NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems to me that many people believe that humans are the cause of the greenhouse effect. I can't see how this could be true because of a few things....

1) The sun is heating up. This heat comes in the form of greater radiation, and so more gets through the atmosphere and becomes trapped than 'normal'
2) A single volcanic eruption puts our more CFC's than humans have for many years (if not our entire time producing them)
3) There is an interesting thing happening in our atmospher that few people are aware of. Ozone is decayed by solar radiation. The decay lets more solar radiation into our atmosphere. That radiation will then hit some non-ozone oxygen and convert it into ozone, thus blocking more radiation. Unfortunately, this is an imperfect system and so long as the sun continues to warm up the atmosphere will lose out.

Humans are so prideful to think they can destroy the atmosphere more efficiently than the sun....

It seems to me that many people believe that humans are the cause of the greenhouse effect. I can't see how this could be true because of a few things....

1) The sun is heating up. This heat comes in the form of greater radiation, and so more gets through the atmosphere and becomes trapped than 'normal'
2) A single volcanic eruption puts our more CFC's than humans have for many years (if not our entire time producing them)
3) There is an interesting thing happening in our atmospher that few people are aware of. Ozone is decayed by solar radiation. The decay lets more solar radiation into our atmosphere. That radiation will then hit some non-ozone oxygen and convert it into ozone, thus blocking more radiation. Unfortunately, this is an imperfect system and so long as the sun continues to warm up the atmosphere will lose out.

Humans are so prideful to think they can destroy the atmosphere more efficiently than the sun....
You make excellent points. I'd like to address each one, if I may, from my own personal point of view. I'm no expert in the field, but I believe I've found some problems with your analysis of the situation.

1) An increase in solar radiation may indeed affect - and in fact, may currently be affecting - global climate change. You have, however, failed to account for changes in albedo (the Earth's reflectivity) and particularly emissivity (the flow of energy, in the form of heat or infrared radiation, out of Earth's systems and into the heat sink of space). An increase in solar radiation would natrually cause an increase in Earth's emissivity, and cause more clouds to be present in the atmosphere, causing albedo to rise. This would act as natural, negative feedback to such a change.

It is arguably the enhanced greenhouse effect that is preventing Earth's emissivity to increase.

2) There is no natural source of CFC's. Volcanoes included. Your statement that volcanic eruptions release CFC's is patently false. I'm not trying to suggest that volcanic eruptions don't affect the greenhouse effect or that they don't release substances that damage the ozone, just that it can't be due to CFC's.

3) First of all, let me make something clear. The thinning of Earth's ozone and the enhanced greenhouse effect are separate issues. The first causes lifeforms on Earth's surface to be exposed to dangerous types of radiation, and the second causes Earth's climate to change at a rapid pace (faster than any other time in history, according to the data we have).

Secondly, it is exactly this action of ozone being broken down by sunlight that is why the ozone is so important to us. When it's broken down into oxygen molecules and atoms, ozone absorbs dangerous ultraviolet radiation, so that it can't get down further and strike an organism which could be damaged by it. The thing is that the oxygen is constantly recombining back into ozone. The problem doesn't arise from natural sunlight breaking up ozone, it comes from chlorine atoms released from CFC's in the atmosphere that break up ozone faster than it can recombine.

It seems to me that many people believe that humans are the cause of the greenhouse effect.
I would address your points, but Militant Feministia has already done so better than I could have. Also, and this might just be poor phraseology, no-one thinks that humans are the cause of the greenhous effect. They merely believe we are causing magnified climate change, not the effect itself which is independent of human interaction.

Humans are so prideful to think they can destroy the atmosphere more efficiently than the sun....
I would not call that pride. I would call it disgust and abhorrence. Also not knowing, since no-one actually knows just how much humans are contributing to the current climate change. However, I also believe that you choose to ignore just what the industrial revolution meant to the planet.

It seems to me that many people believe that humans are the cause of the greenhouse effect. I can't see how this could be true because of a few things....

Oh, and I should add for the record: Humans don't cause the greenhouse effect. Most of the greenhouse effect (98%!!!) is due to - get this - water vapor. However, we've been enhancing the natural greenhouse effect with our emmissions of greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide. I believe the figure is that since 1900, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen by 35% (by volume, I think). Due in part to this rise, it's estimated that the average global temperature will rise by something like 5 degrees celsius by 2050. That's the fastest rise in Earth history. Definitely a danger to life on earth.

How long do you think it will be before Earth becomes the next venus (assuming Earth stays in it's current orbit this close to the sun)?

How long do you think it will be before Earth becomes the next venus (assuming Earth stays in it's current orbit this close to the sun)?

It isn't really possible. The proximity of Venus and it's atmospheric makeup makes it like it is. There is no oxygen on Venus. Anyway what I can see happening is Earth returning eventually to the heat of when the dinosaurs were here. The whole planet was tropical. Suppose I guess the dinosaurs were responsible for that. I think it's the Sun personally. They are recording increased solar output every year. That equals more energy coming our way. Which means increased temps. Things could get very interesting over the next 500 years.

How long do you think it will be before Earth becomes the next venus (assuming Earth stays in it's current orbit this close to the sun)?
Oh, I think I've got a good eon or two before I have to worry about that. I'm much more concerned about our reliance on stock-limited resources. Change is destabalizing, especially amongst humans. Imagine what's going to happen when a gallon of gasoline hits $45 US? Nasty and bloody wars have been fought over less.
Then there are those 220,000 more people we'll have to feed tomorrow than we had to feed today.

I don't believe we're having a significant impact on global temperatures, I don't believe Global Warming is a threat, and I believe it is part of the planet's natural cycles (I'm fairly certain we weren't emitting particulates into the air in 600,000 BC).

A single volcanic eruption contributes as much to the atmosphere as 1000 years of Human industrial activity. I'm thinking here our actions don't matter a whole lot. The Sun's fluctuations in energy output have a vast effect on global temperatures. Airborne particulates have a tiny, probably negligable effect, and the media once again takes something sensational and runs with it.

It isn't really possible. The proximity of Venus and it's atmospheric makeup makes it like it is. There is no oxygen on Venus. Anyway what I can see happening is Earth returning eventually to the heat of when the dinosaurs were here. The whole planet was tropical. Suppose I guess the dinosaurs were responsible for that. I think it's the Sun personally. They are recording increased solar output every year. That equals more energy coming our way. Which means increased temps. Things could get very interesting over the next 500 years.
I was talking about in the really looooong run, over tens of millions of years.

Humans are so prideful to think they can destroy the atmosphere more efficiently than the sun....

Actually, humans aren't proud of anything relating to contributing to the destruction of the atmosphere or the Earth for that matter. For the most part, humans are apathetic and cynical towards the whole thought of actually preserving the natural resources of the planet we call our own.

I don't believe we're having a significant impact on global temperatures, I don't believe Global Warming is a threat, and I believe it is part of the planet's natural cycles (I'm fairly certain we weren't emitting particulates into the air in 600,000 BC).

A single volcanic eruption contributes as much to the atmosphere as 1000 years of Human industrial activity. I'm thinking here our actions don't matter a whole lot. The Sun's fluctuations in energy output have a vast effect on global temperatures. Airborne particulates have a tiny, probably negligable effect, and the media once again takes something sensational and runs with it.
Please, do tell what it is that a volcano contributes to the atmosphere that is as bad as 1000 years of human industrial activity. And please enlighten me as to why an increase in carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, of 35% wouldn't significantly impact the climate of the Earth.

I'd also like for you to explain to me what you are going to do about the 5 degree celsius increase we're going to experience in the next century or so. Or, why is the fastest change in global climate in Earth's known history (regardless of whether or not we humans caused it) not going to be dangerous to life on Earth?

Please, do tell what it is that a volcano contributes to the atmosphere that is as bad as 1000 years of human industrial activity. And please enlighten me as to why an increase in carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, of 35% wouldn't significantly impact the climate of the Earth.

I'd also like for you to explain to me what you are going to do about the 5 degree celsius increase we're going to experience in the next century or so. Or, why is the fastest change in global climate in Earth's known history (regardless of whether or not we humans caused it) not going to be dangerous to life on Earth?

Not dangerous? Oh, it'll be dangerous. I just don't think it will destroy the species, ergo it will be everyone for themselves. And from this crucible will rise a powerful force.

Or maybe it's the fact that, yanno, Greenland is called Greenland because it was so verdant and suitable for arable work. Rivers throughout Europe regularly froze over until recently. Fast =/= dangerous, we're still recovering from an Ice Age, and the fact that the Sun has an amazingly more powerful effect than anything we could do short of inducing a Nuclear Winter. NASA has reported that indeed the ice caps are melting. The Martian ice caps, that is. I don't think we've got major highways crammed with SUVs and industrial complexes miles long on the Red planet...

As for the volcano issue;

I looked it up, and what I can find indicates the claim is incorrect. Sadly I can't seem to find the place which made the claim I repeated originally =/ But for now, I retract that claim.

You seem not to be aware that without Greenhouse Gases, we wouldn't be here talking about this...

Not dangerous? Oh, it'll be dangerous. I just don't think it will destroy the species, ergo it will be everyone for themselves. And from this crucible will rise a powerful force.

Or maybe it's the fact that, yanno, Greenland is called Greenland because it was so verdant and suitable for arable work. Rivers throughout Europe regularly froze over until recently. Fast =/= dangerous, we're still recovering from an Ice Age, and the fact that the Sun has an amazingly more powerful effect than anything we could do short of inducing a Nuclear Winter. NASA has reported that indeed the ice caps are melting. The Martian ice caps, that is. I don't think we've got major highways crammed with SUVs and industrial complexes miles long on the Red planet...

As for the volcano issue;

I looked it up, and what I can find indicates the claim is incorrect. Sadly I can't seem to find the place which made the claim I repeated originally =/ But for now, I retract that claim.

You seem not to be aware that without Greenhouse Gases, we wouldn't be here talking about this...
Quite the contrary. I'm aware that the natural greenhouse effect is essential for life on Earth. I'm also aware that change is destabalizing. Change in any given factor on Earth is generally fairly slow, and life has plenty of time to adapt, according to each species' range of tolerance. But if the average temperature of the planet climbs 10 degrees in 50 years and all of a sudden all the wheat in the world dies, that's something else to consider, isn't it? Fast may not equal dangerous, but faster change is definitely more dangerous than slower change.

Global warming has severely effected the Inuit ability to hunt. In communities most effected by climate change animals are fewer and harder to get to. Populations of caribou have decreased because animals are crashing through the ice in places that previously held. Earlier ice breakup has also has caused seals to change locations. Increasing numbers of game animals are infected with parasites and sores. Fish meat has become soft, unpalatable and difficult to process. For centuries the Inuit have depended on their knowledge of the land and weather to safely navigate and hunt. They must now prepare for a wider range of weather conditions.
Landslides and erosion have devestated Inuit communities, camps and sacred sites because of the thawing of permafrost. Soft spring ice is too unstable for foot travel but too solid for kayak travel.
Average artic winter temperatures have increased by from 4 to 7 degrees in the last 50 years, and are projected to rise another 7 to 13 degrees in the next 100 years.
Many coastal towns in the artic face increasing risk from erosion and flooding due to rising sea levels, decreased sea ice and thawing of permafrost.

Corporations whose revenues might be adversely effected by control on carbon dioxide emissions have alleged there are major uncertainties in the science. They suggest that there might be substantial disagreement in the scientific community about human caused climate change. This is not the case.
The confusion is caused by corporate sponsored reports. Exxon gives more than a million dollars a year to organizations like Competitive Enterprise Institute, Frontiers of Freedom and The American Council for Capital Formation. These are much like scientists hired by the tobacco industry finding that cigarettes don't cause lung cancer.

The artic is hardly the only eco-system adversely effected by global warming.

I was talking about in the really looooong run, over tens of millions of years.

Well as the sun gets bigger and bigger [which it is] by that time we will have had to move off Earth or we'll be fried anyway. Regardless of how many CFCs we are putting into the air.

Keep in mind that while we add more carbon dioxide, we also destroy more sources of our oxygen providers.

I am sad that I am part of the human race... but what is worse.. if I was any other species I woul dbe killed by a human or taken to the circus ;.;

During the 1950s the US government detonated nuclear weapons in the atmosphere without considering the effects it could have on the world. Scientists soon discovered that our atmospheres properties had been altered and were not returning to what had previously been normal. This condition still exists today.

During the 1950s the US government detonated nuclear weapons in the atmosphere without considering the effects it could have on the world. Scientists soon discovered that our atmospheres properties had been altered and were not returning to what had previously been normal. This condition still exists today.
Very interesting. I'd be interested in reading more about that, and finding out what changed, exactly. Do you have a linky, or more information with which to scrounge up a page?

Very interesting. I'd be interested in reading more about that, and finding out what changed, exactly. Do you have a linky, or more information with which to scrounge up a page?



*Militant Feministia* You rock, very informed...much more than I...I visited your nation..funny stuff...Can I serve under you?.......... Anywho..Check out the book IF Stones weakly reader published in 1968 (its my pops) it talks about atomic weapons testing during Eisenhowers and on into Kennedy's administration. You may want to Google the Van Allen radiation belt. I look for more sources on the internet.

*Militant Feministia* You rock, very informed...much more than I...I visited your nation..funny stuff...Can I serve under you?.......... Anywho..Check out the book IF Stones weakly reader published in 1968 (its my pops) it talks about atomic weapons testing during Eisenhowers and on into Kennedy's administration. You may want to Google the Van Allen radiation belt. I look for more sources on the internet.
Thanks, Taco Pirates. I sent you a TG. I'll look up that book and the Van Allen radiation belt. I love a good read.

Not dangerous? Oh, it'll be dangerous. I just don't think it will destroy the species, ergo it will be everyone for themselves. And from this crucible will rise a powerful force.

Or maybe it's the fact that, yanno, Greenland is called Greenland because it was so verdant and suitable for arable work. Rivers throughout Europe regularly froze over until recently. Fast =/= dangerous, we're still recovering from an Ice Age, and the fact that the Sun has an amazingly more powerful effect than anything we could do short of inducing a Nuclear Winter. NASA has reported that indeed the ice caps are melting. The Martian ice caps, that is. I don't think we've got major highways crammed with SUVs and industrial complexes miles long on the Red planet...

As for the volcano issue;

I looked it up, and what I can find indicates the claim is incorrect. Sadly I can't seem to find the place which made the claim I repeated originally =/ But for now, I retract that claim.

You seem not to be aware that without Greenhouse Gases, we wouldn't be here talking about this...

OK, here are some links to authoritative information on the web as well as a few quotes addressing some of the speculation attempting to dismiss the threat of climate change due to human activity. It is real. The scientific consensus is quite clear.

