Home » Blogs » wadosy's blog

the big mystery

0
Your rating: None
 

the big mystery about global warming deniers is this:

when it comes to global warming, why do deniers believe the same people who lied us into these wars, and very probably staged a false flag attack on america to get their project rolling?
 
AEI exxon warming denial
 
AEI israel
 
 
another interesting thing: co2 has been accepted as a greenhouse gas for over 100 years... it's a physical fact that co2 is a greenhouse gas.

it's also a fact that burning one gallon of gasoline produces about 20 pounds of co2.

it's also a fact that every year, we put about 29 billion tons of co2 into the atmosphere.

it's another fact that we are putting so many particulates into the atmosphere that the greenhouse effect from greenhouse gases is being masked.

it isnt surprising that an israeli scientist discovered global dimming, and published his findings in 2001… we can only wonder how his discovery played into the decision to stage 9/11.

 

and what happens if the global economy crashes so bad that china quits making widgets to ship to walmart? …and what if the particulate matter settles out, quits shading the planet, and the co2 becomes dominant again, like it did after the US and europe cleaned up their particulate emissions?

here’s what happens…

 

greenhouse effect

In the absence of the greenhouse effect and an atmosphere, the Earth's average surface temperature of 14 °C (57 °F) could be as low as -18 °C (-0.4 °F), the black body temperature of the Earth.

 

greenhouse gases

Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 70%.

...air can hold more water vapor per unit volume when it warms.

...water vapor concentrations in warmer air will amplify the greenhouse effect created by anthropogenic greenhouse gases while maintaining nearly constant relative humidity. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by greenhouse gases such as CO2.

The concentration of CO2 has increased by about 100 ppm (i.e., from 280 ppm to 380 ppm). The first 50 ppm increase took place in about 200 years, from the start of the Industrial Revolution to around 1973; the next 50 ppm increase took place in about 33 years, from 1973 to 2006.
 
greenhouse gases and contribution to greenhouse effect
 
water vapor contributes 36–70%
carbon dioxide contributes 9–26%
methane contributes 4–9%
ozone contributes 3–7%

 

 composition of atmosphere (dry)

Nitrogen 78.084%
Oxygen  20.946%
Argon 0.9340%
Carbon dioxide 0.0383%
Neon 0.001818%
Helium 0.000524%
Methane 0.0001745%
Krypton 0.000114%
Hydrogen 0.000055%
 
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1% to 4% near surface

 

if water vapor, at a concentration of 1% to 4% in the lower atmosphere, and overall concentration of fourth tenths of a percent, contributes max 70% of the greenhouse effect that warms the planet enough to make it habitable, that must mean that the other 30% of the warming comes from the other greenhouse gases, of which co2 is dominant.

 
 
meanwhile, emerging economies and the old standbys in the west are doing their level best to produce shade and cool us off by depositing gigatons of particulates into the atmosphere.
 
too bad the particulates will settle out, and leave the co2 behind to warm the planet for hundreds of years after the shade has gone.
 
atmospheric brown clouds... masking 2°C of warming?
 
google search: "atmospheric brown cloud" dimming
 
google search: "global dimming"
 
google search: "atmospheric lifetime" co2
 

if the fate of anthropogenic carbon must be boiled down into a single number for popular discussion, then 300 years is a sensible number to choose, because it captures the behavior of the majority of the carbon.
 
A better approximation of the lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 for public discussion might be ‘‘300 years, plus 25% that lasts forever.’’
 

  

so the problem emerges: if the neocons are successful in gaining control of the world's energy, if they're successful in restricting consumption, if they hoard the remaining energy to enforce their policies, they will have to contend with global warming and sea level rise eventually. ...global warming that motivated their PNAC/9-11/"war on terror" operation, global warming that they've tried so hard to deny. 
 
and how are they going to enforce their policies once their armies run out of gas?
 
this is the neocons' last chance to accomplish their "benevolent global hegemony" before the oil runs out.
 
but maybe the main goal of whole dismal project is simply to loot the planet before the system collapses into a rotten, depleted heap.
No votes yet

Submitted by wadosy on Mon, 2008-12-29 04:27

yup. exxon had all these big ambitions for nuke power, but..

...exxon finally knuckled under, and joined up with the israeli americans... after being pummeled by the israeli american media for decades.

wadosy | Tue, 2008-12-30 16:32
Global Warming and Israel

I watched a show on CSpan the other day that was sponsored by the Zionist front group AEI.

They had some of the usual suspects on there, denying that man had anything to do with climate change and said alternative energy solutions were a joke and not feasible.

Why?

After the 1973 Arab oil embargo, Denmark decided to make itself free of imported oil and has pretty much become energy independent, so why can't the US?

Why?

Because if we did, we'd have no excuse to station hundreds of thousands of well armed US forces in the ME, which are their to protect the oil supply, but more importantly, to protect Israel.

Greg Bacon | Tue, 2008-12-30 16:07
neocons' motives for denying global warming
 

historians are gonna have a hard time swallowing the official 9/11 conspiracy theory if they use the traditional parameters —motive, means, opportunity, and character— to figure out exactly what happened, especially in view of the fact that peak oil and sea level rise will have become painfully obvious as motives for starting a land and oil acquisition project.

motive, means, opportunity, and character

…and premeditation, as israelis and israeli americans have been agitating for decades to rearrange the middle east, and PNAC even confessed —a year before 9/11— that they needed "a new pearl harbor" to get their project started.

 
 
the institutional warming deniers ---exxon, the AEI, and the usual suspects--- are kinda trapped, arent they? ...their best bet for cooling down the planet lies in allowing china to produce more particulate pollution, much as the US and europe did in the 50s and 60s... but that implies that china will become so prosperous and powerful that the neocons' "benevolent global hegemony" will be blown to hell... and the chinese seem to be able to buy oil faster than we can steal it, anyhow.
  
if the chinese burn enough coal and oil to cause more air pollution, they might shade the planet enough to prevent warming... for a while. ...the problem comes with the atmospheric lifetime of co2, which is way longer than the atmospheric lifetime of particulate matter... so once we run out of particulate-causing stuff to burn, those particulates will settle out and leave the co2 behind, and we will fry.
 
 
seeing as how israel is the israeli americans' refuge of last resort, and sea level rise threatens israel, you have to (a) stop global warming ---which implies controlling global fossil fuel consumption, which in turn implies grabbing the oil in the middle east, or (b) you have to grab high ground that's now occupied by subhuman arabs, or maybe (c) you can start a project to grab oil, but have a fallback position of grabbing those subhuman arabs' high ground, too ...just in case.
 
...the problem with all of this being, the project will have to be accomplished before israel's american protector collapses from (a) oil shortages and (b) the effects of being looted by american oligarchs who see the peak oil handwriting on the wall.
 
...all of which made the 9/11 operation a necessity, to get the project started before the motives for starting the project became obvious... all of which explains why PNAC said they needed "a new pearl harbor" just before they were installed into positions from which they could make their "new pearl harbor" happen.
 
now, that's how the historians are gonna see it ...and if that's not what's happening, it would behoove the israelis, israeli americans, exxon and their fellow travelers to stop behaving as if that IS what's happening.
wadosy | Tue, 2008-12-30 15:10