Global Warming [Archive] - House of Politics

saggyjones

02-07-2007, 07:36 PM

USMC the Almighty

02-07-2007, 07:41 PM

Earth's Atmosphere
N2: 780,000 PPM
O2: 210,000 PPM
Ar: 1,000 PPM and H2O 700 PPM
CO2: 370 PPM
Making gullible people believe that mankind is causing Global Warming: Priceless

First, let me tell you why there is global warming alarmism:
Eighty-five percent of Americans say warming is probably happening, and 62 percent say it threatens them personally. The National Academy of Sciences says the rise in the Earth's surface temperature has been about one degree Fahrenheit in the past century. Did 85 percent of Americans notice? Of course not. They got their anxiety from journalism calculated to produce it. Never mind that one degree might be the margin of error when measuring the planet's temperature. To take a person's temperature, you put a thermometer in an orifice or under an arm. Taking the temperature of our churning planet, with its tectonic plates sliding around over a molten core, involves limited precision.

Because if you're a scientist trying to get funding from the government, you're better off telling the world how horrible things are. And once people are scared, they pay attention. They'll even demand the government give you more money to solve the problem. Usually the horrible disaster never happens. Chaos from Y2K. An epidemic of deaths from SARS, mad cow disease, or the Avian bird flu. Cancer from Three Mile Island. We quickly forget. We move on to the next leftist alarmism.

The scary claims about heat waves and droughts are based on computer models. But computer models are lousy at predicting climate because water vapor and cloud effects cause changes that computers fail to predict. They were unable to anticipate the massive amounts of heat energy that escaped the tropics over the past 15 years, forcing modelers back to the drawing board. In the mid-1970s, computer models told us we should prepare for global cooling.

The fundamentalist doom-mongers ignore scientists who say the effects of global warming may be benign. Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas says added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest season.

Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument?

It's the money. Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it.

USMC the Almighty

02-07-2007, 07:47 PM

Carbon dioxide output, caused by humans burning fossil fuels, have drastically raised in recent years, as shown by the graph and two quotes.

As I noted above -- most of these numbers are based on models, which are poor indicators of the acutal numbers.

The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975

After this the "scientific community" realized that it just sounded ignorant to get people all concerned about global cooling so they pivoted and focused solely on CO2.

Also, how does anyone in their right mind accept that the Sun is responsible for "only 10-30%" of the current warming because that's what some computer model spit out?

But as a percentage of the total atmosphere, CO2 represents only about .03 percent of the molecules that make up the air or 355 parts per million. Even so, it has always played a critical role as a greenhouse gas that triggers enough warming to increase the amount of water vapor that evaporates from the oceans into the atmosphere. This extra water vapor, in turn, traps nearly 90% of the infrared rays radiated from the surface of the Earth back toward space.[/QUOTE]

Nammy

02-07-2007, 07:49 PM

Global warming is happening. There's no way of denying it.

It's just the matter of who's causing it.

USMC the Almighty

02-07-2007, 07:49 PM

The fact of the matter is theif you warm the earth, you make more clouds --
and those clouds correct earth's temperature by reflecting back to space the heat/energy that is attempting to warm it.

Water vapor in the atmosphere is a net increase of albedo -- open water is about .2 while clouds range from .65 to .85.

If you warm the planet, more clouds are formed increasing total global albedo.

the energy that tries to excessively warm the planet is reflected back to space, by the increase in albedo. The Earth thus regulates itself and cannot excessively warm itself or cool itself without correction sometime later.

USMC the Almighty

02-07-2007, 07:52 PM

Global warming is happening. There's no way of denying it.

It's just the matter of who's causing it.

And Earth can just as easily take a turn for the colder.

A general characteristic of your is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough.

Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

People who blame humans for global warming do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change.

Paraphrased from Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

USMC the Almighty

02-07-2007, 07:54 PM

Another fact of the issue is that even if the earth is warming, there's nothing we can really do about it. If Earth wants to purge humans -- it's going to do it and anyone who thinks that we have control over the earth is ignorant.

However, since 1970, the year of the first Earth Day, America's population has increased by 42%, the country's inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has grown 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the United States has more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven has increased by 178%.

But during these 37 years of growing population, employment, and industrial production, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, the environment has substantially improved. Emissions of the six principal air pollutants have decreased by 53%. Carbon monoxide emissions have dropped from 197 million tons per year to 89 million; nitrogen oxides from 27 million tons to 19 million, and sulfur dioxide from 31 million to 15 million. Particulates are down 80%, and lead emissions have declined by more than 98%.

The number of days the city of Los Angeles exceeded the one-hour ozone standard has declined from just under 200 a year in the late 1970s to 27 in 2004.

• The Pacific Research Institute's Index of Leading Environmental Indicators shows that "U.S. forests expanded by 9.5 million acres between 1990 and 2000."

• While wetlands were declining at the rate of 500,000 acres a year at midcentury, they "have shown a net gain of about 26,000 acres per year in the past five years," according to the institute.

• Also according to the institute, "bald eagles, down to fewer than 500 nesting pairs in 1965, are now estimated to number more than 7,500 nesting pairs."

USMC the Almighty

02-07-2007, 07:57 PM

In 2007, as part of its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC concluded that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is made up of 2500+ scientists/experts on climate, 800 contributing authors, 450 main authors, all from 130+ countries.

The "science" you cite gives only mean temperatures on greater than centennial scales; heck there only accurate on millennial scales due to mixing of gasses in the ice to begin with. Funny how your scientists ignore all of this to make their "findings" after those same scientists are the ones who admit the data is unreliable for the same reason I have just stated. The MO seems to be one study says this is the "best guess" we can come up with given the reliability of the data and then future studies site it as if it was gospel. More studies are built on the same faulty premise on top of faulty premise on top of inconsistent and unreliable data and then the scientist claim the findings are incontrovertible because of the number of studies in agreement. Completely ignoring the fact that the data they are citing to begin with is unreliable at best.

The AGW crowd says that man's emissions have to be reduced 20-25% or we are doomed.

There are about 800,000 cars in the world. Each car puts out as much CO2 as a cow does (CO2 equiv. Methane). There are 1.6 Billion cows on the earth right now.

The human population is a bit over 6 billion and if the growth rate slows to 1/2 the current rate then in 2050 there will be 9 billion. If the rate stays close to the same there will be 12 billion. The population of cattle parallels the population of humans.

To have a reduction of 25% the reduction per person has to be about 40% to compensate for the increased human population (@ 50% growth).
If you removed all of the cars from the world the increase in cattle (parallel to human population) would be 800,000 in 2050. So the CO2 from cars is replaced by emissions from cattle. Cars are gone.... emissions just as high.

Now methane is more powerful as a greenhouse gas. Over a 100 year period it is 23 times more powerful. Over a 20 year period it is 62 times more powerful. Living plants produce 10 to 1000 times more methane than decaying plants or compose. To feed the growing population you are going to have to increase crop production... more plants.

Getting back to the cattle..... livestock farming, estimated methane emissions rose from 25.6 million metric tons in 1860 to 113.1 million metric tons in 1994. Add population growth and you have about 170 million metric tons in 2050. That is 4 gigatons increase... CO2 equivalent. About 16% of our current CO2 emissions.

The numbers for rice farming are about the same... so add another 16% of current to the figures.

The other "crops" are going to add at least another 16%. While increasing at a steady rate when we get to 2050 the CO2 equivalent from feeding the increased population will be 48% more. If the population growth stays at the current rate then that is doubled.... 96% more. Just to feed the world.

Their calls to reduce emissions by 20-25% is hollow and bogus. If they were successful in reducing emissions from fossil fuels by that much we would still have double the emissions in 2050. Actually more than that.

Instead of all this hollering and waste of money on the phony cures and plans they should look at and talk about the realities. They keep on the doomsday path and some nut might come to a conclusion that the best thing to do is reduce the population back down to the level it was at in about 1800.

saggyjones

02-10-2007, 12:38 PM

Earth's Atmosphere
N2: 780,000 PPM
O2: 210,000 PPM
Ar: 1,000 PPM and H2O 700 PPM
CO2: 370 PPM
Making gullible people believe that mankind is causing Global Warming: Priceless

That proves nothing because all gases are different. Less CO2 doesn't mean it's not a lot. Actually 370 ppm is a lot of carbon dioxide. I suggest taking a chemistry class.

First, let me tell you why there is global warming alarmism:
Eighty-five percent of Americans say warming is probably happening, and 62 percent say it threatens them personally. The National Academy of Sciences says the rise in the Earth's surface temperature has been about one degree Fahrenheit in the past century. Did 85 percent of Americans notice? Of course not.

1 degree is a lot, and the temperature is rising exponentially because the rate at which it rises is also going up. Did you look at my graphs?

They got their anxiety from journalism calculated to produce it. Never mind that one degree might be the margin of error when measuring the planet's temperature.

1 degree isn't the margin of error. Where did you get that?

To take a person's temperature, you put a thermometer in an orifice or under an arm. Taking the temperature of our churning planet, with its tectonic plates sliding around over a molten core, involves limited precision.

