.

 

>>To add insult to injury, they as an industry, are one of the richest industrial blocks in the world(taken as a whole) and while they could be using their vast wealth to arrive at solutions to the problems of today, they prefer to protect share holders and CEO's bonus pay over the

 

As far as 'huge bonuses'... I don't see ExxonMobil or any oil companies on this list: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/top-ceo-bonuses-2010-heinz-oracle-cisco-nike/story?id=12404900 And ExxonMobil is one of the 3 biggest companies in the world in terms of revenue.

 

Are the bonuses large.. yes. If the CEOs produce then they deserve bonuses.

 

I won't argue with you if you state that all CEOs are in general awarded much higher bonuses as a percentage of income earned for the company-- I have some issues with the structure of a lot of the things that go on in voting for corporate board salaries-- but, once again, that's not a complaint that's specific to the oil companies, it's a 'herd' complaint. 'Everyone' is doing it, so while it's a problem- it's a structural one rather than an oil-specific one. I'd rather seek a structural solution than to just demonize one part of the issue.

 

The company also gives money to charitable organization (in excess of what makes sense to give--that is, they give more than they can use as tax deduction material) http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/community_wwgiving_report.aspx

 

Still not sure once again why they should be building windmills. The companies have VASTLY increased efficiency in withdrawing oil from the ground and in reducing loss and flaring and other things that lead to pollution and loss of hydrocarbons.

 

Self-Serving, yes, they probably are as a company--all companies are self serving. Even Google... Especially Google. What corporate model do you think that all companies should pursue? Can you name a sustaining model that would help human society and still result in technological progress? What is it that you want--I've heard you describe what you want, but can you name a few companies or countries where what you want has worked?

 

And again fair comment, there have been some positives that plastics and 'Big Oil' have made, but i will still contest those positives don't outweigh the negatives. If you wanted to go far enough on that kind of thinking you could make the arguement that the agri-petro-chemical industry that has been responsible for massive increases in yields from large industrial scale farming has simply contributed to the problem by allowing a massive population boom, which has all the knock on effects on other natural systems that we need to survive etc. But while i can see the logic in the arguement i'm more concerned with the main negatives that are simply a result of greed for profit over common sense or fairness etc.

 

And you touch on that in your post some, in relation to the general modern era behaviour of our companies in our capitalist system, and how many times we see them acting not in the overall longerterm benefit, but for very short term goals that have the bad side effects as we've seen in the financial system etc. So we are not that far apart in our thinking around that kind of issue. I'm quite conservative in my views here, a little old fashioned even.

 

In terms of Corporate models, that is a good question and a niggly one. One of the key problems holding our current capitalist system back from being 'the answer' to the worlds problems(rather than simply in many cases contributing to them) is that it opperates in a kind of isolation, from one country to the next.

 

For example, if laws were passed in the uk and usa, to ensure longer-term planning, more responsibility/accountability at the top etc. The money that funds company creation would simply jump ship to another country. This is exactly the type of capitalism that has caused industries to collapse in our own countries and move to China/India etc. 'World Government' is not a real answer yet(and i don't think it will work until we are a well established space faring race, and have had enough time to get rid of the various chips we all carry on our shoulders towards one another, from one country towards another etc).

 

What i would like to see is a sort of 'Patriotic Capitalism', where if you base your company in a country, or have most of your assets in that place or generated from that place, then you should be forced to become a national of that country and live there. That sounds quite radical maybe, but it would effect quite a small percentage of people but more importantly it would ensure a more concerned and ethical approach to profit generation. If you had to live in a toxic hell hole because of your companies actions, you would think twice. It would also ensure a resurgence of our own countries industries and people could once more take more pride in what they produce in their home economies. Something along these lines is what i would hope to see from a workable(over the long term) capitalist system. I'm only 'socalist' in so far as i understand that to live in a society, and be a positive part of society you need responsibility towards that society.

 

As it stands we give away our expertise and skills simply so a few can make more profit. I think we should look after our people at home first, rather than give precedence to a few very rich elite types that also have all the benefits of living within the society they choose to not support, either by job creation or tax evasion.

Share this post


Link to post
@Dale, no i also include the coal industry in 'Big Oil', these are the energy producing companies(privite or otherwise) that simply put 'could do better' especially in terms of their responsibilities to pollute less.

 

You would be clearer if that was qualified earlier. ;)

 

Most of the examples of this you will find on the net come from the usa, where the 'Big Oil' companies have a tradition(they like to export around the globe) of not giving a damn about anything other than their own profits. This is just the latest example of that long tradition.

 

I believe you will find that true of nearly any company, not just limited to oil. Profits before all else.

Share this post


Link to post

EDIT: @ Geo

 

Sure the Japanese bombs were days apart and in similar locations, but they were small, at least compared to those of the tests in the 50s and 60s.

