User Tag List

Page 77 of 414 FirstFirst ... 276773747576777879808187127177 ... LastLast
Results 913 to 924 of 4964

Thread: Global Warming

  1. #913
    Liberated thinker xyzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New Mexican Alps
    Posts
    2,465
    Threads
    11
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Parrot..I expressed concern about CO2 proponents ignoring contra evidence a page of so back. I also posted this referencehttp://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N24/EDIT.jsp
    Which concerns aerosol optical thickness(AOL) and its affect on solar brilliance plus the observation that it has contributed to a period of greater radiation fluxes over the past 14 years. Its authors feel it has a much greater effect on climate warming.then CO2.
    Then you post this?
    In order to change Earth's temperature you need to do one thing and one thing only: cause a change in Earth's radiation balance; that is, change the ratio of incoming to outgoing energy. There are three primary ways to do this: Change the amount of solar radiation that reaches the planet's surface (by changes in solar irradiance or by changes in Earth's orbit around the sun), change the albedo (reflectivity) of the planet (by, say, adding large amounts of aerosols to the atmosphere), or change the greenhouse effect. Thus, you can see that carbon dioxide is just one of many different factors controlling Earth's temperature
    and this
    However, the current change is not being caused by most of the above factors. The current change is being caused, almost entirely, by the last: changes in Earth's greenhouse effect. Thus, while carbon dioxide may not be the only factor affecting Earth's temperature, it is by far the most important factor affecting the current temperature change.
    Are you ignoring a 2007 study to make your point? It addresses a phenomenon that directly affects the first two elements which you say change the earths radiation balance(greater solar irradiation fluxes) If so you are doing just what I have wondered about? Ignoring recent contra evidence of the cause for warming? What is this mindset that refuses to believe any contra evidence and sticks to the shakey anthropogenic cause?
    Thus we play the fools with the time, and the spirits of the wise sit in the clouds and mock us.

  2. #914
    Volcanic Erupter
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,849
    Threads
    26
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Given that we can neither affect the Sun's brilliance nor change the Earth's orbit, the only way the Earth's climate could be moderated would be by controlling atmospheric quality. I gather there are enough elements in the atmosphere in all sorts of reflective or absorptive qualities at varying pressures and temperatures, to offer us a range of options in tampering. I think scientists ought to be thinking of how we could artificially generate some gaseous emission to counteract CO2 -if its established the presence of CO2 has significant impact in climate change.

    I am not satisfied the volcanic effect has been duly acounted for, its consideration by the IPCC has been scientifically challenged and we've documented the impact on weather. Paleoclimatologists have disputed conclusions, the tree rings, the well-established and recurring Ice Ages, and depending on the randomness of sunspots, we may seem to be headed for climate change.

    Finding distortions in weighing certain factors in climate change, given the randomness of both volcanic eruptions and sunspots, since it seems more likely to me this is a natural occurrence, incidentally made worse by pollution, I wouldn't endorse the IPCC's contention we should reduce CO2 emissions to prevent climate change. I could be persuaded we should reduce those emissions to ameliorate climate change -but for this I need to have a good idea of how much of an impact CO2 really has.

    The atmosphere in all its layers ought to be 'inventoried', we need to have a detailed, accurate and precise measurement of all the materials suspended in the air and emissions accounted for in greater detail. Consideration must be taken for every atmospheric ingredient's 'life-span', how it breaks down, any interactions.

    The atmosphere is something that trascends national boundaries, but is an integral element of sovereignty. Governments would need to be made accountable for their emissions, so that these could be properly tallied in the calculation of the amount of CO2 counteracting agent was needed.

    Has anyone connected to the IPCC ever remarked on that AOL theory?
    Last edited by rmnunez; 22nd November 2007 at 02:47 AM.

  3. #915
    Volcanic Erupter
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,849
    Threads
    26
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    How come rising CO2 levels which went from a 1900-1950 mean rate-of-rise of 0.33 ppm/year to a 1950-2000 mean rate-of-rise of 1.17 ppm/year (three and a half times more), are not reflected in the mean global sea level rate of rise, which has not trended upwards after 1950, nor accelerated its rate?

  4. #916
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Ohio Province, Rep. of Comerica
    Posts
    7,293
    Threads
    123
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: rmnunez View Post
    Given that we can neither affect the Sun's brilliance nor change the Earth's orbit, the only way the Earth's climate could be moderated would be by controlling atmospheric quality. I gather there are enough elements in the atmosphere in all sorts of reflective or absorptive qualities at varying pressures and temperatures, to offer us a range of options in tampering. I think scientists ought to be thinking of how we could artificially generate some gaseous emission to counteract CO2 -if its established the presence of CO2 has significant impact in climate change.

    I imagine a faily large Foster Grant lens in one of those orbits that puts it permanently between us , and the Sun. ( Can't think of the technical name for that type of orbit. )


    It's such a simple concept, I can't believe anybody else hasn't thought of it yet.

