Lies and misinformation of the deniers

You are talking about reflecting IR, which is reflected back by greenhouse gasses. I'm talking about reflecting white light, which passed through, and will pass back through green house gasses. Big difference.

I am saying we have increased the albedo with asphalt and sky scrapers.

Yellowstone sits over the cauldera of a megavolcano, thus getting more internal heat than most places on earth. Yet, it sees a wide swing in temperature between summer and winter. Core heat isn't much a factor there, let alone in global climate.

 

any albedo effect on the surface is minimal it will help on a human scale but ineffective on a planetary scale to be of any help slowing CC...

boil pot of water and the air above becomes hot but it dissipates and cools quickly, put a lid on the pot and the hot air above the water does not dissipate, think of rising levels of CO2 as a lid...our heat source is not just from the sun, without the heat from beneath this planet would be dead...

 

well, new zealand has an ETS;

the UK is investing in renewables and has a "green" agenda - including an ETS;

germany has also developed a range of policies addressing climate issues ...

a few conservative governments recognise its a problem.

 

UK, NZ, Germany ... just a few.

 

And you forgot the major conservative party in Australia, who propose exactly the same emission reduction targets as the labor government (though they try to not remind their more retarded followers of that fact - it only confuses them)

 

A 1% change in global albedo results in a 1% change amount of converted heat, relative to absolute zero, -460F, 4.6 degress F. With an average albedo of 64, increasing reflection is twice as easy as increasing it.

One of the thoughts is to seed the high humidity over the ocean with powdered salt from the ocean to develop clouds, which reflect light very effectively.

Death would come from radiation, as intenal heat drops, so does the earths magnetic field.

Internal heat has little impact on the earths surface temperature, as I pointed out with Yellowstone. If that isn't enough, why are the poles over 100 degrees F colder than the equator?

 

With that full court press, how much of their energy comes from renewable resources? What is the percentage of CO2 they have reduced?

Don't forget, Europe has always had far higher fuel prices than the US. Gasoline was several dollars a gallon, when I could buy gasoline at $0.23 a gallon. The free market incentive for alternative energy has been much higher. Despite that, when I was in Munich many years ago (pre-EU), they were growing soybeans for bio diesel, which cost 2 Deutchmarks, compared to regular diesel at 1.5 Deutchmarks. Solar power in Germany is heavily subsidized with a KWH payout high enough to make it viable.

Being much of this prior to MMGW, why? Has Europe jumped on the MMGW bandwagon because it forces the energy prices in the US higher, making the EU more competitive globally?

You follow the science, I follow the money. Especially, when that money funds the science.

 

So a theory that was wrong in the 1800's and is still wrong now

Yes they put out so much pollution in the 1800's and so many cars

 

You mean it is that I do not believe the deceptions and lies you do. You sound like Al Gore

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/28/gore-global-warming-skeptics-are-this-generations-racists/

 

what I mean is I some basic grasp of science and you do not. You sound like Forrest Gump.

 

Better than sounding like Al Gore like the GW propagandists here do

 

Isn't it a bit funny that no scientists have ever published any papers demonstrating this?

 

Volcanoes? Vegetation?

CO2 isn't even a greenhouse gas, while water vapor is and it's not even taken into account by the Algoreans.

The sun and the oceans have the greatest influence on climate, humans have none.

 

Delusional BS!!!

CO2 is, in fact, a greenhouse gas, and there are no scientists who deny that fact.

Water vapor is fully taken into account by the climate scientists and is, in fact, the thing that amplifies the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect.

The entire world scientific community affirms the fact that it is human activities, largely the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, that are producing the current abrupt warming trend that is, among a great many other effects, melting the ice caps and glaciers, raising sea levels, changing seasonal timing and increasing the water vapor content of the atmosphere leading to increased rainfall and snowfall.

Since the 1980's, the levels of solar radiation reaching the Earth have declined a bit while the average global temperatures have increased.

The worldwide ocean surface temperature for July 2011 was 0.47°C (0.85°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), as a result of anthropogenic global warming.

 

guess thats the rub.

when you pay less than the real cost of an item, there is no incentive to change.

eventually you will though - you have no choice.

I have, over the years, come across numerous postgrads working in exploration geology and related fields, with huge scholarships and big money invested in helping them to find more and more difficult to access sources of fossil fuels, or finding ways to extract more difficult residues of fossil fuels from existing production sites ... why? because its getting harder to meet demand.

If half of the research dollars poured into this over the last twenty years had been poured into improving efficiencies, renewables and alternative energies over the same period, we would have no energy crisis now.

 

you are very generous.

 

Is anyone paying the real cost for alternative energy, photovotaic, E85, wind power?

They wouldn't be where they are, but for government subsidies, here, or in Europe with the much higher energy costs.

 

So now you finally get it. Why are we subsidising coal fired power by allowing them to pollute for free? Let them pay the real cost and see which power source is most economical.

 

And who are they going to pay? I don't know about governments world-wide but the U.S. government is very undisiplined when it comes to money. I fear it would cost the consumer more and with few benefits.

Ethenol (as it stands now) is only feasable if it comes from sugar cane. If it comes from corn all it does is waste taxpayer money, makes corn growers rich, and causes worldwide food shortages.

If you shut down coal production in America it causes even more unemployment and raise the cost of electricity.

I know we have a problem...but I don't see common sense solutions.

We can't just throw money at a problem and hope it will go away.

I don't know the answer...I wish I did.

 

How about we are not warming

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/...ehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/

 

Nice work.

You just cited a paper that concludes:

The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthro- pogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”

...you were saying?

 

It says we were not warming when Global warming scientist claim the hottest year ever.

Shows that the GW scientists lie and manipulate data to deceive the people

 

Other than electricity, CO2, and heat, what do coal fired plants put out? Oil fired, natural gas fired?

 

What data was manipulated to deceive the people?

 

How about the Himalayas or using September temps to show hottest October