If Pakistan and India throw their whole arsenals against each other as quickly as they can, then we are looking at up to 200 bombs in a matter of weeks at most. And they aren't suspected to be the small ones attached to missiles like the majority of the US and Russian stockpiles.

Share this post


Link to post

200 nukes? Not what I call "regional" and "a few in a limited timeframe". :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

It is regional, because it is only in central Asia. It would be a limited timeframe, because they would be fired off in a matter of days. And compared to what any of the 5 legal nuclear powers would use, it is few.

Share this post


Link to post

Tell that to the radiation cloud when it passes over your roof...

Share this post


Link to post

I will, but I don't think it will listen because it will be too busy giving me superhuman mutations.

 

...That's how it works, right?

Share this post


Link to post
@Dale, no i also include the coal industry in 'Big Oil', these are the energy producing companies(privite or otherwise) that simply put 'could do better' especially in terms of their responsibilities to pollute less.

 

You would be clearer if that was qualified earlier. ;)

.......................

I believe you will find that true of nearly any company, not just limited to oil. Profits before all else.

 

Making profit at the cost of social responsibility is not mutally exclusive, and many companies make money while minimising the damage they could cause. The problem with the 'Big Oil' companies in particular is that they have a track record, going all the way back to their founding in the industrial revolution of practices that resulted in massive environmental and social damage just to save money for the companies. From lack of protective clothing in early coal mining, to the massive ecological damage(many links reported here or in the environmental concerns thread) we see today. And i haven't even mentioned the 'cosy' relationship shared with the arms industry people and how wars of profit are funded by both parties where profit for both is likely the principle decideing factor in government policy. Or was it just coincidence that Bushes family are a 'Big Oil' family?

 

Not all companies or business is like that of 'Big Oil' or the arms industry. They are fairly unique in their abilities to cause massive damage while making massive profit.

 

As an aside i would qualify my post on Patriotic Capitalism, making CEO's live in the countries their companies make most profit from wasn't just for the CEO's, but also for the investors, basically you have to follow the money trail to find the responsible party, and at the very least if this is too radical for some, i'd like to see laws in the usa and europe that force a resident of a country to pay tax in that country - the whole tax avoidence thing many of our richest residence(inc CEO's etc) currently enjoy is just not socially responsible. If you want to live in a country and enjoy the benifits and society of that country, you should pay the correct tax, not farm it out to some third-world country where you can bribe your companies tax rate, and avoid paying it back home. Support your country if you want to live in it.

Share this post


Link to post
As an aside i would qualify my post on Patriotic Capitalism, making CEO's live in the countries their companies make most profit from wasn't just for the CEO's, but also for the investors, basically you have to follow the money trail to find the responsible party, and at the very least if this is too radical for some, i'd like to see laws in the usa and europe that force a resident of a country to pay tax in that country - the whole tax avoidence thing many of our richest residence(inc CEO's etc) currently enjoy is just not socially responsible. If you want to live in a country and enjoy the benifits and society of that country, you should pay the correct tax, not farm it out to some third-world country where you can bribe your companies tax rate, and avoid paying it back home. Support your country if you want to live in it.

 

Corruption seeks corruption, doesn't it? ;)

Share this post


Link to post

I would suggest that CEOs should have to live in the country where their product is manufactured.

Share this post


Link to post

This should be the last few warm summers as solar cycle 24 reaches its substandard cresendo, then, if the solar sci types are right, its a last harrah before solar magnetism heads into a deep slumber. So, last chance for a tan boys and girls and don't forget the sunscreen cuz its going to get hot out there!

Share this post


Link to post
This should be the last few warm summers as solar cycle 24 reaches its substandard cresendo, then, if the solar sci types are right, its a last harrah before solar magnetism heads into a deep slumber. So, last chance for a tan boys and girls and don't forget the sunscreen cuz its going to get hot out there!

 

There will be warm summers afterwards too. http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/15/246202/sun-hibernation-deniers/

Share this post


Link to post

Don't let yourself be taken in LotM, its true we don't have a bunch of volcanic activity, as your link states, to help push us into an ice age but we DO have the Chinese burning extra coal, which will help send world temps to a Mauder like minimum.

Share this post


Link to post

LotM, nice article. Pity it relies on the unproven assumption that CO2 directly causes temperatures to rise.

 

To pre-empt warmies:

If CO2 directly affects global temperature (and this is what we're told) then why when CO2 constantly rises between 1860-2000 do temperatures drop substantially between 1880-1910 (-0.6C) and 1940-1975 (-0.3C)?

 

65 years of the 140 (1860-2000) say opposite effect to what is theorized. Unless of course warmies are claiming a 47% error margin. :lol:

 

The link between solar irradiation and temperatures is much much closer, only a 7% error margin from memory. So what affects temperatures? ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Good luck with that Dale. I've been trying for how many pages?

 

I'm beginning to suspect that warmies may be a new sort of bot out to sell carbon taxes. :sadnod:

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now