  5. #917
    Volcanic Erupter
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    10,849
    Threads
    26
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A giant lens in geostationary orbit? I'll have to look this up. But if CO2 disperses uniformly I'd expect these lenses would be needed at different locations, there isn't some concentration of CO2 over the poles or someplace over which a geostationary lens could somehow focus whatever cosmic rays to counteract CO2.
    Not Enough Parking for Private Jets Going to UN Climate Conference | NewsBusters.org
    As climate alarmists from all over the world head to Bali to talk about the sacrifices regular folks have to make to save the planet from global warming, it seems certain media will ignore all the private jets clogging the tiny airport.

    As if it’s not enough that the UN Climate Change Conference is being held at what NewsBusters reported as "a truly beautiful tropical island paradise," the management of the nearby airport has issued a warning to attendees that they are going to have to park their private jets somewhere else.

  6. #918
    Hot Lava Century 25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Southwest desert - Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    1,751
    Threads
    26
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: rmnunez View Post
    A giant lens in geostationary orbit? I'll have to look this up. But if CO2 disperses uniformly I'd expect these lenses would be needed at different locations, there isn't some concentration of CO2 over the poles or someplace over which a geostationary lens could somehow focus whatever cosmic rays to counteract CO2.
    ? I think it's more like this:

    "Past the point of no return -
    no backward glances:
    our games of make belive
    are at an end . . .

    Past the point of no return
    the final threshold, the bridge
    is crossed, so stand and watch it burn . . . "
    (excerpted from the Phantom Of The Opera)

    We know what the solution is.. where the correct direction lies. But as always, greed will triumph.

  7. #919
    Igneous Magma EnragedParrot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    201
    Threads
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: xyzer View Post

    Are you ignoring a 2007 study to make your point? It addresses a phenomenon that directly affects the first two elements which you say change the earths radiation balance(greater solar irradiation fluxes) If so you are doing just what I have wondered about? Ignoring recent contra evidence of the cause for warming? What is this mindset that refuses to believe any contra evidence and sticks to the shakey anthropogenic cause?
    I'm ignoring the study because I've never heard anything about it before and don't understand what it's talking about. Whenever I see a paper about something I don't understand, I always go with whatever mainstream scientific opinion on it happens to be. It doesn't appear that many climate scientists view this study as significant, thus I don't, either.

  8. #920
    Experienced! Foxfyre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Albuquerque NM
    Posts
    426
    Threads
    2
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well now there is a revelation for us. If you don't understand something you go see if anybody else does. And if your adopted gurus aren't talking about it, then it can be ignored. Yep. That's sure the way to become educated on something. Wow. Impressive.

    And heaven help America if most other Americans are happy with being spoon fed what they are supposed to believe. Or any of us anywhere for that matter.
    " I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

  9. #921
    Igneous Magma EnragedParrot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    201
    Threads
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Lol. Foxfyre, you know that isn't what I said. Get back to me when you're ready to have a serious discussion. I'm not going to waste my time responding to your trollish remarks.

  10. #922
    GSD Protection Bailey Faye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    83
    Threads
    6
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't know that I believe in any of the "science" supporting the global warming theory. If it were the case, than those that are most supportive of the "theory" are the very ones that contribute to the damage to our world the most. Nobel Peace Prize? Give me a break. Al Gore made a documentary that he "acted" in. He doesn't obviously believe in his own "theory".


    Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
    Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

    Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

    Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

    In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

    The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

    Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

    Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

    Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

    “As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

    In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.


    ###

    ­­­­­­­­­­
    The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions.
    Attitude Reflects Leadership!

  11. #923
    Experienced! Foxfyre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Albuquerque NM
    Posts
    426
    Threads
    2
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: EnragedParrot View Post
    Lol. Foxfyre, you know that isn't what I said. Get back to me when you're ready to have a serious discussion. I'm not going to waste my time responding to your trollish remarks.
    If that isn't what you intended to say, my best advice is to not say it.
    " I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

  12. #924
    Experienced! Foxfyre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Albuquerque NM
    Posts
    426
    Threads
    2
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Quote by: Bailey Faye View Post
    I don't know that I believe in any of the "science" supporting the global warming theory. If it were the case, than those that are most supportive of the "theory" are the very ones that contribute to the damage to our world the most. Nobel Peace Prize? Give me a break. Al Gore made a documentary that he "acted" in. He doesn't obviously believe in his own "theory".


    Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
    Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

    Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

    Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

    In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

    The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

    Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

    Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

    Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

    “As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

    In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.


    ###

    ­­­­­­­­­­
    The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions.
    That has been one of the pieces of the puzzle that keep me wondering about all this. I don't see ANY of the so-called scientific gurus on the pro-AGW side living a lifestyle that suggests they are in any way concerned about human related global warming. So it seems quite reasonable to conclude that they are a) the world's greatest idiots or b) the world's greatest opportunists or c) the world's greatest hypocrites or they are d) the world's greats liars and/or intentional deceivers.

    At any rate, Al Gore in particular is raking in mega bucks by all this jetting around the world trying to scare people into buying into his poorly supported scientific claims. The sad thing is that so many are buying into it.

    I am going to need a lot more credible witness than him to convince me.
    " I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •