timesjoke Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 It is all just a new way to make money, there is no man caused global warming, certain people like Al Gore have made millions off of 'selling' this farce to the gullible. The data is clear, Co2 follows temperatures, not the other way around. Now we are running the scam on the global level, if you ask me this is the closest thing to a true world government than anything else where these kinds of treaties will take away the rights of individual Countries to rule themselves and instead let huge companies who make the products and consulting groups run everything. Interesting that every politician pushing these changes have close ties to the companies who will make the most money, take GE for example who jumped in bed with Obama and even handed their television networks over to him. Quote
timesjoke Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 Interesting that the crowder video has been removed, it is even gone from the pjtv site, you see it listed but you can't play it......I wonder what that is about? edit: I got it to work on the pjtv site but it is still removed from youtube. Quote
Anna Perenna Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 It is all just a new way to make money, there is no man caused global warming, certain people like Al Gore have made millions off of 'selling' this farce to the gullible. The data is clear, Co2 follows temperatures, not the other way around. Now we are running the scam on the global level, if you ask me this is the closest thing to a true world government than anything else where these kinds of treaties will take away the rights of individual Countries to rule themselves and instead let huge companies who make the products and consulting groups run everything. Interesting that every politician pushing these changes have close ties to the companies who will make the most money, take GE for example who jumped in bed with Obama and even handed their television networks over to him. Get with the times, joke. Your argument is years old, irrelevant, and wrong. We now need to be debating: [ ]the pros and cons of the ACES/Waxman-Markey bill [ ]how to reach emissions targets [ ]the implications/outcomes of the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen next month [ ]how the US will keep up with/surpass Europe and China in the "race" to be a world leader in renewable energy technology [ ]how Australia is going to survive economically in a world that will soon have no requirement for its resources; and how we are going to get our government to increase our paltry emissions-reduction target (perhaps this bullet is only relevant to me, but you get the point) Hope that helps you. Quote _______________________________________________________ I don't know how to put this, but ... I'm kind of a big deal. http://www.sucksbbs.net/data/MetaMirrorCache/da43a2f8a710897a421f74efa00eba9a.jpg I'm still here. I'm still a fool for the holy grail Not all gay men send me penis pictures. But no straight men do. And to date, no woman has sent me a picture of her vaginal canal.
timesjoke Posted November 19, 2009 Posted November 19, 2009 Get with reality Anna, there is no such thing as man caused global warming. It is a business/political machine, nothing more. Quote
hugo Posted November 20, 2009 Posted November 20, 2009 Evidence of a Warming Earth - The Woods Hole Research Center Look at the first chart on this site (an Al Gore approved site) and notice that the temperature peaks before the CO2 levels peak. This seems to indicate that rising temperature is the cause of rising CO2 levels rather than vice versa. Now, I guess I am in the middle of the road here. CO2 is a green house gas, that is a scientific fact. So unless mankind is also producing pollutants that also cool the earth some manmade global warming seems highly probable. I am not convinced that warming is going to produce catastrophic consequences. The first graph showing the seemingly steady relationship between CO2 levels and the Earth's temperature before the industrial revolution cannot, IMO, prove that mankind caused rises in the CO2 level will lead to similar increases in temperature, due to the fact the temperature peaks before the CO2 level does. Personally. I think nuclear winter could balance out global warming. Sadly, the same liberals who want to tax us to avoid global warming bitch when you start talking about nuking Iran or N. Korea or France or California. Quote The power to do good is also the power to do harm. - Milton Friedman "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
ImWithStupid Posted November 20, 2009 Author Posted November 20, 2009 Evidence of a Warming Earth - The Woods Hole Research Center Look at the first chart on this site (an Al Gore approved site) and notice that the temperature peaks before the CO2 levels peak. This seems to indicate that rising temperature is the cause of rising CO2 levels rather than vice versa. Now, I guess I am in the middle of the road here. CO2 is a green house gas, that is a scientific fact. So unless mankind is also producing pollutants that also cool the earth some manmade global warming seems highly probable. I am not convinced that warming is going to produce catastrophic consequences. The first graph showing the seemingly steady relationship between CO2 levels and the Earth's temperature before the industrial revolution cannot, IMO, prove that mankind caused rises in the CO2 level will lead to similar increases in temperature, due to the fact the temperature peaks before the CO2 level does. Personally. I think nuclear winter could balance out global warming. Sadly, the same liberals who want to tax us to avoid global warming bitch when you start talking about nuking Iran or N. Korea or France or California. I know it's a long thread, but you're about 108 posts behind... http://Off Topic Forum.com/on-topic-bs/20044-al-gores-tennessee-home-wasting-electricity-3.html#post60700 Quote