Actually it doesn't, because they have temperature stations everywhere and simply average them every year.

Because if you're a scientist trying to get funding from the government, you're better off telling the world how horrible things are. And once people are scared, they pay attention. They'll even demand the government give you more money to solve the problem. Usually the horrible disaster never happens. Chaos from Y2K. An epidemic of deaths from SARS, mad cow disease, or the Avian bird flu. Cancer from Three Mile Island. We quickly forget. We move on to the next leftist alarmism.

Except global warming has been proven and isn't the same as a disease epidemic because it doesn't pass. And if scientists were funded by the government they would discredit global warming because Bush doesn't want to admit he was wrong.

The scary claims about heat waves and droughts are based on computer models. But computer models are lousy at predicting climate because water vapor and cloud effects cause changes that computers fail to predict. They were unable to anticipate the massive amounts of heat energy that escaped the tropics over the past 15 years, forcing modelers back to the drawing board. In the mid-1970s, computer models told us we should prepare for global cooling.

I'm not talking about predictions, I'm talking about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere compared with any other time in history and the rise in temperature directly proportional to the rise in CO2 and how we are pouring CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels in cars and power plants.

The fundamentalist doom-mongers ignore scientists who say the effects of global warming may be benign. Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas says added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest season.

Global warming doesn't help crops grow. In the short term the rise in CO2 helps the quantity (though diminishes the quality) of crops, but changes in rainfall and more storms caused by this very same rise will greatly hurt agriculture. Also many crops in Africa are already straining to thrive because of high temperature and little rainfall, and global warming would make this worse.

Why don't we hear about this part of the global warming argument?

Because it's not true.

It's the money. Twenty-five billion dollars in government funding has been spent since 1990 to research global warming. If scientists and researchers were coming out releasing reports that global warming has little to do with man, and most to do with just how the planet works, there wouldn't be as much money to study it.

You never provided evidence that global warming isn't happening.

saggyjones

02-10-2007, 12:43 PM

As I noted above -- most of these numbers are based on models, which are poor indicators of the acutal numbers.

No, they are based on past temperatures. I'm not predicting anything and neither are those graphs.

The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975

After this the "scientific community" realized that it just sounded ignorant to get people all concerned about global cooling so they pivoted and focused solely on CO2.

Also, how does anyone in their right mind accept that the Sun is responsible for "only 10-30%" of the current warming because that's what some computer model spit out?

Do you have any evidence otherwise?

But as a percentage of the total atmosphere, CO2 represents only about .03 percent of the molecules that make up the air or 355 parts per million. Even so, it has always played a critical role as a greenhouse gas that triggers enough warming to increase the amount of water vapor that evaporates from the oceans into the atmosphere. This extra water vapor, in turn, traps nearly 90% of the infrared rays radiated from the surface of the Earth back toward space.

Water vapor is completely natural, and we aren't adding more of it to the atmosphere. We are however adding a great deal more CO2, and as my first post states more than there has been in 800,000 years.

saggyjones

02-10-2007, 12:58 PM

saggyjones

02-10-2007, 01:00 PM

And Earth can just as easily take a turn for the colder.

A general characteristic of your is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough.

Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

People who blame humans for global warming do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change.

Paraphrased from Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

How do you explain this graph and the rise in temperature then?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

saggyjones

02-10-2007, 01:14 PM

Another fact of the issue is that even if the earth is warming, there's nothing we can really do about it. If Earth wants to purge humans -- it's going to do it and anyone who thinks that we have control over the earth is ignorant.

We can research alternative energy sources for cars, and switch to nuclear power for energy. It would be expensive, but new breeder nuclear reactors produce more fissile material than they consume and fusion technology is being discovered. Also new nuclear plants put out no greenhouse gases.

However, since 1970, the year of the first Earth Day, America's population has increased by 42%, the country's inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has grown 195%, the number of cars and trucks in the United States has more than doubled, and the total number of miles driven has increased by 178%.

But during these 37 years of growing population, employment, and industrial production, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, the environment has substantially improved. Emissions of the six principal air pollutants have decreased by 53%. Carbon monoxide emissions have dropped from 197 million tons per year to 89 million; nitrogen oxides from 27 million tons to 19 million, and sulfur dioxide from 31 million to 15 million. Particulates are down 80%, and lead emissions have declined by more than 98%.

The number of days the city of Los Angeles exceeded the one-hour ozone standard has declined from just under 200 a year in the late 1970s to 27 in 2004.

Source?

What does this have to do with global warming? I'm talking about CO2 and methane (CH4), the real threats to our environment.

• The Pacific Research Institute's Index of Leading Environmental Indicators shows that "U.S. forests expanded by 9.5 million acres between 1990 and 2000."

Source? We are deforesting in third world countries mostly, and I'll provide one example.

Certain areas such as the Atlantic Rainforest have been diminshed to less than 10% of their original size and the Amazon Rainforest is awaiting the same fate at 600 fires daily.

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

• While wetlands were declining at the rate of 500,000 acres a year at midcentury, they "have shown a net gain of about 26,000 acres per year in the past five years," according to the institute.

Global warming creates wetlands. That's why more are being formed.

• Also according to the institute, "bald eagles, down to fewer than 500 nesting pairs in 1965, are now estimated to number more than 7,500 nesting pairs."

What does this have to do with global warming?

saggyjones

02-10-2007, 01:26 PM

The "science" you cite gives only mean temperatures on greater than centennial scales; heck there only accurate on millennial scales due to mixing of gasses in the ice to begin with. Funny how your scientists ignore all of this to make their "findings" after those same scientists are the ones who admit the data is unreliable for the same reason I have just stated. The MO seems to be one study says this is the "best guess" we can come up with given the reliability of the data and then future studies site it as if it was gospel. More studies are built on the same faulty premise on top of faulty premise on top of inconsistent and unreliable data and then the scientist claim the findings are incontrovertible because of the number of studies in agreement. Completely ignoring the fact that the data they are citing to begin with is unreliable at best.

Can you prove that ice core samples are unreliable? You seem to discredit scientists everywhere who know much more than you do about the subject.

The AGW crowd says that man's emissions have to be reduced 20-25% or we are doomed.

What's your point?

[QUOTE=USMC the Almighty]There are about 800,000 cars in the world. Each car puts out as much CO2 as a cow does (CO2 equiv. Methane). There are 1.6 Billion cows on the earth right now.

Livestock (a human created thing) is a big problem, so we need to find a way to reduce the methane output from farms.

The human population is a bit over 6 billion and if the growth rate slows to 1/2 the current rate then in 2050 there will be 9 billion. If the rate stays close to the same there will be 12 billion. The population of cattle parallels the population of humans.

Livestock is a big problem, like I said. What's your point?

To have a reduction of 25% the reduction per person has to be about 40% to compensate for the increased human population (@ 50% growth).
If you removed all of the cars from the world the increase in cattle (parallel to human population) would be 800,000 in 2050. So the CO2 from cars is replaced by emissions from cattle. Cars are gone.... emissions just as high.

Once again we need to do something about cattle.

Now methane is more powerful as a greenhouse gas. Over a 100 year period it is 23 times more powerful. Over a 20 year period it is 62 times more powerful. Living plants produce 10 to 1000 times more methane than decaying plants or compose. To feed the growing population you are going to have to increase crop production... more plants.

Source?

Getting back to the cattle..... livestock farming, estimated methane emissions rose from 25.6 million metric tons in 1860 to 113.1 million metric tons in 1994. Add population growth and you have about 170 million metric tons in 2050. That is 4 gigatons increase... CO2 equivalent. About 16% of our current CO2 emissions.

The numbers for rice farming are about the same... so add another 16% of current to the figures.

The other "crops" are going to add at least another 16%. While increasing at a steady rate when we get to 2050 the CO2 equivalent from feeding the increased population will be 48% more. If the population growth stays at the current rate then that is doubled.... 96% more. Just to feed the world.

Their calls to reduce emissions by 20-25% is hollow and bogus. If they were successful in reducing emissions from fossil fuels by that much we would still have double the emissions in 2050. Actually more than that.

Exactly. That's why we need to stop burning fossil fuels for energy, which is the main cause of greenhouse gases.

http://static.flickr.com/66/157365266_90a5968d7b.jpg

Instead of all this hollering and waste of money on the phony cures and plans they should look at and talk about the realities. They keep on the doomsday path and some nut might come to a conclusion that the best thing to do is reduce the population back down to the level it was at in about 1800.

I agree. We need to focus on alternative energy, controlling livestock methane outputs, and alternative fuel for cars, not reducing output, because that only prolongs it.

USMC the Almighty

02-10-2007, 04:08 PM

That proves nothing because all gases are different. Less CO2 doesn't mean it's not a lot. Actually 370 ppm is a lot of carbon dioxide. I suggest taking a chemistry class.

My point exactly. With that much CO2 already in the atmosphere, believing that humans can affect the temperature of the globe that much is laughable.

1 degree is a lot, and the temperature is rising exponentially because the rate at which it rises is also going up. Did you look at my graphs?

