Global Warning is Very Real

[r0beph]

Or you can just keep up your impotent wining because you aren't one of the nasty rich.

I'm sure you're pale, but what do you ride? A horse named Ad Hominem?

 

[SW85]

I've never heard a convincing argument for global warming, period, much less man-made global warming.

CO2 harms the earths greehouse thats supposed to keep the suns radiation rays from entering the earth.

Oy vay! CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Thats why why not pass the big bucks to em? Make em pay! not you or me the little people.

You know we tax the rich already, right? I swear, you people are stuck in some kind of time warp where the rich have walrus whiskers and monocles and use phrases like "now you're on the trolley."

When we tax the rich, they pass the difference off to little people, anyway. You think businesses eat the cost of the sales tax? No, they just charge consumers.

And if you want to be strict about it, rich nations are actually producing far less greenhouse gases than poor ones, like India and China, which dump and emit not only CO2 but actual toxic poisons like sulfur. Because hey, it turns out capitalist countries reliably produce more environmental protection than non-capitalist ones.

They can raise their prices but we can choose not to buy from them. So we buy products thats Made in Japan or from China. So who loses? THEY DO!!

Followed by all the "little people" they employ in America. :lol:

Aren't you the one always complaining about the outsourcing you're now apparently advocating?

Ever wonder why some states are suffering with Floods and Dangerous storms? Cause GOD is cursing us cause we lost our moral values. Like GOD sent a hurricane to New Orleans to destruct that city. America has saluted and approved Gay Marriages and liberals say that "GAY IS OK." Hes gonna continue this pattern until we sign a amendment to make Gay Marriages illegal.

Well, if this is true, then it's not global warming, is it?


And hey, you know what, I'm going to go out on a limb and say something real controversial:

Provided we stop the idiotic policy of overdeveloping the coastlines (which is a bad policy whether the earth is getting hotter or cooler), global warming will actually work to mankind's benefit.

Why? Because there is considerable evidence that the rise in heat-related deaths will be more than off-set by the decrease in cold-related deaths. Cold snaps reliably kill far more people than heat waves and floods and the like.

 

[palerider]

I'm sure you're pale, but what do you ride? A horse named Ad Hominem?

So you are going to follow me around, nipping at my heels and sniping from the sidelines now in retaliation for getting your ass handed to you every time you face me head on in a debate?

If you were familiar with steve's posts, you would know that he is very troubled because he isn't one of the nasty rich.

Also, if you had a clue, you would not have even suggested that I had engaged in an ad hominem attack since I did not. An ad hominem attack is an attack on one's opponent in lieu of an argument. As you can see, my jab at steve was incorporated in an agrument and is perfectly acceptable even in a formal debate.

 

[palerider]

I've never heard a convincing argument for global warming, period, much less man-made global warming.

The history of the earth's temeprature cycles is a quite convincing argument for warming since for most of the earth's history, it has been so warm that no ice existed at all at one or both of the poles. You are right however in suggesting that there is no convincing evidence to suggest that we have anything to do with the warming cycle that began some 15,000 years ago and continues today.

 

[steveox]

So you are going to follow me around, nipping at my heels and sniping from the sidelines now in retaliation for getting your ass handed to you every time you face me head on in a debate?

If you were familiar with steve's posts, you would know that he is very troubled because he isn't one of the nasty rich.

Also, if you had a clue, you would not have even suggested that I had engaged in an ad hominem attack since I did not. An ad hominem attack is an attack on one's opponent in lieu of an argument. As you can see, my jab at steve was incorporated in an agrument and is perfectly acceptable even in a formal debate.

YUP!!! I CANT WIN THE DAMN LOTTO!!! I Didnt win that 312 Million

 

[SW85]

The history of the earth's temeprature cycles is a quite convincing argument for warming since for most of the earth's history, it has been so warm that no ice existed at all at one or both of the poles. You are right however in suggesting that there is no convincing evidence to suggest that we have anything to do with the warming cycle that began some 15,000 years ago and continues today.

Well, allow me to rephrase:

I've never heard a convincing argument for abnormal global warming.

 

[jb_1430]

A NEW RECORD FOR ANTARCTIC ICE EXTENT?

While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979. ...
This winter has been an especially harsh one in the Southern Hemisphere with cold and snow records set in Australia, South America and Africa. We will have recap on this hard winter shortly.

Since 1979, the trend has been up over the satellite record for the total Antarctic ice extent.


http://icecap.us/images/uploads/A_NEW_RECORD_FOR_ANTARCTIC_ICE_EXTENT.doc

 

[USMC the Almighty]

That's obviously caused by global warming. At least that's what they said about record colds in Flordia and California last year.