timesjoke Posted November 20, 2009 Posted November 20, 2009 Temperature will change how the oceans hold/release co2. That is why we see more co2 after temperatures rise and it declines after temperatures decline: [attach=full]1989[/attach] Now in this chart we see how temperatures go up, then co2 goes up and stays up. There appears to be a good correlation between the two but what happens if we compare other factors to temperature increases? [attach=full]1990[/attach] We see a closer correlation with solar activity than we do co2......but we have something else to look at: [attach=full]1991[/attach] Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) are combined to average together and compared to temperatures and again, we see a much closer match than with co2. It?s a simple experiment; compare the trends by running an R2 correlation on the different data sets. The result is a coefficient of determination that tells you how well the trend curves match. When the correlation is 1.0, you have a perfect match between two curves. The lower the number, the lower the trend correlation. [attach=full]1992[/attach] Co2 has a very low trend correlation. This is all shown in more detail here: Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2 Watts Up With That? Quote
ImWithStupid Posted November 20, 2009 Author Posted November 20, 2009 Higher temps also increase the area that co2 producing plants can grow, which then increases the natural release of co2 into the atmosphere. Quote
Anna Perenna Posted November 20, 2009 Posted November 20, 2009 Since 2001, the UN-led Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has held the position: An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. In 2006, the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change: "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now." And since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. What.the.fu(k.is.wrong.with.you.people? Quote _______________________________________________________ I don't know how to put this, but ... I'm kind of a big deal. http://www.sucksbbs.net/data/MetaMirrorCache/da43a2f8a710897a421f74efa00eba9a.jpg I'm still here. I'm still a fool for the holy grail Not all gay men send me penis pictures. But no straight men do. And to date, no woman has sent me a picture of her vaginal canal.
hugo Posted November 20, 2009 Posted November 20, 2009 I know it's a long thread, but you're about 108 posts behind... http://Off Topic Forum.com/on-topic-bs/20044-al-gores-tennessee-home-wasting-electricity-3.html#post60700 I guess, Anna., you need to post something that convinces me that manmade global warming is a real threat. Something more than mere opinions. even though they come from experts.I do have an open mind on ythe issue. The nations of the Earth have worked together before to close the hole in the ozone level. Your first job is to convince those who are on the fence that global warming is a real threat, unless you try a dual argument: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/opinion/29friedman.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1258716086-6AP9Hz6wl54FJKEdXGPUnQ When you include the economic argument that declining oil supplies and a world growing in population and wealth will require alternative energy sources your case gets stronger. I have no doubt that an environment cpntaining 5% CO2 would not be real great for mankind. There is no doubt alternative energy sources will be needed in the not to distant future. Convince your fellow lefties nuclear ain;t a bad option right now. Quote The power to do good is also the power to do harm. - Milton Friedman "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
timesjoke Posted November 20, 2009 Posted November 20, 2009 Anna, I know you don't like me and this will most likely add to it but please try to discuss things with an open mind and not just believe the hype created by those people spouting pure political agendas. First let me deal with your UN point: The UN IPCC Summary was created by 52 purely burcratic 'scientists' who worked directly for the UN and had zero climate experience. The peer review they claim to have conducted was actually ignored. One of these reviewers was Dr Madhav Khandekar who complained that his concerns were ignored from the first draft and never addressed. Even John Coleman (Weather Channel founder) has come out and said the political movement needs to change because all the science supporting human caused global warming is very bad. Read this: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report A few interesting points made: Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. ?First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!? Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled ?The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.? ?Even if the concentration of ?greenhouse gases? double man would not perceive the temperature impact,? Sorochtin wrote. Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, ?I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting ? a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number ? entirely without merit,? Tennekes wrote. ?I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached." Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: ?To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.? USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: ?In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.? Wojick added: ?The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.? . Why are temperatures so erratic when co2 rise is steady? Common sense would dictate that they are not connected. Let's look at the South Pole temperatures: . Quote
timesjoke Posted November 20, 2009 Posted November 20, 2009 In 2006, the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change: "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now." I decided to look into some of the people involved in the American Association for the Advancement of Science and my first look discovered AAAS President (at the time of the report you mention)John Holdren. This guy is now Obama's Science Czar. He wrote a book where he supported some radical stuff. In his book "Ecoscience": ? Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not; ? The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food; ? Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise; ? People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized. ? A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international Not only is he clearly attached to politics, but he is also the kind of scientist who I would not trust to run a study on melting ice if the result of his mind are the kinds of things we see in "Ecoscience". The current President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is Dr. Peter C. Agre, also someone directly tied to Obama and politics and an official advisor to the President. When you look closely at the main contributers and members, you see a long list of political and business connections that stand to gain a lot of power, and money off of the man caused global warming lie. http://www.aaas.org/publications/annual_report/2008/aaas_ann_rpt_08l_contributors.pdf As I keep saying, follow the money and power behind those you see supporting this bad science and you will see corruption. Quote
timesjoke Posted November 20, 2009 Posted November 20, 2009 While I was at it I looked up this Mark Diesendorf that Anna keeps talking about as a respected expert in climate change: He spent ten years as a math geek in the CSIRO working mostly on wind power and electricity projects. He has worked as a professor and been involved in "ecological economics" (looks to me that is where he got exposed to the money connected to an eco movement). After 2004 his primary work is as a Lecturer primarily in the fields of energy, transportation and economics. During his career Diesendorf has worked on many boards and government studies and has a long list of political connections. In his book "Climate Action:A Campaign Manual for Greenhouse Solutions" Diesendorf directly instructs people how to force the political agenda connected to man caused global warming. This man is not an expert on climate, he sells lots of books and seems to be a professional Lecturer making money speaking on environmental issues just like Al Gore. He does have a science background but it is not in this field while there are true scientists like Madhav Khandekar who have directly worked in the climate field for over 45 years who say man caused global warming has not been proven. Quote
ImWithStupid Posted November 20, 2009 Author Posted November 20, 2009 Ooops!! Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud? posted at 8:48 am on November 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey Share on Facebook | printer-friendly Controversy has exploded onto the Internet after a major global-warming advocacy center in the UK had its e-mail system hacked and the data published on line. The director of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit confirmed that the e-mails are genuine ? and Australian publication Investigate and the Australian Herald-Sun report that those e-mails expose a conspiracy to hide detrimental information from the public that argues against global warming (via Watt?s Up With That) Hot Air Blog Archive Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud? More about this here... Climate Depot Quote
ImWithStupid Posted November 20, 2009 Author Posted November 20, 2009 Al Gore is a lying windbag... CONAN O'BRIEN, HOST: Now, what about ... you talk in the book about geothermal energy... AL GORE, NOBEL LAUREATE: Yeah, yeah. O'BRIEN: ...and that is, as I understand it, using the heat that's generated from the core of the earth ... GORE: Yeah. O'BRIEN: ...to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy? GORE: It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy - when they think about it at all - in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot ... [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOSTc&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - There is only one goddess Gaia and Al Gore is her prophet[/ame] The geothermal gradient is usually quoted as 25-50 degrees Celsius per mile of depth in normal terrain (not, e.g., in the crater of Kilauea). Two kilometers down, therefore, (that's a mile and a quarter if you're not as science-y as Al) you'll have an average gain of 30-60 degrees - exploitable for things like home heating[attach=full]1993[/attach], though not hot enough to make a nice pot of tea. The temperature at the earth's core, 4,000 miles down, is usually quoted as 5,000 degrees Celsius, though these guys claim it's much less, while some contrarian geophysicists have posted claims up to 9,000 degrees. The temperature at the surface of the Sun is around 6,000 degrees Celsius, while at the center, where nuclear fusion is going on bigtime, things get up over 10 million degrees. If the temperature anywhere inside the earth was "several million degrees," we'd be a star. Al Gore: Earth's Interior 'Extremely Hot, Several Million Degrees' | NewsBusters.org This is the idiot that the global warming alarmist have hitched their cart to. Quote
hugo Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 Is there any data, anywhere on the net. that maps out the rise in temperature to be expected with an increase of 50 ppm, 100 ppm, 200 ppm. etc of CO2 in the atmosphere and an explanation of how those figures were derived? Quote The power to do good is also the power to do harm. - Milton Friedman "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
ImWithStupid Posted November 22, 2009 Author Posted November 22, 2009 I'm not sure how it matters. The co2 has increased along predictions since the late 1990's but the difference is that temps have declined and not risen with the co2 increase like some people would like you to think. Better yet they can't explain it, but expect everyone to destroy their economies to stop a rise in temperature that isn't happening. Quote
hugo Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 The one scientific I know for sure is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas so it seems almost certain that higher CO2 in the atmosphere will make the Earth warmer than if that CO2 was not there. Of course, the CO2 level in the atmosphere is just one component regulating the Earth's temperature so the Earth's temperature and CO2 levels can diverge in different directions for a short period. The fact is global warming, at a modest level, means more food production. We may not want to stop global warming even if is occurring. The other factor is that the only way to get the undeveloped nations to go along is a trade war which will leave those nations impoverished and tthose nations children malnourished. Rebutting our earlier time lag posts the question that comes up most frequently is this: ?Doesn?t the relationship between CO2 and temperature in the ice core record show that temperature drives CO2, not the other way round?? It got a particularly high profile airing a couple of weeks ago, when congressman Joe Barton brought it up to try to discredit Al Gore?s congressional testimony. Of course, those who?ve been paying attention will recognize that Gore is not wrong at all. This subject has been very well addressed in numerous places. Indeed, guest contributor Jeff Severinghaus addressed this in one of our very first RealClimate posts, way back in 2004. Still, the question does keep coming up, and Jeff recently received a letter asking about this. His exchange with the letter writer is reproduced in full at the end of this post. Below is my own take on the subject. First of all, saying ?historically? is misleading, because Barton is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn?t really matter for the problem at hand (global warming). We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. In the absence of human intervention CO2 does rise and fall over time, due to exchanges of carbon among the biosphere, atmosphere, and ocean and, on the very longest timescales, the lithosphere (i.e. rocks, oil reservoirs, coal, carbonate rocks). The rates of those exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting it to atmospheric CO2. No discovery made with ice cores is going to change those basic facts. Second, the idea that there might be a lag of CO2 concentrations behind temperature change (during glacial-interglacial climate changes) is hardly new to the climate science community. Indeed, Claude Lorius, Jim Hansen and others essentially predicted this finding fully 17 years ago, in a landmark paper that addressed the cause of temperature change observed in Antarctic ice core records, well before the data showed that CO2 might lag temperature. In that paper (Lorius et al., 1990), they say that: changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth?s wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures). Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the ?carbon pump? (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean. Several recent papers have indeed established that there is lag of CO2 behind temperature. We don?t really know the magnitude of that lag as well as Barton implies we do, because it is very challenging to put CO2 records from ice cores on the same timescale as temperature records from those same ice cores, due to the time delay in trapping the atmosphere as the snow is compressed into ice (the ice at any time will always be younger older than the gas bubbles it encloses, and the age difference is inherently uncertain). Still, the best published calculations do show values similar to those quoted by Barton (presumably, taken from this paper by Monnin et al. (2001), or this one by Caillon et al. (2003)). But the calculations can only be done well when the temperature change is large, notably at glacial terminations (the gradual change from cold glacial climate to warm interglacial climate). Importantly, it takes more than 5000 years for this change to occur, of which the lag is only a small fraction (indeed, one recently submitted paper I?m aware of suggests that the lag is even less than 200 years). So it is not as if the temperature increase has already ended when CO2 starts to rise. Rather, they go very much hand in hand, with the temperature continuing to rise as the the CO2 goes up. In other words, CO2 acts as an amplifier, just as Lorius, Hansen and colleagues suggested. Now, it there is a minor criticism one might level at Gore for his treatment of this subject in the film (as we previously pointed out in our review). As it turns out though, correcting this would actually further strengthen Gore?s case, rather than weakening it. Here?s why: The record of temperature shown in the ice core is not a global record. It is a record of local Antarctic temperature change. The rest of the globe does indeed parallel the polar changes closely, but the global mean temperature changes are smaller. While we don?t know precisely why the CO2 changes occur on long timescales, (the mechanisms are well understood; the details are not), we do know that explaining the magnitude of global temperature change requires including CO2. This is a critical point. We cannot explain the temperature observations without CO2. But CO2 does not explain all of the change, and the relationship between temperature and CO2 is therefore by no means linear. That is, a given amount of CO2 increase as measured in the ice cores need not necessarily correspond with a certain amount of temperature increase. Gore shows the strong parallel relationship between the temperature and CO2 data from the ice cores, and then illustrates where the CO2 is now (384 ppm), leaving the viewer?s eye to extrapolate the temperature curve upwards in parallel with the rising CO2. Gore doesn?t actually make the mistake of drawing the temperature curve, but the implication is obvious: temperatures are going to go up a lot. But as illustrated in the figure below, simply extrapolating this correlation forward in time puts the Antarctic temperature in the near future somewhere upwards of 10 degrees Celsius warmer than present ? rather at the extreme end of the vast majority of projections (as we have discussed here). Global average temperature is lower during glacial periods for two primary reasons: 1) there was only about 190 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and other major greenhouse gases (CH4 and N2O) were also lower 2) the earth surface was more reflective, due to the presence of lots of ice and snow on land, and lots more sea ice than today (that is, the albedo was higher). As very nicely discussed by Jim Hansen in his recent Scientific American article, the second of these two influences is the larger, accounting for about 2/3 of the total radiative forcing. CO2 and other greenhouse gases account for the other 1/3. Again, this was all pretty well known in 1990, at the time of the Lorius et al. paper cited above. What Gore should have done is extrapolated the temperature curve according this the appropriate scaling ? with CO2 accounting for about 1/3 of the total change ? instead of letting the audience do it by eye. Had he done so, he would have drawn a line that went up only 1/3 of the distance implied by the simple correlation with CO2 shown by the ice core record. This would have left the impression that equilibrium warming of Antarctica due to doubled CO2 concentrations should be about 3 ?C, in very good agreement with what is predicted by the state-of-the-art climate models. (It is to be noted that the same models predict a significant delay until equilibrium is reached, due to the large heat capacity of the Southern ocean. This is in very good agreement with the data, which show very modest warming over Antarctica in the last 100 years). Then, if you scale the Antarctic temperature change to a global temperature change, then the global climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 becomes 2-3 degrees C, perfectly in line with the climate sensitivity given by IPCC (and known from Arrhenius?s calculations more than 100 years ago). Quote The power to do good is also the power to do harm. - Milton Friedman "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
ImWithStupid Posted November 22, 2009 Author Posted November 22, 2009 My point is, that anything man is doing, has very little effect on the warming of the earth, and anything man does in attempts to slow said warming, if it were to happen, will do very little to achieve any change (other than destroying economies). Quote
hugo Posted November 22, 2009 Posted November 22, 2009 My point is, that anything man is doing, has very little effect on the warming of the earth, and anything man does in attempts to slow said warming, if it were to happen, will do very little to achieve any change (other than destroying economies). I agree with you 100% on your second point, I feel the jury is still out on the first. It seems to me politically impossible for the worldwide cooperation neccesary to do anything even if global warming is coming. All we can do is build dikes and enjoy the benefits of longer growing seasons. I am kinda leaning toward this opinion Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: "the rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ... this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes."[ Before I commit to paying higher taxes and energy bills the Goreist's need to show the preponderance of the evidence shows: 1) The Earth is warming. (It has not since 1998) 2) A significant part of this warming is due to usage of fossil fuels. 3) That the benefits from reducing the damages caused by global warming will outweigh the huge costs to economies that will be incurred in taxing and regulating fossil fuel usage. (Many believe global warming will be a net benefit to mankind, more food for the growing population. Who can be against that?) 4) That it is possible for worldwide cooperation that actually reduces global warming significantly. Notice to the anti-Goreists: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Notice to the Goreists: More expensive energy will not result in a net gain of jobs. A little info: It is shocking to know that India has the highest number of malnourished children in the world with Madhya Pradesh being the worst effected state. About 47% of children under the age of five years in India, an astounding 57 million are under weight. Even Sub Saharan Africa is better where 33% of children are malnourished. The worst effected States in India are UP, Rajasthan, Bihar, and Maharashtra. In some of the states over 50% of children are malnourished. However Goa, Kerala, Mizoram and Tamil Nadu are high nutritional states. A warmer world, with higher food production, probably can't get here fast enough for many of India's kids. Doubt if many Indian politicians are going to vote to hamper India's economy so Westerners can feel safe in their beachfront homes. Quote The power to do good is also the power to do harm. - Milton Friedman "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
timesjoke Posted November 23, 2009 Posted November 23, 2009 I had to giggle at that story you posted hugo. The guy your quoting fist makes a big attempt to say there is no problem with the claim that co2 causes global warming and even talks down his nose a little "when congressman Joe Barton brought it up to try to discredit Al Gore’s congressional testimony" Try? As this writer later grudgingly admits, co2 does lag temperatures, sometimes for hundreds and over a thousand years so this is not a guess or an opinion, it is a fact. The writer spends most of his time making excuses, but excuses are not science, hard facts are science and the man caused global warming nuts have noscience. Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote. co2 percentages increase as temperatures rise because a warmer ocean releases more co2. Can co2 then add to the problem? No, because temperatures are not governed by co2 at all, if this was the case we would not see time and time again where extremely high co2 also shows declining temperatures........as we are experiencing now. Right now temperatures are cooling slightly, just like we see in the ice records over, and over, and over again. I already posted charts that show global temperatures are in lock step with solar activity and ocen temperatures, but there is almost no correlation with Co2. Co2 is a symptom, nothing more. edit to add, I remember reading a theory from someone that in their mind Co2 was the Earth's anti-warming agent. That time and again temperatures rise very high, co2 is increased and over some time, the temperatures go down and only after temperatures go down a lot, does co2 also go down. Like when a child plays out in the road and a parent has to come out and send the child back into the yard but is always still on the road until the child is all the way back in the yard before they come back themselves. Quote
hugo Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 II remember reading a theory from someone that in their mind Co2 was the Earth's anti-warming agent. Venus has a dense atmosphere, composed chiefly of carbon dioxide, which generates a surface pressure 90 times greater than that on Earth. This massive blanket of carbon dioxide is also responsible for a runaway greenhouse effect that heats the planet's surface to an average temperature of 467?C (872?F) ? hot enough to melt lead. Venus' atmosphere consists almost entirely (97%) of carbon dioxide, with clouds containing droplets of sulfuric acid along with compounds of chlorine and fluorine. These precipitate an acid rain called virga, which evaporates before it has the chance to reach the surface. In the upper part of the atmosphere, clouds swirl by at a rate of 300 km/h, driven by fierce winds. Life begins at conception, despite what pro baby killers say. That scientific fact does not change no matter what your view on abortion is. CO2 is a greenhouse gas; scientific fact. Gotta concede that point to the Goreists. Quote The power to do good is also the power to do harm. - Milton Friedman "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
timesjoke Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 Life begins at conception, despite what pro baby killers say. That scientific fact does not change no matter what your view on abortion is. CO2 is a greenhouse gas; scientific fact. Gotta concede that point to the Goreists. A greenhouse gas "the way they are portraying it" is something that causes temperatures to rise as greater concentrations of it are in the atmosphere. This is not the case with Co2. By the way, just because there is a lot of co2 on Venus, that does not mean all by itself it is causing high temperatures, the high temperatures could be causing high amounts of Co2, just like we see here on Earth. Temperatures go up, co2 goes up, temperatures go down, co2 goes down. Co2 follows temperature in "EVERY" case, this is called hard science, not theory or speculation. The "only" scientists who are supporting man released co2 as causing global warming have political and financial gains to be had to lie. IWS even posted that link showing at least one place was conspiring to lie about global warming. I prefer to believe real scientists like this one: Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled ?The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.? ?Even if the concentration of ?greenhouse gases? double man would not perceive the temperature impact,? Sorochtin wrote. Than politicians or scientists out to make money off of scare tactics. Quote
hugo Posted November 27, 2009 Posted November 27, 2009 CO2 is a green house gas: scientific fact, even before Al Gore was even born. Life begins at conception: scientific fact, even before Roe v. Wade. You lose credibility to declare otherwise. I concede the fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas to the Gorists. They still got these obstacles to overcome: Before I commit to paying higher taxes and energy bills the Goreist's need to show the preponderance of the evidence shows: 1) The Earth is warming. (It has not since 1998) 2) A significant part of this warming is due to usage of fossil fuels. 3) That the benefits from reducing the damages caused by global warming will outweigh the huge costs to economies that will be incurred in taxing and regulating fossil fuel usage. (Many believe global warming will be a net benefit to mankind, more food for the growing population. Who can be against that?) 4) That it is possible for worldwide cooperation that actually reduces global warming significantly. The best link I ever found on this subject: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ The link ends with: What are the take-home messages: The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential. The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at around 1 ?C. The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it). The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising. The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.) Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales. Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects. Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere. There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat. Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term). Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems. Quote The power to do good is also the power to do harm. - Milton Friedman "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison
timesjoke Posted November 28, 2009 Posted November 28, 2009 CO2 is a green house gas: scientific fact, even before Al Gore was even born. Life begins at conception: scientific fact, even before Roe v. Wade. You lose credibility to declare otherwise. I concede the fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas to the Gorists. They still got these obstacles to overcome: I do not lose credibility to state facts, I qualify my answer based on the data that co2 does not effect temperature change to the increase at all and all of the data proves that fact without a single doubt. In fact, the greatest temperature declines in the Earth's history have been when co2 levels have been at the highest levels. How do you explain that fact? Even your own link agrees: There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising. Nobody, let me say this again, "NOBODY" with any respect as a hard scientist in the field of climate has come out and supported the claim that elevated co2 causes higher global temperatures or that man has had anything to do with any of it. Not 1 single person. "EVERYONE" who supports this concept are connected to massive monetary or political gain. The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. Attempted? Thought to be? About? These are not the words of scientific fact. The writer of the article is hardly on level with a scientist like Dr. Oleg Sorochtin and the other scientists I am quoting who say we can double co2 right now and not feel any change but at the same time this writer is saying that there is a diminishing rate of return for co2 and that what the alarmists are putting out is bad science. Why are these climate change wackos telling these lies? And make no mistake, they are intentionally misleading the public. Because there is a massive amount of power and money to be had with these lies. They can't even admit the planet has been in a cooling mode for the last several years, not heating up as they have been predicting. Look at it like hot sauce, all by itself one drop of hot sauce is very hot, this is fact but as you add more drops on your tongue, you will be effected by it less until you reach a point where no matter how much hot sauce you add to your tongue, you will not get more heat. Co2 is the same way, all by itself and in the controlled setting of a lab Co2 seems to function as a greenhouse gas, but in the atmosphere where we have many competing chemicals and other conditions that regulate temperatures, Co2 can only do so much and no matter how much more you add, you cannot get any hotter. The "ONLY" two things that show direct connection to global temperature changes are solar activity and ocean temperatures. I have supplied two charts that clearly show this direct connection while Co2 has almost no correlation at all with temperature changes. It is called science, and science is supposed to be based on hard evidence. The only hard evidence is that Co2 has nothing to do with temperature "changes" on the Earth. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.