Yes, and they are estimates. First, how do we know what the temperatures were 1000 years ago? They're estimates based on computer models which as I noted, are poor at predicting temperature and climate changes. Secondly, one of your models guesses that earth's temperature has risen about .7 degrees in 100 years. Is it me or does that seem remarkably consistent?

1 degree isn't the margin of error. Where did you get that?

I picked it up from one of the dozens of articles and books I've read on this topic.

Actually it doesn't, because they have temperature stations everywhere and simply average them every year.

Temperature stations every square inch? Mile? Every country? Continent? Asserting that taking the earth's temperature does not required limited precision and some guesswork is just comical.

Except global warming has been proven and isn't the same as a disease epidemic because it doesn't pass. And if scientists were funded by the government they would discredit global warming because Bush doesn't want to admit he was wrong.

Of course it can just pass. Look at your models. There are no straight lines. It behaves in a cyclical motion. To treat every change in temperature or climate as directly relating to the actions of humans and something to fret about is ridiculous.

Global warming doesn't help crops grow. In the short term the rise in CO2 helps the quantity (though diminishes the quality) of crops, but changes in rainfall and more storms caused by this very same rise will greatly hurt agriculture. Also many crops in Africa are already straining to thrive because of high temperature and little rainfall, and global warming would make this worse.

Higher temperatures? Haha, it's 1 degree over 100 years at most. It's also nteresting that you note crops in California are "straining to thrive because of" record low temperatures and wildly uncommon freezing temperatures.

You never provided evidence that global warming isn't happening.

Because I'm not sure yet. 1 degree over 100 years doesn't seem like something to get all frantic about. Earth's climate is always changing and there is nothing we can do about it. Earth can just as easily swing into an ice age. Pesonally, I'd take a little warming over an ice age. Any day.

USMC the Almighty

02-10-2007, 04:10 PM

Source? I'd like to see the logic behind this ridiculous statement.

Just google or wikipedia it. You'll find hundreds of papers supporting my theory.

USMC the Almighty

02-10-2007, 04:11 PM

How do you explain this graph and the rise in temperature then?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

I'm pretty sure you didn't read my post before blindly copying your graph. The graph validates my point. I'll repost it:

And Earth can just as easily take a turn for the colder.

A general characteristic of your is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough.

People who blame humans for global warming do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change.

Paraphrased from Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

USMC the Almighty

02-10-2007, 04:16 PM

In the short term the rise in CO2 helps the quantity (though diminishes the quality) of crops, but changes in rainfall and more storms caused by this very same rise will greatly hurt agriculture.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

saggyjones

02-18-2007, 12:01 PM

My point exactly. With that much CO2 already in the atmosphere, believing that humans can affect the temperature of the globe that much is laughable.

We put all that CO2 in the air. Did you look at my graph of CO2 output, or are you ignoring everything I post?

Yes, and they are estimates. First, how do we know what the temperatures were 1000 years ago? They're estimates based on computer models which as I noted, are poor at predicting temperature and climate changes. Secondly, one of your models guesses that earth's temperature has risen about .7 degrees in 100 years. Is it me or does that seem remarkably consistent?

You are truly the most naive and uneducated person about global warming I have ever met. You deny facts unless they agree with you and you can't see the impact of a small temperature change over time. There's no point in arguing with you because in my book you are an impossible person (http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-With-Impossible-People). But I'll argue anyway because I care about our planet.

I picked it up from one of the dozens of articles and books I've read on this topic.

Such as?

Temperature stations every square inch? Mile? Every country? Continent? Asserting that taking the earth's temperature does not required limited precision and some guesswork is just comical.

Once again you are denying facts that even those on your side don't deny.

Of course it can just pass. Look at your models. There are no straight lines. It behaves in a cyclical motion. To treat every change in temperature or climate as directly relating to the actions of humans and something to fret about is ridiculous.

If you look at the past ice age cycles and see the one now it's way above the norm.

Higher temperatures? Haha, it's 1 degree over 100 years at most. It's also nteresting that you note crops in California are "straining to thrive because of" record low temperatures and wildly uncommon freezing temperatures.[/QUOTE\

Once again you fail to see the impact of 1 degree.

When did I mention California? Africa is not the same as California.

Because I'm not sure yet. 1 degree over 100 years doesn't seem like something to get all frantic about. Earth's climate is always changing and there is nothing we can do about it. Earth can just as easily swing into an ice age. Pesonally, I'd take a little warming over an ice age. Any day.

here are some global warming effects (http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/vol4no1/carbcycle.html)

saggyjones

02-18-2007, 12:03 PM

Just google or wikipedia it. You'll find hundreds of papers supporting my theory.

Why don't you give me some sources, since it's your point? I think you can't find any and you're trying to get away from it.

saggyjones

02-18-2007, 12:04 PM

I'm pretty sure you didn't read my post before blindly copying your graph. The graph validates my point. I'll repost it:

And Earth can just as easily take a turn for the colder.

A general characteristic of your is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough.

People who blame humans for global warming do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change.

Paraphrased from Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

If you look at the cycles of ice ages our temperature now is much higher than it's ever been. Once again you are denying facts and assuming that the earth spontaneously changes temperature.

If not humans, what do you attribute the massive rise in CO2 and temperature (which are directly proportional by the way) to?

saggyjones

02-18-2007, 12:05 PM

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

Source for this?

USMC the Almighty

02-18-2007, 04:22 PM

If not humans, what do you attribute the massive rise in CO2 and temperature (which are directly proportional by the way) to?

(a) no they're not directly proportional.

(b) I attribute the slight "warming" to the sun, earth's naturally dynamic climate, etc.

USMC the Almighty

02-18-2007, 04:30 PM

So you stop crying "source" everytime you don't have a comeback, I'm going to lay out the majority of sources that I used:

http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051110-083624-9769r
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000033.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/the_real_inconvenient_truth.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/a_convenient_lie.htmlhttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/why_liberals_fear_global_warmi.html
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?page=article&Article_ID=2319
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/5283278.stm
http://eddriscoll.com/archives/008880.php
http://boortz.com/nuze/200610/10092006.html#hurricane
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2720.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0306_060307_sunspots.html
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?page=article&Article_ID=2703
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060111/sc_nm/environment_methane_dc
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?page=article&Article_ID=2526
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A53178-2002Mar19&notFound=true
http://techcentralstation.com/062802B.html
http://www.ph.net/htdocs/pinatubo/index.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=3539
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=3583
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/disaster2.html

Global Warming on Mars: Those Aliens and Their Damn SUVs
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977&CFID=5195862&CFTOKEN=90852445

saggyjones

02-19-2007, 04:23 PM

(a) no they're not directly proportional.

Proof? Because I have some.

The increase in temperature is linearly proportional to the greenhouse gas levels.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

(b) I attribute the slight "warming" to the sun, earth's naturally dynamic climate, etc.

It's not a slight warming, as my graphs (which you deny for some unknown reason) show.

So you think the earth is spontaneously warming for no reason? And that past cycles mean nothing? That doesn't seem very logical?

saggyjones

02-19-2007, 04:25 PM

USMC the Almighty

02-19-2007, 05:21 PM

Proof?

It's not a slight warming, as my graphs (which you deny for some unknown reason) show.

Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

People who blame humans for global warming do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change.

- Mr. Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

So you think the earth is spontaneously warming for no reason? And that past cycles mean nothing? That doesn't seem very logical?

The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975

palerider

02-26-2007, 04:56 PM

If you look at the cycles of ice ages our temperature now is much higher than it's ever been. Once again you are denying facts and assuming that the earth spontaneously changes temperature.

I am afraid that you are way off base there. The average mean temperature of the earth now is positively chilly compared to the average global mean of the history of the earth. Here is a simple (but accurate) graph showing the temperature cycles that the earth has gone through over the past 600 million years or so. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are also shown.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/Tempcycles.gif

You will note that the average mean temperature of the earth across its history is so warm that ice did not exist at one or both of the poles. You will also note that our atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 400 ppm make the present atmosphere seem positively CO2 starved when compared to past concentrations during both warm and cold cycles.

The fact is that the earth warms and the earth cools and we don't have a clear understanding of the mechanics. We have been exiting the present ice age for a very long time and to date, I haven't seen one whit of evidence that would suggest that we are exiting this ice age in a different manner than the past ice ages.

saggyjones

03-04-2007, 05:51 PM

Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.

People who blame humans for global warming do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change.

- Mr. Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975

You didn't answer my question. What is causing the warming?

saggyjones

03-04-2007, 06:02 PM

I am afraid that you are way off base there. The average mean temperature of the earth now is positively chilly compared to the average global mean of the history of the earth. Here is a simple (but accurate) graph showing the temperature cycles that the earth has gone through over the past 600 million years or so. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are also shown.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/Tempcycles.gif

You will note that the average mean temperature of the earth across its history is so warm that ice did not exist at one or both of the poles. You will also note that our atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 400 ppm make the present atmosphere seem positively CO2 starved when compared to past concentrations during both warm and cold cycles.

The fact is that the earth warms and the earth cools and we don't have a clear understanding of the mechanics. We have been exiting the present ice age for a very long time and to date, I haven't seen one whit of evidence that would suggest that we are exiting this ice age in a different manner than the past ice ages.

The problem is we are adding to the already naturally rising CO2/temperature with our own output. Of course there has been more CO2 and higher temperature in earth's history, but humans have only been around for about 150,000 years and could not live in those times. To maintain life as we know it we need to start using nuclear power (safe, efficient, and clean) and keep progressing with hydrogen power for cars. Also we need to help third world countries develop and move toward these technologies. If it turns out that this warming is not affected by humans then at least we have clean air and inexhaustible energy sources. And if we all die from a natural warming, well at least we tried. So there's really no point in arguing this subject except for the sake of arguing, because I'm sure we can all agree we need to move toward alternative energy.

USMC the Almighty

03-04-2007, 06:23 PM

You didn't answer my question. What is causing the warming?

No one honestly knows, but I'll offer you my view:

The first, an obvious one being solar variance:

2. natural earth phenomena: lightning, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.
including the accompanying fires
3. meteorites impacting the atmosphere [including the comets time to time, and space dust]
4. precession of the earth on its axis : the "wobble"
5. the fact that the moon is gradually moving away from us
6. human activity
7. animal activity
8. entropy

Again, let me reiterate, I am much more concerned about global cooling then warming.

USMC the Almighty

03-04-2007, 06:24 PM

The problem is we are adding to the already naturally rising CO2/temperature with our own output. Of course there has been more CO2 and higher temperature in earth's history, but humans have only been around for about 150,000 years and could not live in those times. To maintain life as we know it we need to start using nuclear power (safe, efficient, and clean) and keep progressing with hydrogen power for cars. Also we need to help third world countries develop and move toward these technologies. If it turns out that this warming is not affected by humans then at least we have clean air and inexhaustible energy sources. And if we all die from a natural warming, well at least we tried. So there's really no point in arguing this subject except for the sake of arguing, because I'm sure we can all agree we need to move toward alternative energy.

Or maybe we should do all we can to heat up the earth before we enter into the next ice age.

palerider

03-05-2007, 02:58 AM

You didn't answer my question. What is causing the warming?

What caused the warming and cooling cycles that have been going on since the earth came into being? THIS ISN"T ROCKET SCIENCE!!! The people who are using science that you don't understand to scare you are the moral equivialant of the high priests of old times who had figured out when solar and lunar eclipses were going to happen, and how to read the signs of coming monsoons and floods and used that knowledge to set themselves above the people and demand sacrifices of both blood and treasure.

The same is true today and the poorest nations are paying the blood sacrifices while the richest are paying in treasure.

Have you noticed in the past couple of years that the term used by the envirowackos is no longer global warming but climate change? Do you know why that is? The fact, saggyjones, is that since 1998 the average global mean temperature has been falling. They can't keep switching from warming to cooling and back to warming with every natural temperature fluctuation so they coined the term "climate change" so that they could point to whatever happens and claim the sky is falling and fully expect people like you, who don't have the slighest idea whether it is true or not to eat it up like ice cream.

palerider

03-05-2007, 03:28 AM

The problem is we are adding to the already naturally rising CO2/temperature with our own output.

Do just a bit of research saggyjones, the entire CO2 output of the human race, worldwide, isn't even enough to overcome the natural deviation, from year to year, of the earth's own CO2 making machinery. Think about it just for one second. CO2 has risen from 280 parts to 380 parts PER MILLION. You are going to sit there and tell me that you believe that a gas that comprises THIRTY FIVE ONE THOUSANTHS of the total atmosphere is causing the earth to warm because it has increased by a factor of 100 PARTS PER MILLION? Get a grip guy.

Tell me, do you know what the most important greenhouse gas is and how much of it there is relative to how much CO2 there is? You are being led around like a sheep because you don't know.

Also, while the global trend for the past 8 years or so has been a very slight cooling trend, the overall trend is slightly warmer. After all, we are still exiting an ice age, what would you expect? Were you aware that when ocean water warms, it releases CO2? Were you aware that about 80% of that 100 parts per million that you are so terrified of has come from the ocean?

Of course there has been more CO2 and higher temperature in earth's history, but humans have only been around for about 150,000 years and could not live in those times.

Where do you get this stuff? Do you just make it up? That may work with most who you talk to, but not with me. I have a science education and you aren't going to scare me with grim fairy tales. The first mammal fossils date back about 135 million years. You will note from the chart that at that time, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was over 2000 parts per million. No mammal has ever existed that could breathe atmosphere that we couldn't. For that matter, there is no reason to believe that we couldn't have breathed the atmosphere during the Devonian period some some 400 million years ago.

Kindly direct me to some credible science that suggests that we could not have breathed the atmosphere from the time of the first land reptiles and survived just fine.

To maintain life as we know it we need to start using nuclear power (safe, efficient, and clean) and keep progressing with hydrogen power for cars. Also we need to help third world countries develop and move toward these technologies.

We may want to do these things, but it is not a matter of "we need" to. Third world countries need to start out with hydroelectric to work their way into technology. You don't put people who are barely past the neolithic age in a position upon which they are dependent on nuclear energy. They need to work their way towards more advanced technology (with our help) at their own speed.

If it turns out that this warming is not affected by humans then at least we have clean air and inexhaustible energy sources.

When it turns out you mean. And we will have inexaustable energy sources when it becomes profitable to develop them, and not before.

And if we all die from a natural warming, well at least we tried. So there's really no point in arguing this subject except for the sake of arguing, because I'm sure we can all agree we need to move toward alternative energy.

Far from dying saggyjones, our quality of life will improve considerably on a warmer earth. You really haven't looked at this subject beyond what the "high priests" of global climate change have told you have you? We know for a fact that the people who were living during the medieval warm period between 800 and 1300 AD (which by the way was considerably warmer than today) had an easier, more productive, and more abundant life than those who lived on either side of it until the age of machines began.

A warmer earth will have more rainfall, it will cost less to heat, more of the earth will become arable and in turn, open up vast areas of land to food production that produce nothing now. Historically, (in earth terms) life flourishes at a rate that we have never seen during the warm periods and both plants and animals struggle during the cool periods and with one notable excepetion at the end of the permian (due to volcanic activity on a massive scale) major dieoffs of species have happened during cold periods.

Sell your snake oil to someone who will buy it. Genuine science (not to be confused with the consensus of the high priests) doesn't support your doom and gloom tales.

USMC the Almighty

03-05-2007, 02:44 PM

^ That's gonna leave a mark.

palerider

03-05-2007, 03:56 PM

^ That's gonna leave a mark.

Nah. He is a true believer. No interest in knowing whether he is being lied to or not. Folks like him need crisis and impending doom. And folks like that need for the crisis and impending doom to be caused by human beings. The self loathing is a tragic aspect of modern liberalism. They are unable to believe in the transcendent so they replace the higher power with man and make him the pinacle of existence. Man, being what he is, can't help but dissapoint so they are left with an empty space left by the failure of man to live up to the godhood they expect of him and that void is quickly filled with misery and self hate.

Unfortunate, but unavoidable when one tries to make man, and what he wants the ultimate good.

USMC the Almighty

03-05-2007, 06:54 PM

Well, I was speaking more metaphorically. I didn't expect him to actually consider your argument and allow it to influence his views -- rather, I wouldn't be surprised if he avoided this thread/topic like the plague after your post.

And concerning the "impending doom" -- why is the left so much more prone to hysteria than the right? When you think about it, how many times has this "the world is doomed" scenario arisen? You've got global warming, SARS, Y2K, Avian Bird Flu, cancer from 3 Mile Island, West Nile virus, mad cow disease -- we quickly forget and move on to the next lefist alarming.

They also see the PATRIOT Act and NSA's terrorist surveillance as incipient facism, drilling in ANWR as major environmental despoliation, opposition to gay marriage as an imminent Christian theocracy.

When you really think about it, it's no wonder that they suck up this global warming alarmism. You said it best:

Folks like him need crisis and impending doom. And folks like that need for the crisis and impending doom to be caused by human beings. The self loathing is a tragic aspect of modern liberalism.

saggyjones

03-05-2007, 08:27 PM

No one honestly knows, but I'll offer you my view:

The first, an obvious one being solar variance:

2. natural earth phenomena: lightning, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.
including the accompanying fires
3. meteorites impacting the atmosphere [including the comets time to time, and space dust]
4. precession of the earth on its axis : the "wobble"
5. the fact that the moon is gradually moving away from us
6. human activity
7. animal activity
8. entropy

Again, let me reiterate, I am much more concerned about global cooling then warming.

Global cooling is a product of greenhouse gases, if you didn't know. But like you said no one knows for sure and we'll have to wait it out and see who's right.

saggyjones

03-05-2007, 08:30 PM

What caused the warming and cooling cycles that have been going on since the earth came into being? THIS ISN"T ROCKET SCIENCE!!! The people who are using science that you don't understand to scare you are the moral equivialant of the high priests of old times who had figured out when solar and lunar eclipses were going to happen, and how to read the signs of coming monsoons and floods and used that knowledge to set themselves above the people and demand sacrifices of both blood and treasure.

The same is true today and the poorest nations are paying the blood sacrifices while the richest are paying in treasure.

Have you noticed in the past couple of years that the term used by the envirowackos is no longer global warming but climate change? Do you know why that is? The fact, saggyjones, is that since 1998 the average global mean temperature has been falling. They can't keep switching from warming to cooling and back to warming with every natural temperature fluctuation so they coined the term "climate change" so that they could point to whatever happens and claim the sky is falling and fully expect people like you, who don't have the slighest idea whether it is true or not to eat it up like ice cream.

Wow, great metaphors! You sure are at good spewing out bull**** that just takes up space and really doesn't represent anything.

Back to the point, the pattern of climate change has been climbing. A few years of cooling doesn't eliminate the overall warming trend. Also, I don't know where you get the cooling, can you provide a source? Here's one of mine:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060925/060925_warmchart_hmed_3p.standard.jpg

saggyjones

03-05-2007, 08:44 PM

Do just a bit of research saggyjones, the entire CO2 output of the human race, worldwide, isn't even enough to overcome the natural deviation, from year to year, of the earth's own CO2 making machinery. Think about it just for one second. CO2 has risen from 280 parts to 380 parts PER MILLION. You are going to sit there and tell me that you believe that a gas that comprises THIRTY FIVE ONE THOUSANTHS of the total atmosphere is causing the earth to warm because it has increased by a factor of 100 PARTS PER MILLION? Get a grip guy.
Yes, I am. You obviously have never studied the climate, because even change that appears small can have a huge impact.

Tell me, do you know what the most important greenhouse gas is and how much of it there is relative to how much CO2 there is? You are being led around like a sheep because you don't know.

It's water vapor, and there's much more of it. Water vapor levels are also a problem, although CO2 has had the most drastic change and is the most effective on most people.

Evaporated H2O is a known greenhouse gas—a gas that absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation in Earth's atmosphere, thereby increasing temperatures.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html

Also, while the global trend for the past 8 years or so has been a very slight cooling trend, the overall trend is slightly warmer. After all, we are still exiting an ice age, what would you expect? Were you aware that when ocean water warms, it releases CO2? Were you aware that about 80% of that 100 parts per million that you are so terrified of has come from the ocean?

We aren't debating that the earth is warming and that CO2 is rising, we're debating whether humans are causing it or not.

Where do you get this stuff? Do you just make it up? That may work with most who you talk to, but not with me. I have a science education and you aren't going to scare me with grim fairy tales. The first mammal fossils date back about 135 million years. You will note from the chart that at that time, the atmospheric CO2 concentration was over 2000 parts per million. No mammal has ever existed that could breathe atmosphere that we couldn't. For that matter, there is no reason to believe that we couldn't have breathed the atmosphere during the Devonian period some some 400 million years ago.

Kindly direct me to some credible science that suggests that we could not have breathed the atmosphere from the time of the first land reptiles and survived just fine.

I was wrong, and I admit you are right about this part.

We may want to do these things, but it is not a matter of "we need" to. Third world countries need to start out with hydroelectric to work their way into technology. You don't put people who are barely past the neolithic age in a position upon which they are dependent on nuclear energy. They need to work their way towards more advanced technology (with our help) at their own speed.

Isn't that what I said? We need to move toward these energy sources and help 3rd world countries develop, as I said. Why are you arguing with me and agreeing on this?

When it turns out you mean. And we will have inexaustable energy sources when it becomes profitable to develop them, and not before.

We need to create incentives for companies to move toward nuclear power and hydrogen-powered cars. The technology is nearly here; all we need to do is guide our economy in the right direction.

Far from dying saggyjones, our quality of life will improve considerably on a warmer earth. You really haven't looked at this subject beyond what the "high priests" of global climate change have told you have you? We know for a fact that the people who were living during the medieval warm period between 800 and 1300 AD (which by the way was considerably warmer than today) had an easier, more productive, and more abundant life than those who lived on either side of it until the age of machines began.

A warmer earth will have more rainfall, it will cost less to heat, more of the earth will become arable and in turn, open up vast areas of land to food production that produce nothing now. Historically, (in earth terms) life flourishes at a rate that we have never seen during the warm periods and both plants and animals struggle during the cool periods and with one notable excepetion at the end of the permian (due to volcanic activity on a massive scale) major dieoffs of species have happened during cold periods.

Sell your snake oil to someone who will buy it. Genuine science (not to be confused with the consensus of the high priests) doesn't support your doom and gloom tales.

I guess you didn't catch the sarcasm in that part. I don't really think we're all going to die anytime soon, I just think global warming is going to cause undesirable living conditions.

Also more rainfall and unpredictable storm systems will wreak havoc on agriculture in places like Africa. The crops there are already at their warmest point possible to grow. But this would probably only be short term and you're right, agriculture would benefit. But there are other problems, like flooding due to the ice caps melting.

saggyjones

03-05-2007, 08:48 PM

^ That's gonna leave a mark.

I'd like to see you rebut my response to that post. Go on.

Nah. He is a true believer. No interest in knowing whether he is being lied to or not. Folks like him need crisis and impending doom. And folks like that need for the crisis and impending doom to be caused by human beings. The self loathing is a tragic aspect of modern liberalism. They are unable to believe in the transcendent so they replace the higher power with man and make him the pinacle of existence. Man, being what he is, can't help but dissapoint so they are left with an empty space left by the failure of man to live up to the godhood they expect of him and that void is quickly filled with misery and self hate.

Unfortunate, but unavoidable when one tries to make man, and what he wants the ultimate good.

LOL that's one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read. I'm glad someone as insightful about human nature as you can read my personality so well, I think I'll see a therapist and try to change my self-loathing ways.

saggyjones

03-05-2007, 08:57 PM

Well, I was speaking more metaphorically. I didn't expect him to actually consider your argument and allow it to influence his views -- rather, I wouldn't be surprised if he avoided this thread/topic like the plague after your post.

You know, you haven't replied on the increased min wage thread for a while.

And concerning the "impending doom" -- why is the left so much more prone to hysteria than the right? When you think about it, how many times has this "the world is doomed" scenario arisen? You've got global warming, SARS, Y2K, Avian Bird Flu, cancer from 3 Mile Island, West Nile virus, mad cow disease -- we quickly forget and move on to the next lefist alarming.

Because we're liberals and tend to overreact, as conservatives tend to under react (in my opinion).

But just for the record I, and most intelligent people I know, never believed in any of those epidemics. The Y2K thing was just silly.

They also see the PATRIOT Act and NSA's terrorist surveillance as incipient facism,

I just don't like them violating the constitution, but if it really has helped our country then so be it.

drilling in ANWR as major environmental despoliation

It's a ****ing wildlife refuge, of course people are going to oppose it. Why not drill in the grand canyon? Or in Yosemite? How about Yellowstone? Would you support that? (If there was oil there of course)

Opposition to gay marriage as an imminent Christian theocracy.

I just think they deserve to get married, but this argument is for a different thread. But I don't think it's an imminent Christian theocracy.

When you really think about it, it's no wonder that they suck up this global warming alarmism. You said it best:

We won't know until it happens, will we? It's like the boy who cried wolf (pretty stupid simile I know). These hypes are bound to be true sometime and if everyone just ignored it we wouldn't be able to prevent the real ones.

USMC the Almighty

03-05-2007, 10:04 PM

Wow, great metaphors! You sure are at good spewing out bull**** that just takes up space and really doesn't represent anything.

Back to the point, the pattern of climate change has been climbing. A few years of cooling doesn't eliminate the overall warming trend. Also, I don't know where you get the cooling, can you provide a source? Here's one of mine:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060925/060925_warmchart_hmed_3p.standard.jpg

And it's exactly this warming trend that should have you concerned about cooling. We are currently in the midst of a Modern Maximum, an unusually long period of years in which each 11-year warming period has started up more abruptly and gone into higher sunspot activity than previous eras except for the Medieval Maximum, and the 11-year cooling periods have never cooled down to previous minima levels. So what you see is a spikey chart showing the maxima and minima in an rising slope, but the bottom of the spikes never reaching prior levels of coolness. It started approximately around 1950, and could be confusing the global warming issue to a considerable degree, given that sunspot minima have been associated with such events as the Little Ice Age (Maunder Minimum) and a sunspot maximum like the current one is associated with the Medieval Warm Period. The Little Ice Age/Maunder Minimum and the Medieval Warm Period/Medieval Maximum are very strong indications of a good case for a solar cause.

At any rate, the earth's climate is cyclical, and since we are at the top of the curve right now (as, according to NASA, we are right now peaking out in terms of warmth as indicated by the sun's magnetic field flipping [http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb_1.htm]) it is inevitable that the temperature will continue its well-established pattern and begin cooling: http://www.smeter.net/propagation/sunspots/current-sunspot-cycle.php

If NASA is right, we can expect global temperatures to fall for the next 25 years, at least.

Indications are that we are entering another Little Ice Age. Following the climate patterns of the last 9,000 years, we can expect the coming Little Ice Age to be colder and longer than the last one (which lasted 400 years).

If atmospheric CO2 had a greenhouse warming effect, which sadly it doesn’t, it would be a good idea to inject as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we can. Warmer is decidedly better than cooler, and that is obvious when the entire Holocene and Pleistocene are considered.

USMC the Almighty

03-05-2007, 10:16 PM

You challenged me to rebut your post -- but didn't even make an argument, so I'm not exactly sure what I'm supposed to rebut.

I guess you didn't catch the sarcasm in that part. I don't really think we're all going to die anytime soon, I just think global warming is going to cause undesirable living conditions.

Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas says added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest season.

And I'll kindly repost my friend palerider's remarks that you ignored: "...our quality of life will improve considerably on a warmer earth. You really haven't looked at this subject beyond what the "high priests" of global climate change have told you have you? We know for a fact that the people who were living during the medieval warm period between 800 and 1300 AD (which by the way was considerably warmer than today) had an easier, more productive, and more abundant life than those who lived on either side of it until the age of machines began.

A warmer earth will have more rainfall, it will cost less to heat, more of the earth will become arable and in turn, open up vast areas of land to food production that produce nothing now. Historically, (in earth terms) life flourishes at a rate that we have never seen during the warm periods and both plants and animals struggle during the cool periods and with one notable exception at the end of the Permian (due to volcanic activity on a massive scale) major die offs of species have happened during cold periods."

Also more rainfall and unpredictable storm systems will wreak havoc on agriculture in places like Africa.

"If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extra-tropical storms, not more. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming."

-- Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT

But there are other problems, like flooding due to the ice caps melting.

This doesn't really make sense to me, but then again, I'm not a scientist. How would melting ice caps won't overflow the oceans anymore than melting ice cubes overflow an already full glass of water?

And further, global warming could actually be causing certain glaciers to grow contend numerous sources. Glaciers are growing in Norway, New Zealand and even the United States. The U.S. Forest Service reports that the Hubbard Glacier in Alaska's Tongass National Forest is advancing so rapidly, it threatens to close off a major fjord. In addition, evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average.

USMC the Almighty

03-05-2007, 10:24 PM

You know, you haven't replied on the increased min wage thread for a while.

I'm sorry. I didn't feel like repeating myself over and over again. It seemed to me that we were going in circles. Clearly, we disagree. If we really want me to reply to your post I will, but I'm warning you that you'll be hearing the same thing that I said earlier in the thread.

Because we're liberals and tend to overreact, as conservatives tend to under react (in my opinion).

The Right tends to fight human evil such as communism and Islamic totalitarianism. Liberals avoid confronting such evils and concentrates its attention instead on socioeconomic inequality, environmental problems and capitalism. Global warming meets all three of these criteria of evil. By burning fossil fuels, rich countries pollute more, the environment is being despoiled and big business increases its profits.

I just don't like them violating the constitution, but if it really has helped our country then so be it.

It's not a violation of the constitution -- a discussion for a different thread on a different day.

It's a ****ing wildlife refuge,

Exactly.

saggyjones

03-06-2007, 06:02 PM

You challenged me to rebut your post -- but didn't even make an argument, so I'm not exactly sure what I'm supposed to rebut.

You seem to have done a good job picking out the parts that make sense.

Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas says added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may actually benefit the world because more CO2 helps plants grow. Warmer winters would give farmers a longer harvest season.

This is from my post:

"But this would probably only be short term and you're right, agriculture would benefit."

And I'll kindly repost my friend palerider's remarks that you ignored: "...our quality of life will improve considerably on a warmer earth. You really haven't looked at this subject beyond what the "high priests" of global climate change have told you have you? We know for a fact that the people who were living during the medieval warm period between 800 and 1300 AD (which by the way was considerably warmer than today) had an easier, more productive, and more abundant life than those who lived on either side of it until the age of machines began.

Exactly. The Industrial Revolution caused undesirable living conditions and was the start of major pollution.

A warmer earth will have more rainfall, it will cost less to heat, more of the earth will become arable and in turn, open up vast areas of land to food production that produce nothing now. Historically, (in earth terms) life flourishes at a rate that we have never seen during the warm periods and both plants and animals struggle during the cool periods and with one notable exception at the end of the Permian (due to volcanic activity on a massive scale) major die offs of species have happened during cold periods."

You don't seem to understand other problems associated with global warming, like the melting of the ice caps. Also, would you like to live in a world with few forests and lots and lots of pollution?

"If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extra-tropical storms, not more. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming."

-- Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT

More Scientists Say Global Warming Causes Stronger Hurricanes.

abcnews.go.com/2020/HurricaneRita/story?id=1154125&page=1

But this issue is still being debated and no one has a sure answer yet. So I stand partially corrected.

This doesn't really make sense to me, but then again, I'm not a scientist. How would melting ice caps won't overflow the oceans anymore than melting ice cubes overflow an already full glass of water?

Because ice sheets like in Greenland and Antarctica on on land and are melting at a very fast rate. They fall into the water and raise the ocean level. But I see what you're saying, and things floating in the water like glaciers don't affect water level.

And further, global warming could actually be causing certain glaciers to grow contend numerous sources. Glaciers are growing in Norway, New Zealand and even the United States. The U.S. Forest Service reports that the Hubbard Glacier in Alaska's Tongass National Forest is advancing so rapidly, it threatens to close off a major fjord. In addition, evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average.

Hmm I just researched this and I didn't know that. Well disregard some of the above stuff I wrote when appropriate.

saggyjones

03-06-2007, 06:05 PM

And it's exactly this warming trend that should have you concerned about cooling. We are currently in the midst of a Modern Maximum, an unusually long period of years in which each 11-year warming period has started up more abruptly and gone into higher sunspot activity than previous eras except for the Medieval Maximum, and the 11-year cooling periods have never cooled down to previous minima levels. So what you see is a spikey chart showing the maxima and minima in an rising slope, but the bottom of the spikes never reaching prior levels of coolness. It started approximately around 1950, and could be confusing the global warming issue to a considerable degree, given that sunspot minima have been associated with such events as the Little Ice Age (Maunder Minimum) and a sunspot maximum like the current one is associated with the Medieval Warm Period. The Little Ice Age/Maunder Minimum and the Medieval Warm Period/Medieval Maximum are very strong indications of a good case for a solar cause.

At any rate, the earth's climate is cyclical, and since we are at the top of the curve right now (as, according to NASA, we are right now peaking out in terms of warmth as indicated by the sun's magnetic field flipping [http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb_1.htm]) it is inevitable that the temperature will continue its well-established pattern and begin cooling: http://www.smeter.net/propagation/sunspots/current-sunspot-cycle.php

If NASA is right, we can expect global temperatures to fall for the next 25 years, at least.

Indications are that we are entering another Little Ice Age. Following the climate patterns of the last 9,000 years, we can expect the coming Little Ice Age to be colder and longer than the last one (which lasted 400 years).

If atmospheric CO2 had a greenhouse warming effect, which sadly it doesn’t, it would be a good idea to inject as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we can. Warmer is decidedly better than cooler, and that is obvious when the entire Holocene and Pleistocene are considered.

OK, the earth is in a natural warming process right now, you convinced me. But I'd like to see your evidence for the bolded statement, because it's obviously made up.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, odorless non-flammable gas and is the most prominent Greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere.

www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/greenhouse.htm

saggyjones

03-06-2007, 06:11 PM

I'm sorry. I didn't feel like repeating myself over and over again. It seemed to me that we were going in circles. Clearly, we disagree. If we really want me to reply to your post I will, but I'm warning you that you'll be hearing the same thing that I said earlier in the thread.

OK please do.

The Right tends to fight human evil such as communism and Islamic totalitarianism.

That's your opinion that communism and Islam are human evil. Many people would disagree. I could say that Christians are evil because Hitler was Christian, and that capitalists are evil because they don't have any connection with the workers they employ and really don't care about them (not that I don't support capitalism). Why do you have the right to kill people based on ideology but others don't?

Liberals avoid confronting such evils and concentrates its attention instead on socioeconomic inequality, environmental problems and capitalism.

Once again I support capitalism, and these other things I see as very important.

Global warming meets all three of these criteria of evil. By burning fossil fuels, rich countries pollute more, the environment is being despoiled and big business increases its profits.

That sounds about right. Do you disagree with the truth of that statement?

It's not a violation of the constitution -- a discussion for a different thread on a different day.

I think it is being discussed on another thread right now so I'll leave it there.

Exactly.

So you support killing thousands of animals to get oil that's available elsewhere?

USMC the Almighty

03-06-2007, 06:16 PM

You don't seem to understand other problems associated with global warming, like the melting of the ice caps. Also, would you like to live in a world with few forests and lots and lots of pollution?

No, of course not. We're talking about global warming, not environmental regulation.

But this issue is still being debated and no one has a sure answer yet. So I stand partially corrected.

Fair enough.

Because ice sheets like in Greenland and Antarctica on on land and are melting at a very fast rate. They fall into the water and raise the ocean level. But I see what you're saying, and things floating in the water like glaciers don't affect water level.

Again, that's fair.

Hmm I just researched this and I didn't know that. Well disregard some of the above stuff I wrote when appropriate.

Sure thing.

USMC the Almighty

03-06-2007, 06:16 PM

OK, the earth is in a natural warming process right now, you convinced me. But I'd like to see your evidence for the bolded statement, because it's obviously made up.

What bolded statement?

saggyjones

03-06-2007, 09:17 PM

What bolded statement?

Sorry, forgot to bold it. It's this one:

"If atmospheric CO2 had a greenhouse warming effect, which sadly it doesn’t,"

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and adds to the greenhouse effect. I want to see your justification that it doesn't, because if that's true I've wasted a lot of time. But I researched it and clearly it is a greenhouse gas.

USMC the Almighty

03-06-2007, 10:10 PM

Sorry, forgot to bold it. It's this one:

"If atmospheric CO2 had a greenhouse warming effect, which sadly it doesn’t,"

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and adds to the greenhouse effect. I want to see your justification that it doesn't, because if that's true I've wasted a lot of time. But I researched it and clearly it is a greenhouse gas.

While CO2 is technically a "greenhouse gas" it doesn't have nearly the effect that you contend it does.

May I direct back to this post:
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1859&postcount=35

"The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere. In simple terms, however, the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total greenhouse effect. The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

The adjacent radiation absorption window graphic gives an idea of which molecules absorb various wavelengths. Where the shaded portions completely span between 2 lines it indicates that particular wavelength is fully absorbed and the "window" is saturated (or said to be "closed"). Rather obviously, once a window is saturated adding more gases with the same properties will do nothing. This point seems to cause confusion for some people so perhaps consider multiple shades on a window with each shade blocking half the light coming through - pull one shade and you reduce the light source by half, pull another so you block half the light coming through the first shade, etc.. The effect of each shade diminishes as you keep adding more and eventually you get no additional effect - you have saturated or blocked the radiation window and it makes no difference if you double or quadruple the number of shades again."

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account...Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect...Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."

-- Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

-- At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

-- CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

-- CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

check out the graphs:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

palerider

03-07-2007, 03:14 AM

Yes, I am. You obviously have never studied the climate, because even change that appears small can have a huge impact.

You seem to have some difficulty in separating reality from computer models. I don't blame you because your high priests don't make it clear to you, or anyone else, when they are citing the results of climate simulations and models and when they are citing observational data, that being, data collected from actual measurements.

We know from over a half a million years worth of ice cores, and about 600 million years worth of sedimentary data that rising CO2 atmospheric CO2 levels lag behind rising temperatures. Rising CO2 levels are a result of increased temperatures, not a cause. The computer models suggest that a small change in atmospheric CO2 can cause a change in global temperature, but there is no actual data to support that. If you are interested in seeing the record so far on the accuracy of computer modeling here is a comprehensive study.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

Computer modeliing is notoriously inaccurate. When they can't make a model that accurately reflects what the temperature was and is, and how it was and is affected by various forcings, how do you put any trust at all in what these models are predicting for the future?

The reason that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere lag behind a rise in temperature is that warm water can not hold as much CO2 as cold water. When the mean temperature rises, the oceans rise and in turn, release held CO2, thus raising the atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

It appears that it is you who has never studied climate change. You have memorized the misinformation that has been given to you quite well though. Memorization, however, does not constitute study. Study would entail actually understanding the science and few, with the exception of the high priests, who understand the science accept AGW theory.

It's water vapor, and there's much more of it. Water vapor levels are also a problem, although CO2 has had the most drastic change and is the most effective on most people.

You are right that water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas but you are dead wrong when you claim that CO2 has the most impact. Water vapor accounts for 95% of the earth's greenhouse effect. Are you aware that computer models don't include water vapor in their calculations because we don't posess enough computing power to include water vapor because of its complexity. Imagine, taking computer models seriously when they don't even include the source of 95% of the earth's greehouse effect.

Water vapor is 99.999% natural in origin. And the vast bulk of other greenhouse gases are also natural in origin. As I have said, mankind's entire CO2 production is not enough to even overcome the natural deviation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

Refer back to the historical temperature chart that I provided. Note that the earth has a temperature range in its ups and downs and it doesn't really matter whether the atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 7000 parts per million or 380 parts per million, the temperatures go on as they have always gone on. This is a perfect example of observational data not matching the computer models. Now what are you going to believe? What you can actually measure and see, or what a computer tells you that you should have seen?

Here is a graphic depicting man's contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 concentration.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/image270b.gif

As I said, we don't even make enough to overcome the natural deviation.

Here is a graphic illustrating man's contribution to the total greenouse effect based on observational data as opposed to computer models.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/image270f.gif

As you can see man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is responsible for a whopping 0.117% of the greenhouse effect. that is one hundred and seventeen one thousanths of one percent of the greenhouse effect. Go try and scare little kids with AGW theory, not me.

We aren't debating that the earth is warming and that CO2 is rising, we're debating whether humans are causing it or not.

Mankind is responsible for a total of 0.278% of the total greenhouse effect. Do you grasp the insignifigance of two hundred and seventy eight one thousanths of one percent? There is no debate. The AGW scare is based on computer models which have a history of being wrong.

We need to create incentives for companies to move toward nuclear power and hydrogen-powered cars. The technology is nearly here; all we need to do is guide our economy in the right direction.

You can't create incentives that are equal to profit motive. We will not have these sources of energy until it becomes profitable to develop them and when it does become profitable, they will appear more quickly than you can imagine.

I guess you didn't catch the sarcasm in that part. I don't really think we're all going to die anytime soon, I just think global warming is going to cause undesirable living conditions.

Have you ever noticed that people (if they can afford to do so) tend to migrate from cold areas to warm areas? Exactly what is it about living in warm conditions that you believe will be "undesirable"?

Also more rainfall and unpredictable storm systems will wreak havoc on agriculture in places like Africa. The crops there are already at their warmest point possible to grow. But this would probably only be short term and you're right, agriculture would benefit. But there are other problems, like flooding due to the ice caps melting.

The weather is already unpredictable. Tell me, how much of the world's food production is presently grown in Africa? And are you trying to argue that other crops wouldn't grow in Africa? Look at your paleohistory. When the earth is in its warm periods, there were no deserts. The whole earth was green.

If the entire arctic ice cap melted today, the mean sea level would drop considerably. The arctic ice cap is floating, ice displaces more area than melted water. Melt the ice and sea level goes down. And since warmer temperatures will result in more rainfall, there is no assurace that melting the rest of the ice will result in any signifigant rise in sea level. The fact is that the earth has warmed to the point that no ice at all existed over and over and over and it is in the process of doing it again. With us, or without us.

One other thing.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/060925_warmchart_hmed_3p_standard.jpg

Get yourself a new temperature chart to believe in. This one is based on computer modeling and not actual observational data. It is accepted, even by the high priests at the IPCC that the earth has warmed .6 degrees in the past century with 70% of that temperature rise happening in the first half of the past century. Your chart shows almost a .8 degree rise in the past century with over half the rise happening in the past 20 years. Just another example of believing what a computer tells you that you should have seen in lieu of what you have actually seen and measured.

palerider

03-07-2007, 03:23 AM

Wow, great metaphors! You sure are at good spewing out bull**** that just takes up space and really doesn't represent anything.

It is you who is using information from computer models rather than actual observed data to make the case for AGW. If you use actual numbers, there is no debate.

And are you saying that the metaphors are inaccurate, or that you just don't like them?

Back to the point, the pattern of climate change has been climbing. A few years of cooling doesn't eliminate the overall warming trend. Also, I don't know where you get the cooling, can you provide a source? Here's one of mine:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060925/060925_warmchart_hmed_3p.standard.jpg

The temperature has been rising for tens of thousands of years. The ice has used to extend to Texas. It has melted back all the way to the far north of canada and it did that without the benefit of a single internal combustion engine. Now since the ice has melted back that far without our help, what makes you believe that suddenly, we are responsible for the warming trend that has been going on since we were using stone tools?

ANd your chart? Get a new one. That one is based on computer models and not observational data. Even the IPCC acknowledges that the earth has warmed .6 degrees C in the past century with about 70% of the warming taking place in the first half of the last century. Your chart reflects the almost .8 degree rise that computer models said shoud have happened and they have most of that rise happening in the past 20 years. The computer models are almost never right.

palerider

03-07-2007, 03:25 AM

LOL that's one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever read.

More rediculous than you suggesting that we couldn't have breathed the atmosphere of the past in your attempt to demonstrate that CO2 is going to kill us?

palerider

03-07-2007, 03:32 AM

It's a ****ing wildlife refuge, of course people are going to oppose it. Why not drill in the grand canyon? Or in Yosemite? How about Yellowstone? Would you support that? (If there was oil there of course)

Another example of believing what you are told rather than what is real. I have been to the area that they want to drill in ANWR. I was stationed in Alaska in the 70's and had the opportunity to see most of the state. In the area they want to drill, there is no wildlife. Not even birds. There are no plants, There is nothing but ice and howling wind for most of the year. The pictures they show you of caribou and birds and cute little foxes is in ANWR but it is hundreds of miles south of where they want to drill. ANWR is the size of South Carolina and the area they want to drill is about the size of a small town.

ANd if you are serious about getting out from under the thumb of foriegners for our energy needs, then yes. lets drill wherever the oil happens to be. Modern technology is far different from the old days when the gushers flooded the landscape with oil. Modern drilling operations have a very small footprint.

palerider

03-07-2007, 03:37 AM

HighVoltage123

03-07-2007, 09:13 AM

Yes, the temperatures are rising and yes, that doesn't seem that normal and yes, we are human being and we think that we are so great that we can interfere in everything on the planet which is a lot older then we are and a lot bigger creatures then us lived here and a lot smarter races ruled before us... and NO I really do not think that we are capable of doing that much damage... and even if we are doing the damages the planet probably is just doing everything necessary to restore its natural conditions...

palerider

03-07-2007, 01:55 PM

saggyjones

03-07-2007, 03:32 PM

While CO2 is technically a "greenhouse gas" it doesn't have nearly the effect that you contend it does.

May I direct back to this post:
http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1859&postcount=35

"The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere. In simple terms, however, the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total greenhouse effect. The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

The adjacent radiation absorption window graphic gives an idea of which molecules absorb various wavelengths. Where the shaded portions completely span between 2 lines it indicates that particular wavelength is fully absorbed and the "window" is saturated (or said to be "closed"). Rather obviously, once a window is saturated adding more gases with the same properties will do nothing. This point seems to cause confusion for some people so perhaps consider multiple shades on a window with each shade blocking half the light coming through - pull one shade and you reduce the light source by half, pull another so you block half the light coming through the first shade, etc.. The effect of each shade diminishes as you keep adding more and eventually you get no additional effect - you have saturated or blocked the radiation window and it makes no difference if you double or quadruple the number of shades again."

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Junk science? Please. This quote is from a real source:

Water vapor (H2O) causes about 60% of Earth's naturally-occurring greenhouse effect. Other gases influencing the effect include carbon dioxide (CO2) (about 26%), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3) (about 8%). Collectively, these gases are known as greenhouse gases. The greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide is specifically known as the Callendar effect.

http://www.crystalinks.com/greenhouseffect.html

"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account...Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect...Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

You don't understand that .28% is a large percentage when dealing with the climate. Even small changes can affect the atmosphere in many ways.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."

-- Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

-- At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

Like I said, even seemingly small changes can have a big impact.

-- CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

You can over-water plants you know, and you can suffocate them with too much CO2.

-- CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

We are deforesting so much that plants won't be able to handle the CO2 in the same way.

saggyjones

03-07-2007, 03:34 PM

palerider I'll respond to your posts when I get the chance but for now I can't

USMC the Almighty

03-07-2007, 03:56 PM

Junk science? Please. This quote is from a real source:

It is a real source -- they refer to the Global Warming alarmism as "junkscience" hence the name.

You don't understand that .28% is a large percentage when dealing with the climate. Even small changes can affect the atmosphere in many ways.

I disagree:

Earth's Atmosphere
N2: 780,000 PPM
O2: 210,000 PPM
Ar: 1,000 PPM and H2O 700 PPM
CO2: 370 PPM
[PPM=parts per million]

When dealing with this, .28% is negligible.

We are deforesting so much that plants won't be able to handle the CO2 in the same way.

The Pacific Research Institute's Index of Leading Environmental Indicators shows that "U.S. forests expanded by 9.5 million acres between 1990 and 2000."

HighVoltage123

03-08-2007, 02:23 AM

and what is next... Ice Age

palerider

03-08-2007, 03:30 AM

Junk science? Please. This quote is from a real source:

This is just about the shabbiest sort of response possible saggyjones. An ad homeniem attack on a source is just pitiful. Junk science, for your information, is a real source. In fact, it is often referenced by such august, peer reviewed, publications as science and nature.

Either you can dispute the information provided or you can't. Attacking a source is one of the most obvious and useless of the logical fallacies.

palerider

03-08-2007, 03:35 AM

and what is next... Ice Age

After the earth warms to its natural mean and stays there for anywhere from 250,000 years to a million years, then yes, the temperature will begin to decline and the earth will once again enter a deep freeze ice age. That is what the earth does.

saggyjones

03-16-2007, 03:44 PM

You seem to have some difficulty in separating reality from computer models. I don't blame you because your high priests don't make it clear to you, or anyone else, when they are citing the results of climate simulations and models and when they are citing observational data, that being, data collected from actual measurements.

We know from over a half a million years worth of ice cores, and about 600 million years worth of sedimentary data that rising CO2 atmospheric CO2 levels lag behind rising temperatures. Rising CO2 levels are a result of increased temperatures, not a cause. The computer models suggest that a small change in atmospheric CO2 can cause a change in global temperature, but there is no actual data to support that. If you are interested in seeing the record so far on the accuracy of computer modeling here is a comprehensive study.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

Computer modeliing is notoriously inaccurate. When they can't make a model that accurately reflects what the temperature was and is, and how it was and is affected by various forcings, how do you put any trust at all in what these models are predicting for the future?

The reason that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere lag behind a rise in temperature is that warm water can not hold as much CO2 as cold water. When the mean temperature rises, the oceans rise and in turn, release held CO2, thus raising the atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

It appears that it is you who has never studied climate change. You have memorized the misinformation that has been given to you quite well though. Memorization, however, does not constitute study. Study would entail actually understanding the science and few, with the exception of the high priests, who understand the science accept AGW theory.

You are right that water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas but you are dead wrong when you claim that CO2 has the most impact. Water vapor accounts for 95% of the earth's greenhouse effect. Are you aware that computer models don't include water vapor in their calculations because we don't posess enough computing power to include water vapor because of its complexity. Imagine, taking computer models seriously when they don't even include the source of 95% of the earth's greehouse effect.

Water vapor is 99.999% natural in origin. And the vast bulk of other greenhouse gases are also natural in origin. As I have said, mankind's entire CO2 production is not enough to even overcome the natural deviation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

Refer back to the historical temperature chart that I provided. Note that the earth has a temperature range in its ups and downs and it doesn't really matter whether the atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 7000 parts per million or 380 parts per million, the temperatures go on as they have always gone on. This is a perfect example of observational data not matching the computer models. Now what are you going to believe? What you can actually measure and see, or what a computer tells you that you should have seen?

Here is a graphic depicting man's contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 concentration.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/image270b.gif

As I said, we don't even make enough to overcome the natural deviation.

Here is a graphic illustrating man's contribution to the total greenouse effect based on observational data as opposed to computer models.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/image270f.gif

As you can see man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is responsible for a whopping 0.117% of the greenhouse effect. that is one hundred and seventeen one thousanths of one percent of the greenhouse effect. Go try and scare little kids with AGW theory, not me.

Mankind is responsible for a total of 0.278% of the total greenhouse effect. Do you grasp the insignifigance of two hundred and seventy eight one thousanths of one percent? There is no debate. The AGW scare is based on computer models which have a history of being wrong.

I honestly can't argue with this, so you win. But I still believe that us burning fossil fuels has an impact on the environment and that we need to move toward alternative energy.

You can't create incentives that are equal to profit motive. We will not have these sources of energy until it becomes profitable to develop them and when it does become profitable, they will appear more quickly than you can imagine.

The government can give tax breaks and subsidies to companies doing research on alternative energy, and they can conduct more research themselves.

Have you ever noticed that people (if they can afford to do so) tend to migrate from cold areas to warm areas? Exactly what is it about living in warm conditions that you believe will be "undesirable"?

I already admitted that I can't refute your global warming argument, so I take this back. But here's a different question: Do you think more pollution will cause undesirable living conditions?

The weather is already unpredictable. Tell me, how much of the world's food production is presently grown in Africa? And are you trying to argue that other crops wouldn't grow in Africa? Look at your paleohistory. When the earth is in its warm periods, there were no deserts. The whole earth was green.

If the entire arctic ice cap melted today, the mean sea level would drop considerably. The arctic ice cap is floating, ice displaces more area than melted water. Melt the ice and sea level goes down. And since warmer temperatures will result in more rainfall, there is no assurace that melting the rest of the ice will result in any signifigant rise in sea level. The fact is that the earth has warmed to the point that no ice at all existed over and over and over and it is in the process of doing it again. With us, or without us.

One other thing.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/stories4u/060925_warmchart_hmed_3p_standard.jpg

Get yourself a new temperature chart to believe in. This one is based on computer modeling and not actual observational data. It is accepted, even by the high priests at the IPCC that the earth has warmed .6 degrees in the past century with 70% of that temperature rise happening in the first half of the past century. Your chart shows almost a .8 degree rise in the past century with over half the rise happening in the past 20 years. Just another example of believing what a computer tells you that you should have seen in lieu of what you have actually seen and measured.

Already addressed this.