 

[9sublime]

We had the rainiest summer on record, and it wasn't hot either.

 

[jpn of Seattle]

Isolated phemomena, such as a rainy summer or a cold winter, lots of tornedos or the lack of them in a single season, mean nothing.

Here's what's important:

The greenhouse theory is robust and solid. It helps explain, for instance, why Venus is so much hotter than even its relative nearness to the Sun accounts for.
It says that certain gases in the atmosphere trap infared radiation, raising temperatures.

Those certain gases, as a percentage of the atmosphere, have increased dramatically during the industrial revolution.

Now global temperature are increasing, as the greenhouse theory predicts.

It's really pretty simple.

 

[jpn of Seattle]

Based on what science?

Let's start with, say, NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/climatechange_nobel.html

Assuming you're genuinely interested, here's a tutorial (with pictures!):

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/Sect16_2.html

 

[palerider]

The greenhouse theory is robust and solid. It helps explain, for instance, why Venus is so much hotter than even its relative nearness to the Sun accounts for.
It says that certain gases in the atmosphere trap infared radiation, raising temperatures.

The greenhouse theory is bogus. It defies the second law of thermodynamics and has nothing at all to do with venus. Venus is hotter than the earth first and foremost because it is closer to the sun. Second, the atmosphere on venus is about 90 times more dense than the atmosphere of the earth.

Here is a small experiment that you can do yourself to see for yourself that the greenhouse effect with regard to atmosphere is just so much "hot air". If you have a greenhouse great, if you don't use your car. The experiment won't hurt anything. Get yourself a tank of CO2 or any other gas you care to try alone or in combiniation with any other gas.

On a bright sunny day, with either your greenhouse or your car completely closed, take a temperature reading inside. Then using a hose, pump the gas of your choice into the car until you have whatever percentage you choose upto and including 100%. Wait a while and then take another temperature reading. You will see that it hasn't chaged as a result of the nature of the atmosphere. The second law of thermodynamics predicts this.

Now, if you were able to pressurize the interior of your greenhouse considerably above the normal 14 psi, you would see an increase in temperature regardless of what gas or combination of gasses you had in your car. The second law of thermodynamics also predicts this.

The greenhouse effect as described by proponents of anthropogenic global warming is nothing more and nothing less than fear mongering based on grossly misinterpreted science.

 

[jpn of Seattle]

Palerider. Wow. You apparently think you know more than NASA. Impressive. I take it you have an Ph.D. in atmospheric science, yes? What institution granted you that degree, just out of curiosity? Should we call you Doctor Palerider? Or Professor Palerider?
Have you written a scientific paper explaining why the widely-accepted theory about the surface temperature of Venus is wrong, and why you are right? I assume you have a Ph.D. in planetary physics too?
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2002/02_60AR.html

As for your experiment, it is a little flawed. Here's why:

The greenhouse effect holds that greenhouse gases reflect infared radiation back towards the Earth, trapping it in rather than letting it escape back into space. The effect is simulated in an actual greenhouse or in a closed automobile because infared radiation passes through the glass into the enclosure, but doesn't escape as readily.
The mix of gasses that the enclosure is filled with, regular atmosphere, pure CO2, etc., is immaterial. That's because it's the glass in the greenhouse or auto that simulates the effect that the atmosphere has on the infared radiation. Your experiment tweaks the wrong element and ignores the critical one.

Let me see...Palerider or NASA? Palerider or the National Academy of Sciences?

Not exactly a tough call (for me, anyway, but then I'm just a liberal).

 

[jpn of Seattle]

Here's a slide presentation from an Astrophysics course from the University of Florida. Slide 6 shows what the temperatures of Venus, Earth, and Mars are, and what they'd be without greenhouse warming.

http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~skane/teaching/ast2037/A2037_Lect16.pdf

Venus would actually be much colder since its dense atmosphere would reflect so much of the solar radiation back into space.
Earth would be colder--an average minus 17 degrees Celcius instead of our 15degrees.
Mars would be a little colder but not much because its atmosphere is so thin.

 

[palerider]

Here's a slide presentation from an Astrophysics course from the University of Florida. Slide 6 shows what the temperatures of Venus, Earth, and Mars are, and what they'd be without greenhouse warming.

No thanks. If you are interested in why the greenhouse effect with regard to the atmosphere is bogus here is some information for you.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

If you want to discuss any specific item here that you believe is in error, lets talk.