![]() |
|
| The Debate Forums | Blogs | | | Donate | Register (it's free) | Chatroom | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||||
|
| | Thread Tools |
| | #41 (permalink) (top) |
| Liberated thinker Location: New Mexican Alps Posts: 2,175 | And as a follow on to those interested in the subject..this site Global Warming Facts contains some interesting observations.. Check under the ...Whats new: News and commentary heading. Thus we play the fools with the time, and the spirits of the wise sit in the clouds and mock us. |
| | |
| | #42 (permalink) (top) | |
![]() Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609 | Quote:
For example, Mr.Vicchio had posted in a previous thread how it was the covering of carbon soot that caused increased melting of Greenland's ice (If I recall correctly). I have also cited previously about how the pollution in China has cut rainfall in some of its regions by as much as 50%. Once again, you question the consensus so I will, once again, cite this collection of scientific institutions that have expressed their concern for human induced climate change. Can you honestly still say that there is no consensus? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before | |
| | |
| | #43 (permalink) (top) | ||
| Liberated thinker Location: New Mexican Alps Posts: 2,175 | Here is another recent revelation that impinges on your repeated posts Pooey. .: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :. You have repeatedly claimed that 2500 or some other large percentage of scientists concur wuth the issue of mans contribution to warming and what is in the UN Panels conclusions...This shows you exaggerated! Quote:
Quote:
Thus we play the fools with the time, and the spirits of the wise sit in the clouds and mock us. | ||
| | |
| | #44 (permalink) (top) | |||
![]() Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609 | Quote:
The following organisations are in agree with the IPCC's assessment and/or has concluded that climate change must be tackled;
There's a few more but finger is getting tired. Can you stop living in denial now? Or does God himself need to come down and have a few words with you? Quote:
Quote:
War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before | |||
| | |
| | #45 (permalink) (top) | |
| Liberated thinker Location: New Mexican Alps Posts: 2,175 | Pooey? There you go Quote:
How can you make such an unproven assertion? I have read many of your sources and I still remain a skeptic? That means I either don't place complete faith in your sources, and/or have placed my belief in those scientists who don't believe that human actions can change the current warming cycle?(which has slowed measurably in the last 5 or 6 years) I'm not convinced that human actions which depend on C02 reduction are effective enough to have any significat change? I'm convinced even if we could it would take many centuries and much sacrifice.How do we know whether the much more influential natural forces will change the cycle to one of global cooling?.Experience and history tell us it was happening way before humans were even around?Yet there isn't any certainty that that type attempt has any real chance of success. Natuiral influences are much more likely to have the major impact on climate. Logic also convinces me of that! Thus we play the fools with the time, and the spirits of the wise sit in the clouds and mock us. | |
| | |
| | #46 (permalink) (top) | ||
![]() Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609 | Quote:
Quote:
War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before | ||
| | |
| | #47 (permalink) (top) |
| Igneous Magma Location: Southwest desert - Valley of the Sun Posts: 636 | Besides the overwhelming concurrence of earth's scientists.. you may also note that Russia recently sent a party to the north pole, claiming "rights" to that area of earth. (It's always about the oil.. stupidsky..!!) - and Mr Bush proclaimed that the Canadian NW passage is.. "open" for.. (you fill in..) - duh.. By the by.. it was 111F today here in the Valley of the SUN.. , following the 113F of yesterday.. today made 31 days 110F or higher, and so far (Summer is not over for us) - we have had our.. warmest recorded.. since records were kept.. (not that long, really) - but still.. :eek: Yes, I believe it's hot air all right. And it is goosed along via humans eager to cash-in, regardless of the consequences for our future & following generations. Piss on a buncha greedy ninny's.. ![]() ![]() |
| | |
| | #48 (permalink) (top) |
| Liberated thinker Location: New Mexican Alps Posts: 2,175 | You ask what kind of sacrifices, pooey. Here is one estimate..http://downloads.heartland.org/11133.pdf This appraisal shows what it would cost to reduce United States greenhouse gas emissions 7% below 1990 levels: Gas prices would increase by $.65 per gallon Electric bills would double 2.4 million jobs would be lost The effort would cost state governments 116 billion $ in revenue. That would require sacrifice and is in fact a staggering blow to the economy! Just add in the rest of the world(which would obviously have to participate)in the global effort and the figures are significant. Facing such costs I want certainty! Thus we play the fools with the time, and the spirits of the wise sit in the clouds and mock us. |
| | |
| | #49 (permalink) (top) | |
![]() Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609 | Quote:
Now I don't mean to imply that because his report was published 3 years after your source, it can automatically overwrite yours but given that climate science is still being highly researching and progressing, I'd rather take the most updated version from a respectable researcher. Furthermore, you have ignored my question again, how is moving towards a more energy efficient way of living, where you waste less and inevitably save on money spend on energy be anything but beneficial? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before | |
| | |
| | #50 (permalink) (top) |
| Igneous Magma Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 201 | xyzer, methinks you make invalid arguments. You have presented several arguments in this thread and claimed that each of them constitutes evidence against anthropogenic global warming theory. But looking at them, it seems that this is not the case. None of your conclusions follow from your premise (which is that humans can't influence or aren't influencing the climate). They're non-sequitur. For example, you have repeatedly stated that the climate has changed many times before humans were around to change it. This is true, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. We can't conclude that because humans were not around to influence the climate in the past, we can't be influencing it now. All we can take from the argument is that climate can change without our influence. Which we already knew. You also assert that the famous "Hockey Stick" graph is flawed. Again, this may or may not be true (my current understanding is that while the graph has a few minor flaws, they are not statistically significant), but it tells us nothing about the validity of anthropogenic global warming theory. Lastly, you say that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is a propaganda piece and shouldn't be trusted. Naturally, this too tells us nothing about the theory itself. I should like to see you present, in your own words (the link game is no fun for anybody), an argument against the theory itself. I know you've probably done so (or attempted to do so) in the other, gargantuan, global warming thread a few posts down. But as I don't think I have enough time left in my life to read through it all, I hope you wouldn't mind doing so again in here. ---EP--- |
| | |
| | #51 (permalink) (top) | |
| Liberated thinker Location: New Mexican Alps Posts: 2,175 | enraged parrot posts. Quote:
Concentrating on that tenuous thread many are ignoring these natural influences which have historically had a much greater influence on climate!. The sun and its magnetic shifts, cosmic particles, continental drift, the earths rotating around the sun in a changing orbit, volcanic activity, ocean currents and other natural factors are major contributors.... humans are an infintesimally small contributor? I ask you does it logically follow that such a small contributor can overwhelm what has been naturally occuring over the billions of years on this planet? I have repeatedly mentioned that the alarmist IPCC report and subsequent press furor over climate warming are based on correlations between climate warming and anthropogenic increases in C02? Correlation are there but there is doubt that they are certainty? e.g. Even though there was much economic activity(rising anthropogenic C02 creation) after WW2 there was a cooling period of several decades? That doesn't correlate? We were cooling at the same time C02 was increasing? The same is true just recently, it has been slightly cooler in the late 90s and early 2000s even though C02 is increasing? Correlation? The hockey stick graph was statisically flawed because the warming period of 8/900 AD was not involved skewing the graph into its alarming form? You can also add that we have not had the ability to measure global temps accurately until the last 25 years of so? How then can we logically intertwine global temps and C02 increases with any accuracy? Another factor is the press definition of the warming cycle is mixed up with the issue of humans possible influence of it??Admitting that the climate is warmer is far cry from admitting that humans have caused it and thus can change it? Fact, its been growing gradually warmer(with fluctuations) since the ice age. Yes there have been warming periods fairly recently 900AD(Greenland) followed by a "little Ice Age in the 1700s. Was the period before the ice age warmer than this one? If so did humans cause those higher temps? I remain a skeptic! Logic drives me to it! Thus we play the fools with the time, and the spirits of the wise sit in the clouds and mock us. | |
| | |
| | #52 (permalink) (top) |
| Igneous Magma Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 201 | Again, your logic is non sequitur. It doesn't follow that because CO2 makes up a small portion of the atmosphere its effects must also be small. The ability of a gas to affect the climate depends upon its concentration in the atmosphere and its ability to absorb outgoing IR radiation. For example, nitrogen gas comprises about 80% of our atmosphere, but it is transparent to both visible and IR radiation, so has very little to do with the greenhouse effect. On the other hand, CO2 is a very potent absorber of IR radiation, so even a small amount of it in the atmosphere can have a very large affect on the climate. In fact, CO2 is responsible for about 9-26% of the overall greenhouse effect (the range is due to spectral overlaps with the other absorbers). The idea that global warming theory is based solely on the correlation between temperatures and carbon dioxide levels is a common mistake. What we have is a theory based on physical laws with mounds of observational and experimental data supporting it. The physical properties of CO2 can and have been directly measured in laboratory experiments. The fact that temperature correlates so nicely with CO2 levels is simply more evidence supporting the theory, it isn't the basis of it. Another mistake is assuming that GW theory states that CO2 is the only driver of climate. There are a great many factors influencing the climate. The drop during the post war economic boom was due to a myriad of factors that temporarily overwhelmed the CO2 signal. The absence of the medieval warm period is not the main issue in the controversy surrounding the graph, which is highly technical and far beyond my meagre understanding, in the scientific community. In fact, the graph correctly depicted the climate at the time, since the medieval warm period was not a globally synchronous event, it was a series of regional changes over a four-hundred year period. While there were times during the WMP when temperatures were higher than those of today, the global mean never approached today's temperatures. If you object to the Mann et al Hockey stick graph, there are dozens of other independent reconstructions showing the exact same thing. Here are a few of them. "And the crows were all calling to him, thought Caw." –Jack Handy– |
| | |
| | #53 (permalink) (top) | |||||
![]() Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609 | Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That ends today's game of Xyzer's ignorance. I hope everyone tunes in for tomorrow where he repeats the same myths and lies &/or posts the latest things that the Economist think tanks can conjure up. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before | |||||
| | |
| | #54 (permalink) (top) | |
| Liberated thinker Location: New Mexican Alps Posts: 2,175 | Quote:
Another anomaly in the anthropogenic reasoning ...A 1% increase in global temps in the last 100 years (partly the result of proxies and more recently with fairly accurate and encompassing mesurement) is significant? So significant that attempting to reduce human emissions which constitute a small fraction of the 1% C02 in the atmosphere will have a significant affect on reducing global warmth in the near future? This effort would have to include all industrial production in every country in the world to possible have any effect? Who is going to correlate and enforce such an effort? Who is going to monitor it? lf natural changes impede or alter the results of such an effort what do we do then? Thus we play the fools with the time, and the spirits of the wise sit in the clouds and mock us. | |
| | |
| | #55 (permalink) (top) | |||||
![]() Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609 | Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, an increase of 280ppm to 380ppm is hardly a small fraction increase and I have already cited the fact that just because CO2 is a small component, it does not mean that it is not an important greenhouse gas. Because it is and you can't seem to grasp that fact. It seems all you can do is parrot the same myths and lies over and over, in the hope that people will believe you some day. Unfortunately for you, many of us have attended and graduated from High school, so we actually know better. Quote:
War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before | |||||
| | |
| | #56 (permalink) (top) |
| Seeking the Truth Location: Australia Posts: 86 | RealClimate this provides you some pretty damn good proof it exists, and there is also a list of other sites there as well. I'm quite sure that the fact we are clearing land, burning forests and also manufacturing goods at break neck speeds would have something to do with increased temperatures and different amounts of different carbon isotopes in the air that are normally present without man's influence. Read my blog "Thoughts from all over the world" Don't be afraid to comment either, I not only condone it I encourage it! My Blog |
| | |
| | #57 (permalink) (top) | ||
| Liberated thinker Location: New Mexican Alps Posts: 2,175 | OK Pooey so I had a typo? I meant 1 degree which you confirm with your figure of less than 1 degree? Staggering amount of warming, right? Now give us an estimate of the amount that warming will increase in the next century? Remember correlation is not causation? Quote:
You keep asking about studies involving natural influences..I posted this sometime backGlobal warming and cosmic radiation — Spacecenter Henrik Svensmark and his cosmic particles affecting cloud formation which affect climate. There are many more such studies if you would just pull away from the IPCC and Gore you might begin to see the light? Here is anothe expert closer to you Pooey who is a skeptic? Quote:
Will the sun cool us? Thus we play the fools with the time, and the spirits of the wise sit in the clouds and mock us. | ||
| | |
| | #58 (permalink) (top) | |
| Liberated thinker Location: New Mexican Alps Posts: 2,175 | Brilliant conclusion parrot. Quote:
Is it fair to ask just how much C02 is absorbed by all the plant life on this globe and how would it compare with that which humans create? You almost come around to reality when you admit its what the gas does to the heat transfer that matters? Can we include the moisture in the atmosphere |