Global warming is real and underway--Causing serious disruptions to our environment and lives . . . (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/index.cfm)

State of Climate Science letter. This letter, from 1,000 experts in the field, outlines the consensus on the anthropogenic component to climate change. (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1264)

In brief, the findings are that:

1) Anthropogenic climate change, driven by emissions of greenhouse gases, is already under way and likely responsible for most of the observed warming over the last 50 years—warming that has produced the highest temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere during at least the past 1,000 years;

2) Over the course of this century, the Earth is expected to warm an additional 2.5 to 10.5 °F, depending on future emissions levels and on the climate sensitivity—a sustained global rate of change exceeding any in the last 10,000 years;

3) Temperature increases in most areas of the United States are expected to be considerably higher than these global means because of our nation's northerly location and large average distance from the oceans;

4) Even under mid-range emissions assumptions, the projected warming could cause substantial impacts in different regions of the U.S., including an increased likelihood of heavy and extreme precipitation events, exacerbated drought, and sea level rise;

5) Almost all plausible emissions scenarios result in projected temperatures that continue to increase well beyond the end of this century; and,

6) Due to the long lifetimes of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the longer emissions increase, the faster they will ultimately have to be decreased in order to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system.

....

On the subject of human causation of this warmth, the NRC report stated that, "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue." Indeed, computer simulations do not reproduce the late 20th century warmth if they include only natural climate forcings such as emissions from volcanoes and solar activity. The warmth is only captured when the simulations include forcings from human-emitted greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere.

Fact vs. Fiction on Climate Change (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=498)

The observed warming is all due to solar variation, not human activities.

Fiction: An increase in solar irradiance is the main cause of the Earth's current warming trend. Therefore, reducing fossil fuel emissions would not impact the Earth's temperature.

Fact: Current scientific understanding leaves little doubt that the sun's radiant output impacts the Earth's climate on both decadal and centennial time scales. However, it is only one of many components affecting terrestrial climate. According to the findings of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, the warming effect due to increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is estimated to be more than 8 times greater than the effect of solar irradiance.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html)

National Research Council's 2001 report Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (http://www.nap.edu/html/climatechange/)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Global Warming - FAQ (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html)

Are greenhouse gases increasing?
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

How important are these changes in a longer-term context?
Paleoclimatic data are critical for enabling us to extend our knowledge of climatic variability beyond what is measured by modern instruments. Many natural phenomena are climate dependent (such as the growth rate of a tree for example), and as such, provide natural 'archives' of climate information. Some useful paleoclimate data can be found in sources as diverse as tree rings, ice cores, corals, lake sediments (including fossil insects and pollen data), speleothems (stalactites etc), and ocean sediments. Some of these, including ice cores and tree rings provide us also with a chronology due the nature of how they are formed, and so high resolution climate reconstruction is possible in these cases. However, there is not a comprehensive 'network' of paleoclimate data as there is with instrumental coverage, so global climate reconstructions are often difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, combining different types of paleoclimate records enables us to gain a near-global picture of climate changes in the past.

For the Northern Hemisphere summer temperature, recent decades appear to be the warmest since at least about 1000AD, and the warming since the late 19th century is unprecedented over the last 1000 years. Older data are insufficient to provide reliable hemispheric temperature estimates. Ice core data suggest that the 20th century has been warm in many parts of the globe, but also that the significance of the warming varies geographically, when viewed in the context of climate variations of the last millennium.
Large and rapid climatic changes affecting the atmospheric and oceanic circulation and temperature, and the hydrological cycle, occurred during the last ice age and during the transition towards the present Holocene period (which began about 10,000 years ago). Based on the incomplete evidence available, the projected change of 3 to 7°F (1.5 - 4°C) over the next century would be unprecedented in comparison with the best available records from the last several thousand years.

Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?
Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. There appears to be confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance. With only 20 years of reliable measurements however, it is difficult to deduce a trend. But, from the short record we have so far, the trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases. There are many indications that the sun also has a longer-term variation which has potentially contributed to the century-scale forcing to a greater degree. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

snip
Bravo! As far as I'm concerned, that should close the issue. Now we need to all go out and support efforts to lower our carbon dioxide output as a society and as a species. Alternative fuels come to mind. This page can help people take steps to reduce their impact on the environment. It's also a big eye-opener.

http://www.redefiningprogress.org/

Why can't people understand that the huge bulk of the scientific community agrees that accelerated global warming is a reality? There is only a very small percentage of scientists who refute this, and a large majority of them work for corporate-sponsered research groups.

well..lemme put my two cents into this....as many people know, the earth, while it rotats on it's axis, tends to wobble a bit, over several millennia, the axis of the earth changes little by little until it is vastly different than it was to begin with...for example...Five thousand years ago, Thuban was the North Star. Five thousand years from now, the North Star will be Alpha Cephei. Seven thousand years after that, it will be Vega. Nine thousand years after that, Thuban will be the North Star again...this alters our proximity to the sun and, therefore, contributes to the overall climate.

I personally believe that what we have here is us reverting to an earlier state of hihger temperatures. a reversal of the pleistocene epoch. i think the sample data we have is much to small for us to even consider that we have a grasp on the history of earth's climate. As was mentioned earlier, a volcanic eruption releases CO2 equvalent to 1000 years of human production. That is a huge difference, what with Mt. Etna erupting around the clock. Earthquake activity has risen drastically in the last 100 years as well. This contributes to releases of methane along fault lines, thus contributing to the supposed "greenhouse effect."

The measures outlined in the Kyoto Protocols would barely scratch the surface of reversing what has happened (even if humans are as arrogant as to think they can reverse it). Rather than combating global climate change with reactive solutions such as higher emissions standards and scrubbers in smokestacks, we need to use more proactive means such as reforestation. Genetic engineering has created plankton specemins that require more CO2 to survive. A vast majority of the oxygen in the air comes from plankton.

With this in mind, it is easy to see that this is beyond the scope of human endeavors. It;s like trying to stop the sun from rising by rinning west. It is still happening, it just takes longer for you to notice the effects.

It's all a big scam. It is the governments and shadow groups trying to take your attention off the real problems. ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. This is the real spectre out there! They will band together to fight the so called greenhouse problem. Only to form one single unstoppable government. You heard it here first.

Secondly, it is exactly this action of ozone being broken down by sunlight that is why the ozone is so important to us. When it's broken down into oxygen molecules and atoms, ozone absorbs dangerous ultraviolet radiation, so that it can't get down further and strike an organism which could be damaged by it. The thing is that the oxygen is constantly recombining back into ozone. The problem doesn't arise from natural sunlight breaking up ozone, it comes from chlorine atoms released from CFC's in the atmosphere that break up ozone faster than it can recombine.
Actually, if we just stop spewing CFC's the problem will naturally right itself. In any major lightning storm, especially those over oceans, there are lightning strikes into the upper atmosphere instead of the ground. These create ozone to compensate for that lost by solar decay and if the CFC's stop eventually all will be well, at least untill the magnetic field around the earth decays enough to let in more radioactivity prior to it switching poles.

Actually, if we just stop spewing CFC's the problem will naturally right itself. In any major lightning storm, especially those over oceans, there are lightning strikes into the upper atmosphere instead of the ground. These create ozone to compensate for that lost by solar decay and if the CFC's stop eventually all will be well, at least untill the magnetic field around the earth decays enough to let in more radioactivity prior to it switching poles.

Really!?!?

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

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

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

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

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

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

Really!?!?

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

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

and that site still makes claims about anthropogenic emissions vs 'natural additions' that i didn't see in any of the sources it cites. maybe it was located in some that don't seem to exist anymore, but seriously, find me the data in table 1 in the source it claims it took it from (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html) - making up data is a big frelling no no. as far as i know, there have been no 'natural additions' to atmospheric greenhouse gasses that aren't also balanced by other natural processes.

at the same time it relies on the misleading rhetorical point that the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is tiny compared to the total greenhouse effect without clarifying that what that means is that a degree of warming is a tiny percent of the total warmth provided by all of the greenhouse gases compared to the temp earth would be without an atmosphere. the issue isn't what earth would be like without an atmosphere. it is about the effect of an additional couple of degrees on the current ecosystems - especially when the change happens at an unheard of rate. we know that the climate is warming. we know that we are responsible for significant increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. we know that in the past much more gradual changes in climate had major impacts.

there is nothing left to argue.

20 years ago we knew that an anthropogenic effect from emissions served to cool the earth, knew that it would eventually lead to a new ice age in the near future, and knew that we had to do something very expensive about it - despite lots of arguments and evidence to the contrary, that there was a negligible anthropogenic effect and that econutters were using scare tactics to drum up funding and support.

I don't see a difference between what was "inarguable" then and "inarguable" now.

It isn't really possible. The proximity of Venus and it's atmospheric makeup makes it like it is. There is no oxygen on Venus. Anyway what I can see happening is Earth returning eventually to the heat of when the dinosaurs were here. The whole planet was tropical. Suppose I guess the dinosaurs were responsible for that. I think it's the Sun personally. They are recording increased solar output every year. That equals more energy coming our way. Which means increased temps. Things could get very interesting over the next 500 years.

Not quite, the Earth during the Mesozoic era was warmer, it's true. Studies have shown however, that dinosaurs lived in areas such northern Canada, the Antarctic and Australia (the former was further north and the latter, further south during the Mesozoic era). While not as cold as it is today, it still got pretty cool - cool enough for ice to form. In general, the Triassic and Jurassic periods were hot and dry, while the Cretaceous was warm and wet and possessed a more seasonal climate (a trend that continues to this day).

The sun has increased in luminosity over the eons, but such increases are very slow. The sun was approximatly 98% as bright a half a billion years ago. As you can see, these increases in solar output does not happen overnight :D As for the current greenhouse effect (Climate change would be a better term actually) human activities may well have something to do with it. We do have some data that "points in that direction" but it is not yet completley conclusive to say for sure one way or the other.

Well, according to America the 'Greenhouse Effect' either:
a) Does not exist.
b) Is a terrorist.
c) Is a national threat
d) Does not exist and is a national threat (like WMDs)
or
e) Is persecuting its citizens and must be invaded and liberated from its tyrannical regime.

Oh and don't get them started on the Kyoto Treaty.....

and that site still makes claims about anthropogenic emissions vs 'natural additions' that i didn't see in any of the sources it cites. maybe it was located in some that don't seem to exist anymore, but seriously, find me the data in table 1 in the source it claims it took it from (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html) - making up data is a big frelling no no. as far as i know, there have been no 'natural additions' to atmospheric greenhouse gasses that aren't also balanced by other natural processes.

at the same time it relies on the misleading rhetorical point that the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is tiny compared to the total greenhouse effect without clarifying that what that means is that a degree of warming is a tiny percent of the total warmth provided by all of the greenhouse gases compared to the temp earth would be without an atmosphere. the issue isn't what earth would be like without an atmosphere. it is about the effect of an additional couple of degrees on the current ecosystems - especially when the change happens at an unheard of rate. we know that the climate is warming. we know that we are responsible for significant increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. we know that in the past much more gradual changes in climate had major impacts.

there is nothing left to argue.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Greenhouse Gas Concentrations:
Natural vs man-made (anthropogenic)

The following table was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department of Energy (1) and other sources, summarizing concentrations of the various atmospheric greenhouse gases. Because some of the concentrations are very small the numbers are stated in parts per billion. DOE chose to NOT show water vapor as a greenhouse gas!

The chart at left summarizes the % of greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth's atmosphere from Table 1. This is not a very meaningful view though because 1) the data has not been corrected for the actual Global Warming Potential (GWP) of each gas, and 2) water vapor is ignored.

But these are the numbers one would use if the goal is to exaggerate human greenhouse contributions:

Man-made and natural carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises 99.44% of all greenhouse gas concentrations (368,400 / 370,484 )--(ignoring water vapor).

Also, from Table 1 (but not shown on graph):

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise (12,217 / 370,484) or 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

The various greenhouse gases are not equal in their heat-retention properties though, so to remain statistically relevant % concentrations must be changed to % contribution relative to CO2. This is done in Table 2, below, through the use of GWP multipliers for each gas, derived by various researchers.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Converting greenhouse gas concentrations
to greenhouse effect contribution
(using global warming potential )

Using appropriate corrections for the Global Warming Potential of the respective gases provides the following more meaningful comparison of greenhouse gases, based on the conversion:

( concentration ) X ( the appropriate GWP multiplier (2) (3) of each gas relative to CO2 ) = greenhouse contribution.:

Compared to the concentration statistics in Table 1, the GWP comparison in Table 2 illustrates, among other things:

Total carbon dioxide (CO2) contributions are reduced to 72.37% of all greenhouse gases (368,400 / 509,056)-- (ignoring water vapor).

Also, from Table 2 (but not shown on graph):

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions drop to (11,880 / 509,056) or 2.33% of total of all greenhouse gases, (ignoring water vapor).

Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes (28,162 / 509,056) or 5.53% of all greenhouse gas contributions, (ignoring water vapor).

Relative to carbon dioxide the other greenhouse gases together comprise about 27.63% of the greenhouse effect (ignoring water vapor) but only about 0.56% of total greenhouse gas concentrations. Put another way, as a group methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), and CFC's and other miscellaneous gases are about 50 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gases.

To properly represent the total relative impacts of Earth's greenhouse gases Table 3 (below) factors in the effect of water vapor on the system.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Water vapor overwhelms
all other natural and man-made
greenhouse contributions.

Table 3, shows what happens when the effect of water vapor is factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.

As illustrated in this chart of the data in Table 3, the combined greenhouse contributions of CO2, methane, N2O, and misc. gases are small compared to water vapor!

Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect-- a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (4). Among climatologists, this is common knowledge, but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is "customary" to do so!

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Comparing natural vs man-made concentrations
of greenhouse gases

Of course, even among the remaining 5% of non-water vapor greenhouse gases, humans contribute only a very small part (and human contributions to water vapor are negligible).

Constructed from data in Table 1, the charts (below) illustrate graphically how much of each greenhouse gas is natural vs how much is man-made. These allocations are used for the next and final step in this analysis-- total man-made contributions to the greenhouse effect. Units are expressed to 3 significant digits in order to reduce rounding errors for those who wish to walk through the calculations, not to imply numerical precision as there is some variation among various researchers.

Oh and don't get them started on the Kyoto Treaty.....

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal
__________________________________

Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.

To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.

This is the statistically correct way to represent relative human contributions to the greenhouse effect.

From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity, only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.

Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to, we can do nothing to change this.

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).




The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!

While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.

Global warming is happening but it is not our fault.

30 years ago it was our fault global colling was happening.

Have none of you heard of the chaos effect? Weather is a natural phenomonom that has been changing since before humans existed. It changes erratically and unpredictably, and humans have little effect on it.

How can we pretend to predict the global climate 50 years from now when we can't even predict the temperature accurately for a month from now?

How can we pretend to predict the global climate 50 years from now when we can't even predict the temperature accurately for a month from now?

Your local forecasters are better than ours!

Ours here have trouble with getting even a week later correct, sometimes... :p

Regards,
Gaar

I read many of the posts on this thread. My first thought upon seeing the topic was, "How long until the US gets the blame?"
Global warming, meh. . . I just cannot get worked up about something that is a natural phenomena and has happened before without devastating consequences. Humans will adapt and life will go on. I tire of these manufactured worry events created by people who want to spend their lives in fear mode.
We are beginning to move away from fossil fuels in the old industrial nations. Things cannot happen overnight no matter how much we want them to. But even if we do get off the oil tit in the O.I.N. all of the developing world will still continue to use fossil fuels as they seek to improve themselves.
We will not escape petroleum anytime soon and there isn't a damn thing anybody can do about it so why fret about it all the time?

Overall, nobody is sure about exactly what will happen to our climate as we do understand fully enough the many factors that influence climate change. However, we have been adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and it is to some extent irrelevant how much extra we are adding. The various examples of negative& positive feedback by our planet e.g. oceans as CO2 sinks, cannot compensate for our activities forever, and there are signs that they are already nearly full. Also, the small increases that we cause, are cumulative so can add up to one large change, and can cause parts of our environment, e.g. methane hydrates (large frozen deposites of methane under seas near the poles), and the icecaps to destabilise. If methane hydrates were to melt they are estimated to contain 10billion tonnes of methane, which would dramatically raise temperatures, and ice caps melting decreases the amount of ice there is to reflect the sun's radiation back into space. We are using our planet as one giant experiment, which is irresponsible on so many levels.

"How long until the US gets the blame?"
Global warming, meh. . . I just cannot get worked up about something that is a natural phenomena and has happened before without devastating consequences. Humans will adapt and life will go on. I tire of these manufactured worry events created by people who want to spend their lives in fear mode.
We are beginning to move away from fossil fuels in the old industrial nations. Things cannot happen overnight no matter how much we want them to. But even if we do get off the oil tit in the O.I.N. all of the developing world will still continue to use fossil fuels as they seek to improve themselves.
We will not escape petroleum anytime soon and there isn't a damn thing anybody can do about it so why fret about it all the time?

Actually, the LARGER ISSUE is others trying to FORCE People to live in a manner that THEY DEEM appropriate, even though it HAS BEEN SHOWN that Human affects on the climate is QUITE negligible, even in the manner in which we have become accustomed.

The Earth was around LONG Before there was anything like Man, and it will likely be around LONG after we are gone...

Regards,
Gaar

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Greenhouse Gas Concentrations:
Natural vs man-made (anthropogenic)

The following table was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department of Energy (1) and other sources, summarizing concentrations of the various atmospheric greenhouse gases.
...
Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).


now go to the source cited for that number:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

take a good long look around, and tell me where the hell that 11,880 came from. it isn't there. at all. now tell me where they got the 68,520 number for 'natural additions'. cause it ain't there either. no source for numbers that seemed fishy in the first place = me calling bullshit. your website there just made them up. human activity has increased CO2 concentration by more than a third of the baseline, not 'natural additions'.

and since the rest of the article is based on those fictional made up numbers, i think it fair to say we can just toss the whole damn thing.

in fact, if you google for "natural additions" and "co2" or "greenhouse gases" or anything like that, the only relevant hits you get are either that clearlight website or ones that did a copy 'n paste job of it.

i reiterate my call of bullshit.

now go to the source cited for that number:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

take a good long look around, and tell me where the hell that 11,880 came from. it isn't there. at all. now tell me where they got the 68,520 number for 'natural additions'. cause it ain't there either. no source for numbers that seemed fishy in the first place = me calling bullshit. your website there just made them up. human activity has increased CO2 concentration by more than a third of the baseline, not 'natural additions'.

and since the rest of the article is based on those fictional made up numbers, i think it fair to say we can just toss the whole damn thing.

Nicely done.

Urantia II will ignore the truth, as that is his modus operandi, but still nicely done.

BTW, I spent most my life in Moscow and Idaho Falls. Howdy!

Nicely done.

Urantia II will ignore the truth, as that is his modus operandi, but still nicely done.

BTW, I spent most my life in Moscow and Idaho Falls. Howdy!

thanks.

and i'm actually in moscow now - doing the grad school thing. small world.

thanks.

and i'm actually in moscow now - doing the grad school thing. small world.

Cool. That's where I got my undergrad and law degrees.

now go to the source cited for that number:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

take a good long look around, and tell me where the hell that 11,880 came from. it isn't there. at all. now tell me where they got the 68,520 number for 'natural additions'. cause it ain't there either. no source for numbers that seemed fishy in the first place = me calling bullshit. your website there just made them up. human activity has increased CO2 concentration by more than a third of the baseline, not 'natural additions'.

and since the rest of the article is based on those fictional made up numbers, i think it fair to say we can just toss the whole damn thing.

Really!?!

Or perhaps it is that YOU are UNABLE to use a calculator?

If you LOOK at the SOURCE YOU will SEE in NOTE 6 that they reference the YEARLY Natural additions at about 280ppm since about 1750...

Multiply 280 x about 250 and you get... ~70,000.

EDIT: That's close enough to that 68,000 for YOU, isn't it?

Need me to crunch ANY MORE numbers for YOU?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Really!?!

Or perhaps it is that YOU are UNABLE to use a calculator?

If you LOOK at the SOURCE YOU will SEE in NOTE 6 that they reference the YEARLY Natural additions at about 280ppm since about 1750...

Multiply 280 x about 250 and you get... ~70,000.

EDIT: That's close enough to that 68,000 for YOU, isn't it?

Need me to crunch ANY MORE numbers for YOU?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

You know that is not what the source says. It says that CO2 concentrations prior to 1750 were at 280ppm. See where in bold it says "Pre-1750 concentration" and that is where you got your number from? Too bad calculators can't read for you.

And once again, cutting and pasting random crap from the internet -- particularly random crap from unreliable sources -- is not intelligent discussion.

Go away, troll. Back under the bridge where it is cold and damp.

Once again, cutting and pasting random crap from the internet -- particularly random crap from unreliable sources -- is not intelligent discussion.

Go away, troll. Back under the bridge where it is cold and damp.

First YOU say the numbers didn't EXIST and now they are just "unreliable" even though they have come from the Government Source that is tasked with tracking such things?!?!

YOU simply AMAZE me!

WHEN EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED you just dismiss it out of hand...

How is one to have an INTELLIGENT conversation with someone who does such things?

Regards,
Gaar

First YOu say the numbers didn't EXIST and now they are just "unreliable" even though they have come from the Government Source that is tasked with tracking such things?!?!

YOU simply AMAZE me!

WHEN EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED you just dismiss it out of hand...

How is one to have an INTELLIGENT conversation with someone who does such tings?

Regards,
Gaar

Check again. The numbers you originally cited were unreliable and are not found in the government source.

You either totally misread the source or you deliberately tried to misconstrue it.

How is one to have an INTELLIGENT conversation with someone who does such things?

You know that is not what the source says. It says that CO2 concentrations prior to 1750 were at 280ppm. See where in bold it says "Pre-1750 concentration" and that is where you got your number from? Too bad calculators can't read for you.

And once again, cutting and pasting random crap from the internet -- particularly random crap from unreliable sources -- is not intelligent discussion.

Go away, troll. Back under the bridge where it is cold and damp.

ME READ?!?!

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Sorry, that SAYS 288,000ppm NOT 280ppm...

Now just WHO needs to LEARN TO READ?

Anything else I can SHOW YOU how to "work out"?

You say you have a Degree?

Regards,
Gaar

Check again. The numbers you originally cited were unreliable and are not found in the government source.

You either totally misread the source or you deliberately tried to misconstrue it.

How is one to have an INTELLIGENT conversation with someone who does such things?

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

Huh, that LOOKS LIKE a Government Source TO ME!

Care to SHOW ME how it ISN'T?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

If you LOOK at the SOURCE YOU will SEE in NOTE 6 that they reference the YEARLY Natural additions at about 280ppm since about 1750...

Multiply 280 x about 250 and you get... ~70,000.

EDIT: That's close enough to that 68,000 for YOU, isn't it?

Need me to crunch ANY MORE numbers for YOU?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

hahahaha

Concentrations in parts per million (ppm)

Pre-1750 concentration: 280

Current tropospheric concentration: 374.9

6. The value given by IPCC 2001, page 185, is 280 ± 10 ppm. This is supported by measurements of CO2 in old, confined, and reasonably well-dated air. Such air is found in bubbles trapped in annual layers of ice in Antarctica, in sealed brass buttons on old uniforms, airtight bottles of wine of known vintage, etc. Additional support comes from well-dated carbon-isotope signatures, for example, in annual tree rings. Estimates of "pre-industrial" CO2 can also be obtained by first calculating the ratio of the recent atmospheric CO2 increases to recent fossil-fuel use, and using past records of fossil-fuel use to extrapolate past atmospheric CO2 concentrations on an annual basis. Estimates of "pre-industrial" CO2 concentrations obtained in this way are higher than those obtained by more direct measurements; this is believed to be because the effects of widespread land clearing are not accounted for. The record derived from the "DSS" Antarctic ice core, which covers the period from about 1000-1750, indicates an average "natural background" concentration of 280.05 ppm.

again i say, hahahahaha

hahahaha

again i say, hahahahaha

So now, instead of trying to refute the numbers in any way, or provide ANY LINK to information that says otherwise, you are merely going to laugh at the numbers?

Shall I consider that your abandoning a rational discussion in favor of an "ad hominem" attack?

Regards,
Gaar

ME READ?!?!

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Sorry, that SAYS 288,000ppm NOT 280ppm...

Now just WHO needs to LEARN TO READ?

possibly the person who missed the difference between parts per million and parts per billion...

possibly the person who missed the difference between "parts per million" and "parts per billion...

Oh, I see... Sorry for the misrep.

I am left to wonder how that has ANYTHING to do with the discussion however?

Isn't that like saying because I spell GreanHouse incorrectly then my POINT is moot?

Care to actually ADDRESS the INFORMATION or laugh at someones mistake?

Either way doesn't matter to me, as long as everyone is AWARE of the truth.

Regards,
Gaar

Imagine what's going to happen when a gallon of gasoline hits $45 US?


Economic forces alone guarantee that we'll switch to alternative fuel sources long before that happens. We have the technology right now. The only thing holding us back is that it's not yet worth our money to make the switch.

Oh, I see... Sorry for the misrep.

I am left to wonder how that has ANYTHING to do with the discussion however?

well you see, the pre-1750 co2 level was at 280 ppm and the current level is at 374.9 ppm. which means in addition to your attempted dodge of the fact that nowhere on the gov't page does it mention numbers for 'natural additions' being silly because it still didn't address the problem, your 'number crunching' is just ridiculous as it would mean that the current concentration of co2 would be at least 70,000 ppm and we'd be well on our way to being venus.

ME READ?!?!

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WV...house_data.html

Sorry, that SAYS 288,000ppm NOT 280ppm...

Now just WHO needs to LEARN TO READ?

Anything else I can SHOW YOU how to "work out"?

You say you have a Degree?

Regards,
Gaar

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

Huh, that LOOKS LIKE a Government Source TO ME!

Care to SHOW ME how it ISN'T?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

You've failed to realize I no longer find such things annoying. To the contrary, your posts are hilarious.

You said:


now go to the source cited for that number:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

take a good long look around, and tell me where the hell that 11,880 came from. it isn't there. at all. now tell me where they got the 68,520 number for 'natural additions'. cause it ain't there either. no source for numbers that seemed fishy in the first place = me calling bullshit. your website there just made them up. human activity has increased CO2 concentration by more than a third of the baseline, not 'natural additions'.

and since the rest of the article is based on those fictional made up numbers, i think it fair to say we can just toss the whole damn thing.



Really!?!

Or perhaps it is that YOU are UNABLE to use a calculator?

If you LOOK at the SOURCE YOU will SEE in NOTE 6 that they reference the YEARLY Natural additions at about 280ppm since about 1750...

Multiply 280 x about 250 and you get... ~70,000.

EDIT: That's close enough to that 68,000 for YOU, isn't it?

Need me to crunch ANY MORE numbers for YOU?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

You claimed note 6 of the government source "the YEARLY Natural additions at about 280ppm since about 1750." It does not. You got caught. Admit it.

You've very convincingly proven why your original source is bogus.

Also, 280ppm (i.e., 280 parts per MILLION) equals 280,000ppb (i.e., 280,000 parts per BILLION). Why your source (which clear adds another 8,000ppb to the pre-Industrial base is a mystery to me. Perhaps you can explain?

BTW, your source is authored by Monty Hieb (http://wvgis.wvu.edu/directory/directory.php?action=list&by=NAME&letter=h). He is a Chief Engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miners Health Safety and Training. Hardly an unbiased or qualified source.

This is fun. Like taking candy from babies. Set up the pins again.

You've failed to realize I no longer find such things annoying. To the contrary, your posts are hilarious.

You said:

You claimed note 6 of the government source "the YEARLY Natural additions at about 280ppm since about 1750." It does not. You got caught. Admit it.

You've very convincingly proven why your original source is bogus.

Also, 280ppm (i.e., 280 parts per MILLION) equals 280,000ppb (i.e., 280,000 parts per BILLION). Why your source (which clear adds another 8,000ppb to the pre-Industrial base is a mystery to me. Perhaps you can explain?

BTW, your source is authored by Monty Hieb (http://wvgis.wvu.edu/directory/directory.php?action=list&by=NAME&letter=h). He is a Chief Engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miners Health Safety and Training. Hardly an unbiased or qualified source.

This is fun. Like taking candy from babies. Set up the pins again.

So I guess YOU missed this part...

"Estimates of "pre-industrial" CO2 can also be obtained by first calculating the ratio of the recent atmospheric CO2 increases to recent fossil-fuel use, and using past records of fossil-fuel use to extrapolate past atmospheric CO2 concentrations on an annual basis. Estimates of "pre-industrial" CO2 concentrations obtained in this way are higher than those obtained by more direct measurements; this is believed to be because the effects of widespread land clearing are not accounted for. The record derived from the "DSS" Antarctic ice core, which covers the period from about 1000-1750, indicates an average "natural background" concentration of 280.05 ppm."

That SAYS 280.5 ppm on an "annual basis" does it not?

280.5 x 250 years (or thereabout) since 1750 is 70,125... Is it not?

Regards,
Gaar

You've failed to realize I no longer find such things annoying. To the contrary, your posts are hilarious.

You claimed note 6 of the government source "the YEARLY Natural additions at about 280ppm since about 1750." It does not. You got caught. Admit it.

You've very convincingly proven why your original source is bogus.

Also, 280ppm (i.e., 280 parts per MILLION) equals 280,000ppb (i.e., 280,000 parts per BILLION). Why your source (which clear adds another 8,000ppb to the pre-Industrial base is a mystery to me. Perhaps you can explain?

BTW, your source is authored by Monty Hieb (http://wvgis.wvu.edu/directory/directory.php?action=list&by=NAME&letter=h). He is a Chief Engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miners Health Safety and Training. Hardly an unbiased or qualified source.

This is fun. Like taking candy from babies. Set up the pins again.

I love Cat Tribe. Can I come live with you? Teach me how you shred bogus arguement like Enron shreds evidence.

That SAYS 280.5 ppm on an "annual basis" does it not?

no.

this is becoming rather sad.

So I guess YOU missed this part...

"Estimates of "pre-industrial" CO2 can also be obtained by first calculating the ratio of the recent atmospheric CO2 increases to recent fossil-fuel use, and using past records of fossil-fuel use to extrapolate past atmospheric CO2 concentrations on an annual basis. Estimates of "pre-industrial" CO2 concentrations obtained in this way are higher than those obtained by more direct measurements; this is believed to be because the effects of widespread land clearing are not accounted for. The record derived from the "DSS" Antarctic ice core, which covers the period from about 1000-1750, indicates an average "natural background" concentration of 280.05 ppm."

That SAYS 280.5 ppm on an "annual basis" does it not?

280.5 x 250 years (or thereabout) since 1750 is 70,125... Is it not?

Regards,
Gaar

Um, no. It does not say natural CO2 increased by 280.5ppm per year. It says the average natural background concentration per year was 280.05ppm. What part do YOU not UNDERSTAND?

Your own source uses 288ppm as the pre-Industrial baseline. Need ME to EXPLAIN "BASELINE" to YOU?

You are boring me. Coming up with something new to amuse me or go back under the bridge.

I love Cat Tribe. Can I come live with you? Teach me how you shred bogus arguement like Enron shreds evidence.

Hell yes! :fluffle: (Sadly, that the best thing I've heard in months.)

I've got lots of room here in sunny San Diego.

But ... this time the credit really goes to Free Soviets. He(?) spotted the fake numbers. (Must be that UofI training!) I'm just piling on.

Coming up with something new to amuse me or go back under the bridge.

Ok...

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/sir_robert_may_annotated.htm

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

http://www.henrythornton.com/article.asp?article_id=3011

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D36D.htm

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm

Fallacy 1: Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at alarming rates. It just ain't so, according to de Freitas, who notes that annual CO2 concentration increases appear to be leveling off in recent years. He also wonders what is alarming about the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, which dramatically stimulates the growth rates and enhances the water use efficiencies of essentially all of earth's plants.

Fallacy 2: Humans are big players in the global carbon cycle. In reality, says de Freitas, "anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only about 3% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon." He also notes that the increase in the air's CO2 content over the past few centuries could well have been the result of earth's oceans giving off the gas in response to the planet's recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Fallacy 3: There is a close relationship between changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. De Freitas debunks the implied message of this myth, i.e., that it is changes in CO2 that drive changes in temperature, by citing many well-documented cases where just the opposite occurred, over periods ranging from months to millennia, reminding us that correlation does not prove causation and that cause must precede effect.

He(?) spotted the fake numbers.

i am, in fact, of the male persuasion.

and spotting fake numbers from global warming deniers is somethng of a hobby of mine. sorta like spotting downright silly arguments from creationists. its fun and easy, and yet every once in awhile they throw something novel and challenging at you. though i haven't seen either group be right about much of anything yet. maybe one day.

Ok...

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/sir_robert_may_annotated.htm

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

http://www.henrythornton.com/article.asp?article_id=3011

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D36D.htm

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm

Fallacy 1: Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at alarming rates. It just ain't so, according to de Freitas, who notes that annual CO2 concentration increases appear to be leveling off in recent years. He also wonders what is alarming about the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, which dramatically stimulates the growth rates and enhances the water use efficiencies of essentially all of earth's plants.

Fallacy 2: Humans are big players in the global carbon cycle. In reality, says de Freitas, "anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only about 3% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon." He also notes that the increase in the air's CO2 content over the past few centuries could well have been the result of earth's oceans giving off the gas in response to the planet's recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Fallacy 3: There is a close relationship between changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature. De Freitas debunks the implied message of this myth, i.e., that it is changes in CO2 that drive changes in temperature, by citing many well-documented cases where just the opposite occurred, over periods ranging from months to millennia, reminding us that correlation does not prove causation and that cause must precede effect.

Nope. Doesn't qualify as interesting.

If I wanted to read random crap, I have Google too. I don't read all the results of a search. Only the ones that are relevant and reliable. Try it sometime.

I already laid out some of the most authoritative and reliable sources earlier in the thread. That you can find a few rogues who disagree with the scientific consensus is neither suprising nor interesting.

YAWN. Go back under the bridge and plot some more.

Nope. Doesn't qualify as interesting.


Would you please make up your mind...

You asked for "something new" not "something interesting"...

If YOU don't care to try and enlighten YOURSELF with new information, then perhaps you shouldn't ASK for IT!?!?

Regards,
Gaar

Perhaps YOU would be good enough to SHOW ME where this link YOU provided adresses ANY of the Science BEHIND the GreenHouse Effect, other than to say that it's getting warmer so it must be our fault?!?!...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/index.cfm

Doesn't that sound a lot like what this one refutes...

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

The Scientific Foundation for Climate Theories

Global warming that is allegedly caused by man-made emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, is a hypothesis based on computer modeling and theoretical arguments. The most impor-tant foundation for this hypothesis is the analysis of greenhouse gases in ice cores from Green-land and Antarctica. From these results, glaciologists have inferred that the CO2 content in the pre-industrial atmosphere was 26 percent lower than it is now. In several papers published du-ring the last decade, however, it has been demonstrated that the ice core studies are tainted by the manipulation of data, the illegitimate rejection of inconvenient results, and one-sided interpretations – all of which disqualify these studies as a reliable source of ínformation on atmospheric changes during past ages.

The low concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases found in air inclusions in the ice, are artifacts resulting from a variety of more than 20 chemical and physical processes that either occur in the polar ice sheets or result from coring the ice; they are not the real concen-trations in the pre-industrial atmosphere. Most of these processes tend to decrease the con-centration of CO2 in the gas inclusions. These factors were all but ignored by glaciologists in their unilateral interpretations of their analytical results.25-33

On the other hand a meticulous analysis of the abundant 19th century measurements of CO2 in air, show that its average atmospheric concentration before 1900 was 335 parts per million by volume (ppmv)34 – that is, similar to the CO, concentration in 1978.

Recently, it was found that there is an inverse relationship between atmospheric CO2 concen-tration and stomatal frequency in tree leaves, and that this phenomenon provides an accurate method for detecting and quantifying century-scale CO2 fluctuations. Birch leaves recovered from Holocene-era lake deposits in Denmark by a team of Dutch scientists, for example, demon-strate that 9,600 years before the present (YBP), the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 348 ppmv – the same as the CO2 concentration in 1987. From 9,600 YBP until about 9,400 YBP, the CO2 levels remained between 333 and 347 ppmv. So, in contrast to the much touted ice core estimates, the stomatal frequency signal shows that early Holocene CO2 concentrations were similar to those at the end of 20th century.

The authors of the Dutch study stated: "Our results contradict the concept of relatively stabilized Holocene CO, concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revo!ution."35 The tree leaf studies corroborate the criticism of ice core studies and destroy the very foundation of the global warming hypothesis.

Would you please make up your mind...

You asked for "something new" not "something interesting"...

If YOU don't care to try and enlighten YOURSELF with new information, then perhaps you shouldn't ASK for IT!?!?

Regards,
Gaar

LOL. :D

That had to be a deliberate joke. You really are good.

I've MADE up my MIND: new AND interesting, please.

LOL. :D

That had to be a deliberate joke. You really are good.

I've MADE up my MIND: new AND interesting, please.

And while MOST People who do not espouse the Human factor as YOU do willingly admit to the MAJOR ROLE Water Vapor plays in the equation, while attempting to READ THROUGH the REAMS of MISINFORMATION that YOU have SUPPLIED, THIS is the ONLY reference, so far, that I have found that even admits it plays a role...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html#wv

Water Vapor

Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its conentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.

As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when its warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.
______________________________

And HERE they even ADMIT it is the most abundant gas and then go on to admit they don't REALLY KNOW what TRUE Roll it plays in the entire System, and then ISN'T even recognized in later "equations" on the Human affect...

Why do YOU suppose that is?

Regards,
Gaar

Perhaps YOU would be good enough to SHOW ME where this link YOU provided adresses ANY of the Science BEHIND the GreenHouse Effect, other than to say that it's getting warmer so it must be our fault?!?!...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/index.cfm

Doesn't that sound a lot like what this one refutes...

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

[snip]


Try clicking on some of the little linky things on the side that go into more detail. You started on the summary page.

And, yes, I take the word of the scientific consensus over one guy in Poland who disagrees.

Back under the bridge. ;)

And then most of the rest of the crap YOU linked to said we are seeing Warming like we haven't seen in 10,000 years...

And yet.

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

Temperature Changes: The Long Cycles

The CO2 content in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperature have never been stable; they have fluctuated since the dawn of time. Geological evidence shows that the atmospheric con-centration of CO2 which is now about 350 ppmv, was about 5,600 ppmv in the late Ordovician, 440 million years ago;36 340 million years ago, in the Carboniferous period, it was 4,000 ppmv; and about 90 million years ago, in the Cretaceous period, it was about 2,600 ppmv. These extremely high concentrations were obviously not associated with a "runaway greenhouse effect," the mantra of the global warming propagandists.

For the past 100 million years, the average surface temperature of the Earth and the atmosphe-ric CO2 level have been decreasing systematically.37 About 50 million years ago, the CO2 con-centration (2,000 ppmv) was almost six-fold higher than now, but air temperature was higher by only 1.5°C. In the Ordovician, when the CO2 content in air was 16 times higher than it is now, the air temperature in the tropics was not increased, and in the high latitudes, there was the glaciation of Gondwanaland.36

The reason for the lack of relationship between the temperature changes and CO2 concentra-tion in past epochs is that it is not CO2, but water, H2O, that is the main greenhouse gas. It is also the case that increasing CO2 concentration above a certain, rather low level cannot incre-ase the air temperature (see below). It was not CO2 that determined the permanent oscillations of Earth’s climate in the past, but rather changes of the solar constant; these are in step with clirnatic oscillations with a periodicity of about 2,500 years. This is suggested inter alia by gla-cial deposits on the bottorn of the North Atlantic, salt deposits in the glaciers and in the ocea-nic sediments, and the carbon-13 content of tree rings.38

In the longer time scale, the duration of alternating and asymmetric cycles of long glaciations, and much shorter warm inter-glacial periods, was from 20,000 to 400,000 years. Since about 2 million years ago, one cycle has typically lasted about 100,000 years, with glacial cycles that were about 90,000 years long, and warm periods that were about 10,000 years long.6, 40, 41 During the last 85Ó,OOO years, there have been seven or eight such cycles (Figure 1). The temperature difference between the warm and cool phases is 3°C to 7°C.42

The present warm period started about 10,500 years ago,6 and thus one may expect the co-ming of the new Ice Age soon, perhaps in the next hundred or thousand years. After a Climatic Optimum around 800 YBP, there was a Little Ice Age between 1550 and 1700, when the ave-rage surface temperature of the globe was about 1°C lower than it is now (Figures l and 2). After 1750, the climate began to warm again, but we still have not reached the warmth of the 12th century (Figure 2). An acceleration of warming occurred around 1938, and then for 40 years, until 1976, the globe was cooling. Between 1976 and 1984, there was a rapid increase of the global surface temperature. The 40-year-long period of cooling of the global atmosphere between 1938 and 1976 occurred when about 75 percent of the total mass of man-made CO2 was released into the atmosphere (Figure 3). It is obvious that all these changes were not dependent on the anthropogenic emission of CO2.

And while MOST People who do not espouse the Human factor as YOU do willingly admit to the MAJOR ROLE Water Vapor plays in the equation, while attempting to READ THROUGH the REAMS of MISINFORMATION that YOU have SUPPLIED, THIS is the ONLY reference, so far, that I have found that even admits it plays a role...

[snip]
______________________________

And HERE they even ADMIT it is the most abundant gas and then go on to admit they don't REALLY KNOW what TRUE Roll it plays in the entire System, and then ISN'T even recognized in later "equations" on the Human affect...

Why do YOU suppose that is?

Regards,
Gaar

Still not intelligent discourse. I've tired of this game. Rant to yourself for a while.

Have fun under the bridge.

The present warm period started about 10,500 years ago,6 and thus one may expect the co-ming of the new Ice Age soon, perhaps in the next hundred or thousand years. After a Climatic Optimum around 800 YBP, there was a Little Ice Age between 1550 and 1700, when the ave-rage surface temperature of the globe was about 1°C lower than it is now (Figures l and 2). After 1750, the climate began to warm again, but we still have not reached the warmth of the 12th century (Figure 2). An acceleration of warming occurred around 1938, and then for 40 years, until 1976, the globe was cooling. Between 1976 and 1984, there was a rapid increase of the global surface temperature. The 40-year-long period of cooling of the global atmosphere between 1938 and 1976 occurred when about 75 percent of the total mass of man-made CO2 was released into the atmosphere (Figure 3). It is obvious that all these changes were not dependent on the anthropogenic emission of CO2.

Huh, anyone now wonder why they choose a number like 10,000 years?!?!

ROTFLMAO!!!

I guess if they had said 20,000 Years they would have been a bunch of LIARS!

ROTFLMAO!!!

Regards,
Gaar

Huh, anyone now wonder why they choose a number like 10,000 years?!?!

ROTFLMAO!!!

I guess if they had said 20,000 Years they would have been a bunch of LIARS!

ROTFLMAO!!!

Regards,
Gaar

Wow. If we leave you alone, you argue with yourself. Talk about cruel and unusual punishment ...

I almost feel sorry for you. Must get lonely under the bridge.

Tell me Urantia II, and this is by no means intended as an offensive statement, but have you ever considered taking sedatives?

Wow. If we leave you alone, you argue with yourself. Talk about cruel and unusual punishment ...

I almost feel sorry for you. Must get lonely under the bridge.

What's wrong Cat? Having some PROBLEMS following your OWN ADVICE?!?!

Don't like it when someone has totally refuted the links YOU believed to be so "Authortarian?"

Perhaps it would be best if you just went away, like YOU keep saying you are going to?!?!

Otherwise, you wouldn't mind ADDRESSING just ONE of the ACTUAL Questions I have asked about YOUR LINKS, would you?!?!

That's what I thought...

EDIT: By the way cat... That was a link YOU provided and the information coming from it I was laughing at, not myself.

Regards,
Gaar

Wow. If we leave you alone, you argue with yourself. Talk about cruel and unusual punishment ...

I almost feel sorry for you. Must get lonely under the bridge.

Hmmm...

Oh, I agree with you about Urantia II's behavior. That is why I will not argue with him. It gives literal meaning to this:

Unfortunately, two wrongs don't make a right. And, purely from a practical point of view, it is my understanding that the Mods won't excuse retaliation. (In fact, sometimes its like in sports, when the ref only sees the retaliation. Don't assume the Mods would even agree that Urantia II crossed the line.)

As I said, friendly advice. Nothing more. Don't mean to preach or be some unofficial Mod.

Talk about not being able to take ones OWN advice... :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

Huh, anyone now wonder why they choose a number like 10,000 years?!?!

ROTFLMAO!!!

I guess if they had said 20,000 Years they would have been a bunch of LIARS!

ROTFLMAO!!!

Regards,
Gaar

This is art...

I'm expecting a sort of 'digital-pop-noise'...

as, left to your own devices for a sufficiently long time...

I suspect you would argue yourself out of existence.... :)

This is art...

I'm expecting a sort of 'digital-pop-noise'...

as, left to your own devices for a sufficiently long time...

I suspect you would argue yourself out of existence.... :)

Something about quoting someone ELSE'S Source and refuting it YOU don't get?

Cat, offered links which expressed the first quote of 10,000 years, I provided information which showed JUST why they would offer that number rather rhan say 100,000 years...

Something wrong with that, in your mind?

Regards,
Gaar

Something about quoting someone ELSE'S Source and refuting it YOU don't get?

Cat, offered links which expressed the first quote of 10,000 years, I provided information which showed JUST why they would offer that number rather rhan say 100,000 years...

Something wrong with that, in your mind?

Regards,
Gaar

Take it easy, my friend.

I find it amusing that you post a response about "10,000 years", and then seem to come back and ATTACK your own "10,000 years" post.

It's like a form of digital cannibalism... you set up your own post, then rush back in and take bites at it.

You don't find that amusing?

What's wrong Cat? Having some PROBLEMS following your OWN ADVICE?!?!

Don't like it when someone has totally refuted the links YOU believed to be so "Authortarian?"

Perhaps it would be best if you just went away, like YOU keep saying you are going to?!?!

Otherwise, you wouldn't mind ADDRESSING just ONE of the ACTUAL Questions I have asked about YOUR LINKS, would you?!?!

That's what I thought...

EDIT: By the way cat... That was a link YOU provided and the information coming from it I was laughing at, not myself.

Regards,
Gaar

Nice try, but I just can't argue with you as well as you argue with yourself.

Unfortunately, it must be getting hard for you to keep track of your own rants -- the bridge must be getting to you -- so I'll help you out.

Let's see.

Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8505681&postcount=65) you posted this:

Ok...

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/sir_robert_may_annotated.htm

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

http://www.henrythornton.com/article.asp?article_id=3011

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D36D.htm

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm

[snip]



Note the bolded link.

Then, here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8506045), you posted this:

And then most of the rest of the crap YOU linked to said we are seeing Warming like we haven't seen in 10,000 years...

And yet.

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

Temperature Changes: The Long Cycles

The CO2 content in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperature have never been stable; they have fluctuated since the dawn of time. Geological evidence shows that the atmospheric con-centration of CO2 which is now about 350 ppmv, was about 5,600 ppmv in the late Ordovician, 440 million years ago;36 340 million years ago, in the Carboniferous period, it was 4,000 ppmv; and about 90 million years ago, in the Cretaceous period, it was about 2,600 ppmv. These extremely high concentrations were obviously not associated with a "runaway greenhouse effect," the mantra of the global warming propagandists.

[snip]

The present warm period started about 10,500 years ago,6 and thus one may expect the co-ming of the new Ice Age soon, perhaps in the next hundred or thousand years. After a Climatic Optimum around 800 YBP, there was a Little Ice Age between 1550 and 1700, when the ave-rage surface temperature of the globe was about 1°C lower than it is now (Figures l and 2). After 1750, the climate began to warm again, but we still have not reached the warmth of the 12th century (Figure 2). An acceleration of warming occurred around 1938, and then for 40 years, until 1976, the globe was cooling. Between 1976 and 1984, there was a rapid increase of the global surface temperature. The 40-year-long period of cooling of the global atmosphere between 1938 and 1976 occurred when about 75 percent of the total mass of man-made CO2 was released into the atmosphere (Figure 3). It is obvious that all these changes were not dependent on the anthropogenic emission of CO2.

You'll note the last paragraph is a quote from your source - the same one that was bolded earlier.

Then you posted this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8506060&postcount=75):


The present warm period started about 10,500 years ago,6 and thus one may expect the co-ming of the new Ice Age soon, perhaps in the next hundred or thousand years. After a Climatic Optimum around 800 YBP, there was a Little Ice Age between 1550 and 1700, when the ave-rage surface temperature of the globe was about 1°C lower than it is now (Figures l and 2). After 1750, the climate began to warm again, but we still have not reached the warmth of the 12th century (Figure 2). An acceleration of warming occurred around 1938, and then for 40 years, until 1976, the globe was cooling. Between 1976 and 1984, there was a rapid increase of the global surface temperature. The 40-year-long period of cooling of the global atmosphere between 1938 and 1976 occurred when about 75 percent of the total mass of man-made CO2 was released into the atmosphere (Figure 3). It is obvious that all these changes were not dependent on the anthropogenic emission of CO2.



Huh, anyone now wonder why they choose a number like 10,000 years?!?!

ROTFLMAO!!!

I guess if they had said 20,000 Years they would have been a bunch of LIARS!

ROTFLMAO!!!

Regards,
Gaar

QED. You were arguing with (and making fun of) yourself. I really can't compete. :( :D

You were arguing with yourself. I really can't compete. :( :D

Like I said... it's art.

A kind of macabre, gruesome, self-cannibalistic form of art, I admit.

:)

Nice try, but I just can't argue with you as well as you argue with yourself.

Unfortunately, it must be getting hard for you to keep track of your own rants -- the bridge must be getting to you -- so I'll help you out.

Let's see.

Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8505681&postcount=65) you posted this:

Note the bolded link.

Then, here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8506045), you posted this:

You'll note the last paragraph is a quote from your source - the same one that was bolded earlier.

Then you posted this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8506060&postcount=75):

QED. You were arguing with (and making fun of) yourself. I really can't compete. :( :D

MY rants?

Weren't YOU earlier saying that i was cutting and pasting and had no thought of my own?

Now you are going to "accuse" me of something YOU don't likely get YOURSELF?

Perhaps YOU should READ the INFORMATION and see just how EACH "THEORY" (yes, that's why I supply YOU with multiple so that YOU can see that there are MANY DIFFERENT Theories out there and NOT JUST those that YOU Espouse) actually DISPUTES all of that trite that YOU LINKED TO earlier...

Why is it YOU don't address ANY of THAT?

Regards,
Gaar

this is becoming rather sad.

*looks at posts that followed*

i stand corrected - this is priceless

Nice try, but I just can't argue with you as well as you argue with yourself.

Unfortunately, it must be getting hard for you to keep track of your own rants -- the bridge must be getting to you -- so I'll help you out.

Let's see.

Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8505681&postcount=65) you posted this:

Note the bolded link.

Then, here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8506045), you posted this:

You'll note the last paragraph is a quote from your source - the same one that was bolded earlier.

Then you posted this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8506060&postcount=75):

QED. You were arguing with (and making fun of) yourself. I really can't compete. :( :D

I see where YOUR difficulty is coming in...

YOU believe I was quoting a Source of YOURS when in fact the quote was from a Source I was giving to refute a prior Source of yours...

I ASSUMED YOU KNEW the Information YOU were Espousing here and didn't BOTHER to provide a LINK to the Source of YOUR information andd merely 'semi-quoted' the information presented.

Do you need me to go get the LINK YOU provided so YOU CAN SEE the information that YOU have Espoused here?

Regards,
Gaar

Here Cat, since YOU are having so much trouble remembering just what it is YOU are Espousing here...

Your link...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1264

Quote from YOUR LINK...

"2) Over the course of this century, the Earth is expected to warm an additional 2.5 to 10.5 °F, depending on future emissions levels and on the climate sensitivity—a sustained global rate of change exceeding any in the last 10,000 years;"

So please again, just how was I arguing with MYSELF AGAIN?

That's what I thought...

Care to continue so you may continue in YOUR Hypocrisy?

Either way is ok with me, I am having a BLAST! :D

Isn't this FUN!

Regards,
Gaar

This thread is making my head hurt.

I see where YOUR difficulty is coming in...

YOU believe I was quoting a Source of YOURS when in fact the quote was from a Source I was giving to refute a prior Source of yours...

I ASSUMED YOU KNEW the Information YOU were Espousing here and didn't BOTHER to provide a LINK to the Source of YOUR information andd merely 'semi-quoted' the information presented.

Do you need me to go get the LINK YOU provided so YOU CAN SEE the information that YOU have Espoused here?

Regards,
Gaar

I think the 'difficulty' of which you speak - is that you are in WAY over your head.

All of your base are belong to Cat.

You attack your OWN posts, and you seem incapable of comprehending that an average background level IS the cumulative value... just as examples.

My advice, my friend, would be to quietly admit utter defeat on this one.

If your contribution to this debate were an island, The Cat-Tribe would be carefully placing a little flag marked "Pwned" on the beach...

This thread is making my head hurt.

I have to admit, I wandered in expecting the usual rough and tumble of optimists and pessimists.... but, I stayed for the one-ring circus...

You attack your OWN posts, and you seem incapable of comprehending that an average background level IS the cumulative value... just as examples...

Sorry, I understand the "cumulative levels", try taking a look at what those levels were "estimated" at being over the course of the Earth, as cited in many of the references I have given, and you will see that what we are experiencing today is far from the extremes the Earth has seen WITHOUT Human interference...

Regards,
Gaar

but, I stayed for the one-ring circus...

after the clown drives off in that tiny little car, i highly recommend checking out the bearded lady

You attack your OWN posts,

Obviously YOU haven't READ what Cat was ESPOUSING EITHER if YOU think I was countering MY OWN Argument...

Care to try again? I am pretty sure I cited Cat's OWN Source for her, YOU need me to do it AGAIN?

Regards,
Gaar

Sorry, I understand the "cumulative levels", try taking a look at what those levels were "estimated" at being over the course of the Earth, as cited in many of the references I have given, and you will see that what we are experiencing today is far from the extremes the Earth has seen WITHOUT Human interference...

Regards,
Gaar

If you understand 'cumulative' levels.... why were you ADDING TOGETHER background levels?

Don't you get it?

If, in year one, the background level is 200ppm, and in year two, the background level is 200ppm...

The cumulative level is 200ppm...

Not 400ppm, as your 'math' would have implied.

Go back and read your own posts, friend.

They are NOT helping you.

What is it they say?

"It's hard to Soar like an Eagle when you are working with a BUNCH of Turkey's"... Or was it... "You can Lead a Horse to water..."

Oh never mind, someone might ask for a "Source" for that and I'm not real sure...

:rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

Obviously YOU haven't READ what Cat was ESPOUSING EITHER if YOU think I was countering MY OWN Argument...

Care to try again? I am pretty sure I cited Cat's OWN Source for her, YOU need me to do it AGAIN?

Regards,
Gaar

Is there something wrong with your 'Caps Lock'?

I assume you know how to scroll back through pages of the thread, yes?

Take a little sojourn back a page or so, to the post I first replied to... where you take your own post, and savage it...

You seem to be having problems, my friend... and I do not wish to exacerbate them... I would recommend, however, that you might wish to consider silence as a 'best' policy.

Cat-Tribes has (have?) taken you apart... you're dead, and you haven't even realised.

If you have something 'new' or 'valid', you should probably post it... otherwise...

man i did this for science last year in school, makes me wished i had of saved it or learned from it or something. anyway, heres wat i think i can remember:

Greenhouse effect= good, essential to life on earth
there is a natural amount of greenhouse gases that get emitted by plants, animals and the like, naturally, just alot slower than we are doing it.

If we keep emiting greenhouse gases then well add o the greenhouse effect, effectively heating up the world alot, killing lots of species of animals, turning rain forests into deserts and the such.

Thats pretty much all i can remember for now, hope it helped people.

after the clown drives off in that tiny little car, i highly recommend checking out the bearded lady

Well, the Bearded-Lady WAS on the list... but I never expected the clown-show to be THIS good.... :)

If you understand 'cumulative' levels.... why were you ADDING TOGETHER background levels?

Don't you get it?

If, in year one, the background level is 200ppm, and in year two, the background level is 200ppm...

The cumulative level is 200ppm...

Not 400ppm, as your 'math' would have implied.

Go back and read your own posts, friend.

They are NOT helping you.

Yes, I was wrong there in incorrectly citing note 6 as the Source and trying to extrapolate information where none existed...

The proper citing should have been note 7 which says...

7Current CO2 concentration (374.9 ppm) is the average of the 2003 annual values at Barrow, Alaska; Mauna Loa, Hawaii, American Samoa, and the South Pole (one high-latitude and one low-latitude station from each hemisphere). Refer to C.D. Keeling and T. P. Whorf for records back to the late 1950s. Ice-core records provide records of earlier concentrations. For concentrations back to about 1775, see A. Neftel et al.; for concentrations back to about 1000 A.D., see D.M. Etheridge et al.; and for over 400,000 years of ice-core record from Vostok, see J.M. Barnola et al. All these data are available from CDIAC.

And links to this information...

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/siple.htm

Which is then where they extrapolate the "yearly totals" to come up with the numbers in that Table.

So yes, I was wrong, and should have taken more time to fully look into the citings of information, as others have obviously NOT DONE here also...

I apologize for the misinformation and encourage you to look at the actual information which DOES support the numbers in the Tables in question.

Regards,
Gaar

Obviously YOU haven't READ what Cat was ESPOUSING EITHER if YOU think I was countering MY OWN Argument...

Care to try again? I am pretty sure I cited Cat's OWN Source for her, YOU need me to do it AGAIN?

Regards,
Gaar

Um, I'm a he. But I take no offense. Just for the record.

Well, the Bearded-Lady WAS on the list... but I never expected the clown-show to be THIS good....

Your contributions are most welcome. There is plenty of room in the tent for all to join in the fun.

The audience does make this even more enjoyable. :D

What is it they say?

"It's hard to Soar like an Eagle when you are working with a BUNCH of Turkey's"... Or was it... "You can Lead a Horse to water..."

Oh never mind, someone might ask for a "Source" for that and I'm not real sure...



Regards,
Gaar

Getting testy, are we? Perhaps we should go back under the bridge for a nap.

Yes, I was wrong there in incorrectly citing note 6 as the Source and trying to extrapolate information where none existed...

The proper citing should have been note 7 which says...

7Current CO2 concentration (374.9 ppm) is the average of the 2003 annual values at Barrow, Alaska; Mauna Loa, Hawaii, American Samoa, and the South Pole (one high-latitude and one low-latitude station from each hemisphere). Refer to C.D. Keeling and T. P. Whorf for records back to the late 1950s. Ice-core records provide records of earlier concentrations. For concentrations back to about 1775, see A. Neftel et al.; for concentrations back to about 1000 A.D., see D.M. Etheridge et al.; and for over 400,000 years of ice-core record from Vostok, see J.M. Barnola et al. All these data are available from CDIAC.

And links to this information...

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/siple.htm

Which is then where they extrapolate the "yearly totals" to come up with the numbers in that Table.

So yes, I was wrong, and should have taken more time to fully look into the citings of information, as others have obviously NOT DONE here also...

I apologize for the misinformation and encourage you to look at the actual information which DOES support the numbers in the Tables in question.

Regards,
Gaar

Admitting an error? After telling us we didn't know how to READ or to use a CALCULATOR re this point? I'm almost disappointed.

Care to point out where either the new quote or the link supports your point? 'Cuz they don't.

In fact, the cited source say the same thing as the other quote:

Neftel et al. (1985) concluded that the atmospheric CO2 concentration ca. 1750 was 280±5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) and that it increased by 22.5% to 345 ppmv in 1984 essentially because of human factors. Graphs in Friedli et al. (1986) also reported that the preindustrial (pre-1800) CO2 concentration was ~280 ppmv.

Neither the new quote nor the cited source use the phrase "yearly totals."

Back under the bridge to plot some more.

*snip*

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUM9T/$File/ghg_gwp.pdf

Table 1: Global atmospheric concentration (ppm unless otherwise specified), rate of concentration
change (ppb/year) and atmospheric lifetime (years) of selected greenhouse gases

I believe you will find your numbers there...

EDIT: That Table is EXACTLY as the one YOU and others CLAIM is False.

Now, can we get back to discussing the ISSUE rather than me running around finding the numbers from:

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program
Office of Atmospheric Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 2002

Which were correctly referenced? And might I remind YOU that neither of you found the proper reference either, but CLAIMED the numbers to be FALSE when in fact...

Regards,
Gaar

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUM9T/$File/ghg_gwp.pdf

Table 1: Global atmospheric concentration (ppm unless otherwise specified), rate of concentration
change (ppb/year) and atmospheric lifetime (years) of selected greenhouse gases

I believe you will find your numbers there...

EDIT: That Table is EXACTLY as the one YOU and others CLAIM is False.

Now, can we get back to discussing the ISSUE rather than me running around finding the numbers from:

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program
Office of Atmospheric Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 2002

Which were correctly referenced? And might I remind YOU that neither of you found the proper reference either, but CLAIMED the numbers to be FALSE when in fact...

Regards,
Gaar

You are so LOST you forgot the POINT you were arguing.


now go to the source cited for that number:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

take a good long look around, and tell me where the hell that 11,880 came from. it isn't there. at all. now tell me where they got the 68,520 number for 'natural additions'. cause it ain't there either. no source for numbers that seemed fishy in the first place = me calling bullshit. your website there just made them up. human activity has increased CO2 concentration by more than a third of the baseline, not 'natural additions'.

and since the rest of the article is based on those fictional made up numbers, i think it fair to say we can just toss the whole damn thing.

Your NEW SOURCE says the SAME thing they all have -- background emissions in 1750 were 278ppm (~280ppm). You've been SCRAMBLING to find EVIDENCE for the 68,250ppm for natural admissions. YOU have still FAILED.

And YOU LIED again.

Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to post the Tables here.

BUT Table 1 (http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html) in your ORIGINAL SOURCE is NOT "EXACTLY" like Table 1 (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUM9T/$File/ghg_gwp.pdf) (on page 5) in your NEW SOURCE.

The TABLES are not only NOT IDENTICAL but DIFFER IN CONTENT. Most importantly, the whole point of your argument NATURAL ADMISSIONS is ABSENT in the NEW SOURCE.

And WE did NOT FAIL to find the "proper reference." YOUR SOURCE says it got the table data from "U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1)". When you go to (1), YOUR SOURCE says:

1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html) (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

But when you go to that LINK, the DATA is NOT THERE. YOU been STRUGGLING to recover from this BLUNDER. You STILL ARE.

This has gotten sad. I'm going to bed. Go back under the BRIDGE and ARGUE with YOURSELF until you come with something ELSE.

im confused, what are you guys fighting about? Whether theres a greenhouse effect? Whether where increasing it or what? obioesly the answer to both is yes, disagree? look outside, see that world out there? that needs the greenhouse effect, see those fumes from the cars? those are green house gases, they add to the greenhouse effect. Its that simple.

im confused, what are you guys fighting about? Whether theres a greenhouse effect? Whether where increasing it or what? obioesly the answer to both is yes, disagree? look outside, see that world out there? that needs the greenhouse effect, see those fumes from the cars? those are green house gases, they add to the greenhouse effect. Its that simple.

amen.
you only have to look outside to see that

Fact: Since the Industrial Revolution the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 280ppm to 340 ppm.

Fact: Through the twentieth century the average gloabl temperature rose .6 degrees C (1.1 degrees F).

Fact: That rise in temperature is occuring linearly. In the next 100 years we can expect another half degree rise in temperature.

Fact: Some glaciers are shrinking while others are growing.

Fact: The Antarctic Peninsula (that long arm that sticks out of the continent)is getting warmer melting the ice there.

Fact: The interior of Antarctica has been cooling at a rate of .7 degrees C per decade since the 70s.

Is there something wrong with your 'Caps Lock'?

I assume you know how to scroll back through pages of the thread, yes?

Take a little sojourn back a page or so, to the post I first replied to... where you take your own post, and savage it...

You seem to be having problems, my friend... and I do not wish to exacerbate them... I would recommend, however, that you might wish to consider silence as a 'best' policy.

Cat-Tribes has (have?) taken you apart... you're dead, and you haven't even realised.

If you have something 'new' or 'valid', you should probably post it... otherwise...

So let me get this straight...

Cat Tribes HAS sent me on a "wild goose chase" to find ONE NUMBER in a Table from a Site I reference, and that is somehow HIM taking ME apart?!?!

What about ANY of the QUESTIONS I HAVE ASKED OF HIM!?!?

Has SHE ADDRESSED the Question of the FAILURE of the links SHE provides to significantly ADDRESS the ROLL OF WATER Vapor in the Equation?

If she HAS, YOU wouldn't mind POINTING OUT just where SHE DID, would you?

So, it is ok for ONE SIDE to be held to a standard of "tracking down" every little number in a Table, but not the OTHERS to justify the nearly non-recognition of the most MAJOR CAUSE of the VERY "Effect" we are disussing?

Just how does THAT work, in your mind?

Let's say for now, since I haven't and don't plan on spending ANY MORE TIME being Cat's personal Reference locator, that I conceede the point that the ONE NUMBER in the Table, is unReferenced... Does that make the argument they are making about the Total "man-made" Affect on the ENTIRE GreenHouse Theory any less crdible? Let's "pretend" that the Site I have referenced HAS overstated the case by a factor and that man's Total Affect is close to an ENTIRE Percentage point and not just the fraction they cite, does that change the FACT that we will not be able to make ANY significant difference with the minimal "changes" the Kyoto Accords are asking for? And then what about the Affect those changes would have on the Economy?
________________________________________
" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal
_________________________________________

Can we GET BACK to discussing the ISSUE, or are we going to continue these "Web searches" for one side while the other ignores anything asked of it and simply tries to "control" the discussion through yet EVEN MORE "changing" of the SUBJECT?

Or HAS MY SIDE LOST because I couldn't find a number?

ROTFLMAO!

Regards,
Gaar

So let me get this straight...

Cat Tribes HAS sent me on a "wild goose chase" to find ONE NUMBER in a Table from a Site I reference, and that is somehow HER taking ME apart?!?!

What about ANY of the QUESTIONS I HAVE ASKED OF HER!?!?

Has SHE ADDRESSED the Question of the FAILURE of the links SHE provides to significantly ADDRESS the ROLL OF WATER Vapor in the Equation?

If she HAS, YOU wouldn't mind POINTING OUT just where SHE DID, would you?

So, it is ok for ONE SIDE to be held to a standard of "tracking down" every little number in a Table, but not the OTHERS to justify the nearly non-recognition of the most MAJOR CAUSE of the VERY "Effect" we are disussing?

Just how does THAT work, in your mind?

Let's say for now, since I haven't and don't plan on spending ANY MORE TIME being Cat's personal Reference locator, that I conceede the point that the ONE NUMBER in the Table, is unReferenced... Does that make the argument they are making about the Total "man-made" Affect on the ENTIRE GreenHouse Theory? Let's "pretend" that the cite I have referenced HAS overstated the case by a factor and that man's Total Affect is close to an ENTIRE Percentage point and not just the fraction they cite, does that change the FACT that we will not be able to make ANY significant difference with the minimal "changes" the Kyoto Accords are asking for? And then what about the Affect those changes would have on the Economy?

Or HAS MY SIDE been LOST because I coouldn't find a number?

ROTFLMAO!

Regards,
Gaar

As you've been TOLD BEFORE, I am a HE. A man. A male of the species.

I take NO OFFENSE at being called A SHE. But this is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of your BLINDNESS to simple TRUTH.

YOU cited a SOURCE. New Soviets (not I) pointed out YOUR SOURCE was PULLING NUMBERS out of THIN AIR. Your SOURCE actually provided a REFERENCE but the reference DID NOT SUPPORT your source. You angrily CLAIMED it DID.

After making a complete FOOL of YOURSELF, you ADMITTED you were WRONG. But then YOU tried to CLAIM another portion of the REFERENCE supported YOUR SOURCE. Again, YOU were PROVEN WRONG.

NOW, YOU have tried to CLAIM a NEW SOURCE was the REAL REFERENCE. I've POINTED OUT this is a LIE in TWO RESPECTS: (1) YOUR SOURCE cites a DIFFERENT REFERENCE and (2) the NEW REFERENCE does NOT SUPPORT your SOURCE.

Give it up. Go back under the bridge.

Fact: Since the Industrial Revolution the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from 280ppm to 340 ppm.

Fact: Through the twentieth century the average gloabl temperature rose .6 degrees C (1.1 degrees F).

Fact: That rise in temperature is occuring linearly. In the next 100 years we can expect another half degree rise in temperature.

Fact: Some glaciers are shrinking while others are growing.

Fact: The Antarctic Peninsula (that long arm that sticks out of the continent)is getting warmer melting the ice there.

Fact: The interior of Antarctica has been cooling at a rate of .7 degrees C per decade since the 70s.

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

Temperature Changes: The Long Cycles

The CO2 content in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperature have never been stable; they have fluctuated since the dawn of time. Geological evidence shows that the atmospheric con-centration of CO2 which is now about 350 ppmv, was about 5,600 ppmv in the late Ordovician, 440 million years ago;36 340 million years ago, in the Carboniferous period, it was 4,000 ppmv; and about 90 million years ago, in the Cretaceous period, it was about 2,600 ppmv. These extremely high concentrations were obviously not associated with a "runaway greenhouse effect," the mantra of the global warming propagandists.

For the past 100 million years, the average surface temperature of the Earth and the atmosphe-ric CO2 level have been decreasing systematically.37 About 50 million years ago, the CO2 con-centration (2,000 ppmv) was almost six-fold higher than now, but air temperature was higher by only 1.5°C. In the Ordovician, when the CO2 content in air was 16 times higher than it is now, the air temperature in the tropics was not increased, and in the high latitudes, there was the glaciation of Gondwanaland.36

The reason for the lack of relationship between the temperature changes and CO2 concentra-tion in past epochs is that it is not CO2, but water, H2O, that is the main greenhouse gas. It is also the case that increasing CO2 concentration above a certain, rather low level cannot incre-ase the air temperature (see below). It was not CO2 that determined the permanent oscillations of Earth’s climate in the past, but rather changes of the solar constant; these are in step with clirnatic oscillations with a periodicity of about 2,500 years. This is suggested inter alia by gla-cial deposits on the bottorn of the North Atlantic, salt deposits in the glaciers and in the ocea-nic sediments, and the carbon-13 content of tree rings.38

In the longer time scale, the duration of alternating and asymmetric cycles of long glaciations, and much shorter warm inter-glacial periods, was from 20,000 to 400,000 years. Since about 2 million years ago, one cycle has typically lasted about 100,000 years, with glacial cycles that were about 90,000 years long, and warm periods that were about 10,000 years long.6, 40, 41 During the last 85Ó,OOO years, there have been seven or eight such cycles (Figure 1). The temperature difference between the warm and cool phases is 3°C to 7°C.42

As you've been TOLD BEFORE, I am a HE. A man. A male of the species.

I take NO OFFENSE at being called A SHE. But this is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of your BLINDNESS to simple TRUTH.


Actually, I saw that AFTER I posted, and corrected it BEFORE your little rant...

Sorry for the confussion.

Actually, I saw that AFTER I posted, and corrected it BEFORE your little rant...

Sorry for the confussion.

No need to apologize.

Its unfortunate that, as you admit, you hadn't read posts from last night before continuing YOUR little rants.

And, gee, you seem pretty quite about YOUR LIES I have pointed out.

I'll leave you for others to dissect for a while. If no one does, you can return to arguing with yourself. Have fun.

As you've been TOLD BEFORE, I am a HE. A man. A male of the species.

I take NO OFFENSE at being called A SHE. But this is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of your BLINDNESS to simple TRUTH.

YOU cited a SOURCE. New Soviets (not I) pointed out YOUR SOURCE was PULLING NUMBERS out of THIN AIR. Your SOURCE actually provided a REFERENCE but the reference DID NOT SUPPORT your source. You angrily CLAIMED it DID.

After making a complete FOOL of YOURSELF, you ADMITTED you were WRONG. But then YOU tried to CLAIM another portion of the REFERENCE supported YOUR SOURCE. Again, YOU were PROVEN WRONG.

NOW, YOU have tried to CLAIM a NEW SOURCE was the REAL REFERENCE. I've POINTED OUT this is a LIE in TWO RESPECTS: (1) YOUR SOURCE cites a DIFFERENT REFERENCE and (2) the NEW REFERENCE does NOT SUPPORT your SOURCE.

Give it up. Go back under the bridge.

By the way...

Are YOU ever going to ADDRESS a SINGLE QUESTION ASKED of YOU?

Or is YOUR "OUT" a simple... Go back under your Bridge... As it has been just about every time YOU are asked to SUPPORT YOUR SIDE!?!?

And then you get all indignant when an insult is tossed YOUR way, how does that work?

Care to come back to the ISSUES? Or are you here merely to disrupt the discussion and continue to take it "Off the Subject" and make the Subject ME?!?!

Isn't that another of those "fallacious" argument types?

That's what I though...

Regards,
Gaar

No need to apologize.

Its unfortunate that, as you admit, you hadn't read posts from last night before continuing YOUR little rants.

And, gee, you seem pretty quite about YOUR LIES I have pointed out.

I'll leave you for others to dissect for a while. If no one does, you can return to arguing with yourself. Have fun.

Sorry, I was taking them "in order"...

DO YOU have some other "System" for doing such YOU would like to FORCE on me now?

And AGAIN, WHY AM I the SUBJECT? Can WE get BACK to the DISCUSSION, PLEASE!

Now that the personal attacks are done I guess YOU will be leaving?!?!

Figures...

Regards,
Gaar

if everything does go wrong and the ice caps melt, etc. only the walruses will survive. hahahaha then walruses will rule the earth!!!!!



-sry this thread was way to serious. i had to throw in some comedy and idiocy. :)

Let's say for now, since I haven't and don't plan on spending ANY MORE TIME being Cat's personal Reference locator, that I conceede the point that the ONE NUMBER in the Table, is unReferenced... Does that make the argument they are making about the Total "man-made" Affect on the ENTIRE GreenHouse Theory any less crdible?

yes.

the rest of the numbers on that website are derived from their made up numbers about 'natural additions'. for example, it claims (using the numbers it claimed it took from a source that doesn't contain them) that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 makes up 3.225% of the total atmospheric concentration of CO2. in actuality, the anthropogenic contribution is more on the order of 25.33% of the total and rising. likewise, anthropogenic CH4 makes up something on the order of 57.8% of the total CH4 in the atmosphere, rather than 18.338%. and anthropogenic N20 is at about 14.8%, not 4.933%.

none of the numbers on that site is on solid footing - the calculated ones are based on fictional shit, and i don't trust any of the cited ones unless i happen to recognize them as being approximately right from the ipcc reports (a hardcopy of which is sitting on my bookshelf here).

so document these 'natural additions' or give up and never cite that webpage again.

yes.

the rest of the numbers on that website are derived from their made up numbers about 'natural additions'. for example, it claims (using the numbers it claimed it took from a source that doesn't contain them) that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 makes up 3.225% of the total atmospheric concentration of CO2. in actuality, the anthropogenic contribution is more on the order of 25.33% of the total and rising. likewise, anthropogenic CH4 makes up something on the order of 57.8% of the total CH4 in the atmosphere, rather than 18.338%. and anthropogenic N20 is at about 14.8%, not 4.933%.

none of the numbers on that site is on solid footing - the calculated ones are based on fictional shit, and i don't trust any of the cited ones unless i happen to recognize them as being approximately right from the ipcc reports (a hardcopy of which is sitting on my bookshelf here).

so document these 'natural additions' or give up and never cite that webpage again.

And where HAS YOUR NUMBERS INCLUDED the Affects of WATER VAPOR on the GreenHouse Effect?

Unless YOU can SHOW ME where they have taken THAT into account DOCUMENTED and REFERENCED, which I noticed YOU didn't SUPPLY a REFERENCE for the numbers YOU CITE (You wouldn't mind doing that, would you?) then I will ASK YOU not to CITE anything from ANY SITE that doesn't take into account ALL the FACTORS which are part of THIS DISCUSSION, ok?!?!

Even the smallest numbers I have seen give Water Vapor at least a 65% Overall Affect, the one I cited gave it 95% as do many other sources, and I have YET to SEE any of your equations give it ANY Weight what-so-ever...

Why is that?

Regards,
Gaar

And where HAS YOUR NUMBERS INCLUDED the Affects of WATER VAPOR on the GreenHouse Effect?

ok dude, lay off the caps lock.

anyway, what does that have to do with anything? we are talking about the anthropogenic or enhanced greenhouse effect. water vapor is not emitted in any sort of significant amount directly by human activity. its concentration in the atmosphere is largely dependant on the temperature at the surface of the ocean. more importantly, no one denies this and it was not an issue with what i was talking about at all.

I noticed YOU didn't SUPPLY a REFERENCE for the numbers YOU CITE (You wouldn't mind doing that, would you?)

i calculated them using the values given on the agreed upon source that your website cited for its fictional numbers.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

~95 ppmv out of the total 375 ppmv of CO2 is anthropogenic. that equals 25.3% of the total. you can do the math for the rest yourself (well, not you personally, but in theory).

~95 ppmv out of the total 375 ppmv of CO2 is anthropogenic. that equals 25.3% of the total. you can do the math for the rest yourself (well, not you personally, but in theory).

So let me get this straight...

YOU are trying to say that ALL additions are due to man, right?

If so, would YOU please SHOW ME where ANY Source says that "all additions" to the concentration are man-made?!?!

Or is that just something YOU have come up with and we are just supposed to believe it?

Because as I have been pointing out, the Earth has SEEN levels that FAR SURPASS what we are seeing right now, LONG BEFORE man was ever a "part" of the "System" as it were... So perhaps YOU would be kind enought to explain how YOU KNOW this is happening BECAUSE of MAN and it isn't just another one of those "Ice-Ages" getting ready to happen AGAIN, whether we are here or not?

Or is it because YOU say it we are just supposed to believe it?

Regards,
Gaar

anyway, what does that have to do with anything? we are talking about the anthropogenic or enhanced greenhouse effect. water vapor is not emitted in any sort of significant amount directly by human activity. its concentration in the atmosphere is largely dependant on the temperature at the surface of the ocean. more importantly, no one denies this and it was not an issue with what i was talking about at all.


Actually, the THREAD is named "The GreenHouse Effect" NOT "The GreenHouse Effect as seen from JUST Anthropogenic Sources", although I am sure YOU would LIKE it to be...

And so when we discuss the Effect, should we be considering ALL Sources that CAUSE IT when we make ANY EQUATIONS trying to explain what Humans may contribute to the problem? (Hopefully I don't have to say "Overall Problem" to make sure YOU stick to the POINT, do I?)

Regards,
Gaar

So let me get this straight...

YOU are trying to say that ALL additions are due to man, right?

If so, would YOU please SHOW ME where ANY Source says that "all additions" to the concentration are man-made?!?!

Or is that just something YOU have come up with and we are just supposed to believe it?

iirc, anthropogenic emissions actually add up to more carbon than winds up in the atmosphere. what winds up there is the stuff we pump out in too great of quantities at too high a speed to be taken up in non-atmospheric carbon sinks.

this part of the ipcc report goes into it a bit:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/097.htm

iirc, anthropogenic emissions actually add up to more carbon than winds up in the atmosphere. what winds up there is the stuff we pump out in too great of quantities at too high a speed to be taken up in non-atmospheric carbon sinks.

this part of the ipcc report goes into it a bit:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/097.htm

So perhaps YOU would be good enough to explain how this HAS happened BEFORE on Earth on a MUCH LARGER scale WITHOUT ANY Human intervention?

Regards,
Gaar

And where HAS YOUR NUMBERS INCLUDED the Affects of WATER VAPOR on the GreenHouse Effect?

Unless YOU can SHOW ME where they have taken THAT into account DOCUMENTED and REFERENCED, which I noticed YOU didn't SUPPLY a REFERENCE for the numbers YOU CITE (You wouldn't mind doing that, would you?) then I will ASK YOU not to CITE anything from ANY SITE that doesn't take into account ALL the FACTORS which are part of THIS DISCUSSION, ok?!?!

Even the smallest numbers I have seen give Water Vapor at least a 65% Overall Affect, the one I cited gave it 95% as do many other sources, and I have YET to SEE any of your equations give it ANY Weight what-so-ever...

Why is that?

Regards,
Gaar

Okay - let's look at something for a second... wasn't the original source you showed issued by an 'expert' for the Coal industry?

And HE blames water vapour, right?

Ooh - there's a shock... imagine, someone tied to the biggest single polluting industry, trying to point the finger at something else...

Okay - let me explain something to you, water vapour is liberated in greater quantities at higher temperatures, yes? A marginal difference in temperature can create a much greater capacity for liberation of water vapour, yes?

So - when you look at the fact that something like 50% of anthopogenic CO2 production is absorbed into sea water (giving it much higher 'energy'), coupled with the fact that anthropogenic chemicals are causing slight eleveations in sea water temperature, and higher sea water levels (thus giving a higher incentive to form water vapour, and a much greater reaction surface-area)....

Yes - water vapour is a huge contibutor... but it is a secondary source. Your source doesn't track how HUMAN intervention increases the water vapour production... it chooses, instead, to lay the blame on the messenger.

Oh, and I should add for the record: Humans don't cause the greenhouse effect. Most of the greenhouse effect (98%!!!) is due to - get this - water vapor. However, we've been enhancing the natural greenhouse effect with our emmissions of greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide. I believe the figure is that since 1900, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen by 35% (by volume, I think). Due in part to this rise, it's estimated that the average global temperature will rise by something like 5 degrees celsius by 2050. That's the fastest rise in Earth history. Definitely a danger to life on earth.

And - as I pointed out in a separate response... we haven't REALLY been helping the water vapour problem much... sea water absorbs a huge quantity of anthropogenic CO2, which means we are slowly building a water-vapour 'battery'... 'energising' sea water, to produce greater quantities of vapour.

Okay - let's look at something for a second... wasn't the original source you showed issued by an 'expert' for the Coal industry?

And HE blames water vapour, right?

Ooh - there's a shock... imagine, someone tied to the biggest single polluting industry, trying to point the finger at something else...

Okay - let me explain something to you, water vapour is liberated in greater quantities at higher temperatures, yes? A marginal difference in temperature can create a much greater capacity for liberation of water vapour, yes?

So - when you look at the fact that something like 50% of anthopogenic CO2 production is absorbed into sea water (giving it much higher 'energy'), coupled with the fact that anthropogenic chemicals are causing slight eleveations in sea water temperature, and higher sea water levels (thus giving a higher incentive to form water vapour, and a much greater reaction surface-area)....

Yes - water vapour is a huge contibutor... but it is a secondary source. Your source doesn't track how HUMAN intervention increases the water vapour production... it chooses, instead, to lay the blame on the messenger.

Are YOU saying that these things never happened on Earth BEFORE Human's got here?

Cause I am pretty sure we have already gone over this...

So again, how could DRAMATIC amounts of CO2 have caused "Ice-Ages" in the PAST, if it is Human interaction WHICH YOU ARE SAYING is the cause for it?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

So again, how could DRAMATIC amounts of CO2 have caused "Ice-Ages" in the PAST, if it is Human interaction WHICH YOU ARE SAYING is the cause for it?!?!

um

you have that backwards - increases in CO2 are related to increases in temp, not ice ages.

and the current anthropogenicly-enhanced concentration of CO2 is greater than it has been at any point in the past 420,000 years (and if we go with the even more long-range studies, we can probably push that back to 20 million years).
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm

yes, there has been a great amount of variability in the natural greenhouse effect over earth's history. but would you seriously have us believe that this time around, the increases in greenhouse gas concentrations just so happened to occur when humans started dumping out massive amounts of the stuff into the atmosphere? that after several thousand years of CO2 concentrations remaining within 10 parts per million of 280 ppm, that it just so happened that we got a 30% spike in the value at exactly the same time humans gained the numbers and technology to produce gigatons of it on top of any natural cycling?

even if that was all the evidence we had (and it isn't), that is way more than enough to show that we are the most likely cause of it.

you have that backwards - increases in CO2 are related to increases in temp, not ice ages.

Understood... I was refering to the swings between these 2 Events, the "change" in temperatures between their Hieghts and the other extreme.

and the current anthropogenicly-enhanced concentration of CO2 is greater than it has been at any point in the past 420,000 years (and if we go with the even more long-range studies, we can probably push that back to 20 million years).
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm

yes, there has been a great amount of variability in the natural greenhouse effect over earth's history. but would you seriously have us believe that this time around, the increases in greenhouse gas concentrations just so happened to occur when humans started dumping out massive amounts of the stuff into the atmosphere? that after several thousand years of CO2 concentrations remaining within 10 parts per million of 280 ppm, that it just so happened that we got a 30% spike in the value at exactly the same time humans gained the numbers and technology to produce gigatons of it on top of any natural cycling?

even if that was all the evidence we had (and it isn't), that is way more than enough to show that we are the most likely cause of it.

Really?

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

Temperature Changes: The Long Cycles

The CO2 content in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperature have never been stable; they have fluctuated since the dawn of time. Geological evidence shows that the atmospheric con-centration of CO2 which is now about 350 ppmv, was about 5,600 ppmv in the late Ordovician, 440 million years ago;36 340 million years ago, in the Carboniferous period, it was 4,000 ppmv; and about 90 million years ago, in the Cretaceous period, it was about 2,600 ppmv. These extremely high concentrations were obviously not associated with a "runaway greenhouse effect," the mantra of the global warming propagandists.

For the past 100 million years, the average surface temperature of the Earth and the atmosphe-ric CO2 level have been decreasing systematically.37 About 50 million years ago, the CO2 con-centration (2,000 ppmv) was almost six-fold higher than now, but air temperature was higher by only 1.5°C. In the Ordovician, when the CO2 content in air was 16 times higher than it is now, the air temperature in the tropics was not increased, and in the high latitudes, there was the glaciation of Gondwanaland.36

The reason for the lack of relationship between the temperature changes and CO2 concentra-tion in past epochs is that it is not CO2, but water, H2O, that is the main greenhouse gas. It is also the case that increasing CO2 concentration above a certain, rather low level cannot incre-ase the air temperature (see below). It was not CO2 that determined the permanent oscillations of Earth’s climate in the past, but rather changes of the solar constant; these are in step with clirnatic oscillations with a periodicity of about 2,500 years.

And, yes, I take the word of the scientific consensus over one guy in Poland who disagrees.

One guy in Poland? You do REALIZE HIS Credentials, don't you...

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.O., and D.Sc., who is a professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiologi-cal Protection in Warsaw. A multidisciplinary scientist, he has studied glacier ice samples from around the world, analyzing traces of heavy metals and radionuclides. He is well known as an expert on radiation effects, and has served as the chairman of the UNSCEAR (United Nations Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). Among his previous articles in 21st Century Science & Technology is "Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase, " Spring 1997, p. 42.

Despite billions of dollars and millions of propaganda headlines, the global warming prophesied by the climate modelling industry is not scientifically real

The amount spent on climate studies worldwide has now reached the astonishingly high level of about $5 billion per year.1 In the United States alone, more than $2 billion is spent annually for climate studies, not including the costs of satellites, ships, and laboratory construction. 2 Climatologists have obtained this immense amount of funding by creating the vision of a man-made planetary climate catastrophe.

In the 1970s and the 1980s, computer models of climate prophesied a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) content in the atmosphere during the next 6O years. The greenhouse effect of this CO2 increase, together with that of other greenhouse gases released by human beings into the atmosphere – CH4, N2O, CFC-11 (freon), and CFC-12 – was supposed to increase the average global surface air temperature by 5°C. In polar regions, the increase was projected to be 10°C. Later, in the 1990s, climatologists truncated the computer model estimates of the man-made increase of global temperature by the year 2100, first to 3,3°C3,5 and then to 2°C.7

One guy in Poland? You do REALIZE HIS Credentials, don't you...

*snip*

Your now arguing with things I said several pages ago? How sad for you.

And his credentials pale against those I cited. He is one rogue.

Back under the BRIDGE.

Your now arguing with things I said several pages ago? How sad for you.

And his credentials pale against those I cited. He is one rogue.

Back under the BRIDGE.

huh...

Did that address anything about the Computer Models of those YOU cite being SO FAR OFF in just 2 DECADES?!?!

Sorry, I didn't SEE YOU address that FACT! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

huh...

Did that address anything about the Computer Models of those YOU cite being SO FAR OFF in just 2 DECADES?!?!

Sorry, I didn't SEE YOU address that FACT! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

That makes no sense.

Computer midels predicted a result in 60 years... and you are saying the numbers are way off, only 20 years later...

Well... yes. They would be, wouldn't they?

How about looking at the same models in another 40 years... when the 60 years is up?

You can't seriously be trying to compare 60 years and 20 years as though they equated?

Of course - those WERE just computer models... and ONE of the mitigations HAS been addressed, although perhaps far too late, in the drastic reduction of CFC production. The 60 year forecasts allowed for CFC's, which are now not being liberated in the large vlumes they previously were - so THERE is one source of discrepency.

Secondly - it hasn't been long established that sea-water is acting as a buffer to CO2 loading on the atmosphere... which is keeping CO2 levels a little lower, but boosting the production of water vapour. It remains to be seen how this will affect models... since water vapour MAY turn out to be MORE of a problem than the CO2 would have been.

That makes no sense.

Computer midels predicted a result in 60 years... and you are saying the numbers are way off, only 20 years later...

Well... yes. They would be, wouldn't they?

How about looking at the same models in another 40 years... when the 60 years is up?

You can't seriously be trying to compare 60 years and 20 years as though they equated?

Of course - those WERE just computer models... and ONE of the mitigations HAS been addressed, although perhaps far too late, in the drastic reduction of CFC production. The 60 year forecasts allowed for CFC's, which are now not being liberated in the large vlumes they previously were - so THERE is one source of discrepency.

Secondly - it hasn't been long established that sea-water is acting as a buffer to CO2 loading on the atmosphere... which is keeping CO2 levels a little lower, but boosting the production of water vapour. It remains to be seen how this will affect models... since water vapour MAY turn out to be MORE of a problem than the CO2 would have been.

Actually, if YOU had bothered to look at what was cited, you would see that 60 years modeling was CHANGED after just 20 years to reflect an influence not only 40 years and some 5 Degrees, but to nearly a CENTURY with only a 2 Degree difference, which IS SIGNIFICANTLY different than the ORIGINAL projection, is it not?

Regards,
Gaar

Actually, if YOU had bothered to look at what was cited, you would see that 60 years modeling was CHANGED after just 20 years to reflect an influence not only 40 years and some 5 Degrees, but to nearly a CENTURY with only a 2 Degree difference, which IS SIGNIFICANTLY different than the ORIGINAL projection, is it not?

Regards,
Gaar

I still don't get your point, to be honest.

It is just a computer model... so - a guide, at best.

It hasn't run it's 60 years course... which is probably for the best, because there have been scientific understandings gained since the creation of the model, that the previous version of the model could not allow for.

To my mind - unless the model has a capacity for translating CO2 loading, into equivalent water vapour ramping, it will always underestimate the effects of greenhouse effects, anyway.

Like certain 'global-warming-doesn't-exist' models I've seen before, that neglect to account for changes to albedo...

I still don't get your point, to be honest.

It is just a computer model... so - a guide, at best.

It hasn't run it's 60 years course... which is probably for the best, because there have been scientific understandings gained since the creation of the model, that the previous version of the model could not allow for.

To my mind - unless the model has a capacity for translating CO2 loading, into equivalent water vapour ramping, it will always underestimate the effects of greenhouse effects, anyway.

Like certain 'global-warming-doesn't-exist' models I've seen before, that neglect to account for changes to albedo...

If you go look at the graphs at the link provided you will see the manner in which they "changed" thier 60 year prediction just some 20 years later...

The differences in the two are HUGE.

Regards,
Gaar

If you go look at the graphs at the link provided you will see the manner in which they "changed" thier 60 year prediction just some 20 years later...

The differences in the two are HUGE.

Regards,
Gaar

dear god! you're right! imagine, the scientific knowledge base from which we can build computer models for complex systems such as the global climate can change over the course of 20 years. it's almost as if we knew more about the system now and could make much better models. as if climatology went from its earliest beginnings to a well developed discipline. as if we now knew about the role of aerosols in reflecting solar energy and the role the ocean has played as a heat sink, etc. and as if the processing power available for these computer models has increased exponentially, such that my cell phone has more processing power than the computers they were using for the earliest models.

i, for one, am shocked. shocked i tell you.

dear god! you're right! imagine, the scientific knowledge base from which we can build computer models for complex systems such as the global climate can change over the course of 20 years. it's almost as if we knew more about the system now and could make much better models. as if climatology went from its earliest beginnings to a well developed discipline. as if we now knew about the role of aerosols in reflecting solar energy and the role the ocean has played as a heat sink, etc. and as if the processing power available for these computer models has increased exponentially, such that my cell phone has more processing power than the computers they were using for the earliest models.

i, for one, am shocked. shocked i tell you.

:D :D

dear god! you're right! imagine, the scientific knowledge base from which we can build computer models for complex systems such as the global climate can change over the course of 20 years. it's almost as if we knew more about the system now and could make much better models. as if climatology went from its earliest beginnings to a well developed discipline. as if we now knew about the role of aerosols in reflecting solar energy and the role the ocean has played as a heat sink, etc. and as if the processing power available for these computer models has increased exponentially, such that my cell phone has more processing power than the computers they were using for the earliest models.

i, for one, am shocked. shocked i tell you.

You mean the Models back then may not have been COMPLETE and OVERSTATED the HUMAN FACTOR!?!?

YOU have GOT to be kidding!

Scientists don't do that, do they?!?!

You mean like MANY NOW do not include WATER VAPOR in their equations?!?!

YOU think THOSE Equations WILL or WON'T be WRONG, just as those 20 years ago were, for the SAME REASON!?!?

That's what I thought...

Regards,
Gaar

You mean the Models back then may [have] OVERSTATED the HUMAN FACTOR!?!?

nope, not at all. they actually underestimated it, in terms of the entire system.

You mean the Models back then may not have been COMPLETE and OVERSTATED the HUMAN FACTOR!?!?

YOU have GOT to be kidding!

Scientists don't do that, do they?!?!

You mean like MANY NOW do not include WATER VAPOR in their equations?!?!

YOU think THOSE Equations WILL or WON'T be WRONG, just as those 20 years ago were, for the SAME REASON!?!?

That's what I thought...

Regards,
Gaar

Nice signature. True words of wisdom.

Nice signature. True words of wisdom.

Isn't it weird how they back up MY contention in the Constitution - UnConstitutional Thread...

:D

I wanted to show my appreciation... ;)

Regards,
Gaar

You mean like MANY NOW do not include WATER VAPOR in their equations?!?!

got a peer-reviewed source on that? i don't believe i've ever seen a model of the global climate that ignores water vapor. ever. and by all indications only one of the two of us knows anything at all about the current science on climatology.

hell, water vapor is what can lead to scary feedback-loops in the models - increased temperature leads to increased evaporation and glacial melting, which leads to increased temperatures, etc. there is actually kind of a lot of research on the topic. i could point you to the relevant parts of the ipcc report, and from there you can read through their sources if you want to catch up on it.

nope, not at all. they actually underestimated it, in terms of the entire system.

Really!

You wouldn't mind posting something to BACK-UP that statement, would you?

Regards,
Gaar

got a peer-reviewed source on that? i don't believe i've ever seen a model of the global climate that ignores water vapor. ever. and by all indications only one of the two of us knows anything at all about the current science on climatology.

hell, water vapor is what can lead to scary feedback-loops in the models - increased temperature leads to increased evaporation and glacial melting, which leads to increased temperatures, etc. there is actually kind of a lot of research on the topic. i could point you to the relevant parts of the ipcc report, and from there you can read through their sources if you want to catch up on it.

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

Computer Models Are Only Opinions

Computer models of climate are nothing more than the formalized opinions of their creators, on the working of the global climate system.57 If these models were capable of correctly projecting climactic changes, they should be able to pass the test of accurately reconstructing past cli-mates, or at least reconstructing the present climate.

Usually, for projections of the human impact on climate, one of the many versions of the Gene-ral Circulation Model (GCM) is used. Testing of the various versions has demonstrated that the models are unable even to correctly reconstruct the present climate. All GCM models had a 100 percent error for atmospheric precipitation predictions, and a 2°C error for global tempera-ture estimates. For the Arctic region, this error reached 10°C, and for Antarctica, 20°C.58

When 14 CCM models were fed with identical climate input parameters in a test, they produced 14 different answers, ranging from cooling to warming of the global climate.59 A similar test run for 17 GCM models produced similar results.60 This explains why the IPCC projection of tempe-rature changes, based on GCM modelling, is in complete disagreement with the real temperature measured by satellites (Figure 8).

The computer models project the greatest warming of the Northern Hemispheric atmosphere in the Arctic, by as much as 8°C to 10°C.35 These projections, however, have not been confirmed by the in situ measurements. At Spitsbergen, where the Norwegian Meteorological lnstitute has carried out observations since 1912, temperature does not show a positive trend.61 A lack of warming was also found in five other Arctic regions,62 on the Scandinavian Peninsula, in Den-mark, and in Greenland.62, 64

A long series of measurements from 10 meteorological stations, forming an arc around the Arc-tic, demonstrates that there has been not warming, but rather cooling of the region.65 Analysis of the data from these stations, covering a Canadian sector of Arctic, Greenland, Iceland, and Eurasia, shows that a strong warming occurred in the Arctic around 1920. Between 1912 and 1920, in Spitsbergen and West Greenland, the air temperature increased by 3.5°C to 5°C. After l950, the Canadian stations Resolute and Alert observed a cooling trend, In this period, the temperature in Western Greenland decreased by 1.5°C. A negative trend was observed also in the Russian Arctic, with the greatest, short-term temperature decreases of 4°C to 5°C in Franz Josef Land.

Nine Danish meteorological stations in Greenland observed similar long-term changes, with coo-ling of this region between 1940 and 1985.65, 66 During the decade 1955-1964, in a sector of the Arctic between Greenland, Norway, Spitsbergen, and Novaya Zemlya, the temperature of surface sea-water decreased by 0.1°C to 0.6°C in winter, and 0.1°C to 0.25°C in summer. Between 1945 and 1975, a decrease of seawater temperature of 1°C was also observed around the Faeroe Islands, and the average temperature of the Atlantic north of 35°N decreased by 0.5°C, between 1940 and 1987.64

A review of temperature measurements from the Greenland ice Sheet shows a decrease of air temperature during the past 30 years, and a 15 percent decrease of precipitation; both these effects are just the opposite of what computer models project.67

Farther south, dendrological measurements indicate a systematic summer cooling of 3°C in the Northern Quebec region, between 1800 and 1950.68 On the southern side of the globe, at the Antarctic Peninsula, the climate has cooled gradually by 2°C since 1850.69 In comparison with the 19th century, the air temperature at Ronne Shelf decreased by about 0.7°C, and by about 4°C in the l980s.70

On the global scale, temperature measurements show a lack of systematic increase of air tem-perature after the optimum around the 1940s; instead, there is a cooling trend during the next three decades.57, 71 Since the 1940s, the greatest cooling of climate has been observed at the high northern latitudes,72 – that is, exactly where the man-made global warming hypothesis projects the highest temperature increase.

by all indications only one of the two of us knows anything at all about the current science on climatology.

Really!?!?

Because it looks like the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE points out that Science YOU are relying on HAS and CONTINUES to be WRONG!

But that doesn't seem to concern YOU in the least.

I will take "Empirical" Evidence over YOUR "made-up" Theory ANY DAY!

Regards,
Gaar

You mean the Models back then may not have been COMPLETE and OVERSTATED the HUMAN FACTOR!?!?

YOU have GOT to be kidding!

Scientists don't do that, do they?!?!

You mean like MANY NOW do not include WATER VAPOR in their equations?!?!

YOU think THOSE Equations WILL or WON'T be WRONG, just as those 20 years ago were, for the SAME REASON!?!?

That's what I thought...

Regards,
Gaar


I feel like I have to point out; the "equations" many people talk about in reference to this subject are remarkably similar to the Drake equation (Google it) in that nearly all variables are merely estimations (guesses). We are about as close to predicting weather patters as we are to colonizing Uranus. There is no question that there is global warming. The question is why? Some people suggest that the current upward trend of temperatures is simply a statistical anomaly or possibly a cyclical system this planet undergoes. Currently, there is no evidence that human existence is the cause of global warming.

I feel like I have to point out; the "equations" many people talk about in reference to this subject are remarkably similar to the Drake equation (Google it) in that nearly all variables are merely estimations (guesses). We are about as close to predicting weather patters as we are to colonizing Uranus. There is no question that there is global warming. The question is why? Some people suggest that the current upward trend of temperatures is simply a statistical anomaly or possibly a cyclical system this planet undergoes. Currently, there is no evidence that human existence is the cause of global warming.

Well, that's what intelligent people understand...

It's nice to see that there ARE some signs of INTELLIGENT LIFE around here.

Regards,
Gaar

Really!?!?

Because it looks like the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE points out that Science YOU are relying on HAS and CONTINUES to be WRONG!

But that doesn't seem to concern YOU in the least.

I will take "Empirical" Evidence over YOUR "made-up" Theory ANY DAY!

Regards,
Gaar

For someone who continually posts 'evidence' ONLY sourced from one 'project', or BASED on that one project, you have a lot to say about evidence.

I have yet to see you provide ANY 'empirical evidence' that isn't either insupportable, or easily disprovable.

For someone who continually posts 'evidence' ONLY sourced from one 'project', or BASED on that one project, you have a lot to say about evidence.

I have yet to see you provide ANY 'empirical evidence' that isn't either insupportable, or easily disprovable.

Here is a LIST of ALL of the References used for that "One Reference" YOU SAY I have... (let me know if I can do anything more for you)

NOTES AND REFERENCES:

F. Bottcher, 1996. En The Glacial Warming Debate. J. Emsley, ed. (London: The European Science and Environmental Forum), pp. 267-285

S.F. Singer, 1996. En The Global Warming Debate, J. Emsley, ed. (London: The European Science and Environmental Forum), pp. 146-157.

S.H. Schneider, 1975, J. Atmosph. Sci. Vol. 32

V. Ramanathan, M.S. Lian, y R.D. Cess, 1979, J. Geophys. Res. Vol. 84, pp. 4949-4958.

S. Manabe y R.T. Wetherald, 1980, J. Atmosph. Sci. Vol. 37, pp. 99-118.

Panel Intergubernamental de Cambio Climático (IPCC) 1990, Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment, J.T. Houghton et al., eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Panel Intergubernamental de Cambio Climático (IPCC) 1990, Climate Change 1995: The Second IPCC Assessment, J.T. Houghton et al., eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

J.S. Hoffmann, J.B. Wells, y J.G. Titus, "Future Global Warming and Sea level Rise," en G. Sigbjamason, ed. Iceland Coastal and River Symposium, Reykjavik, Islandia, (National Energy Authority, 1986)

R. Bate y J. Morris, 1994. "Global Warming Apocalypse or Hot Air?" (IEA Environmental Unit)

F. Seitz, 1996. The Wall Street J., June 12

N. Winton, 1995. Reuters World Serv. Dic. 20

R. Kremer, 1998. Brainstorm, Abril, pp. 28-32

J. Maddox, 1991. Nature, Vol. 369, p. 189

J. Maddox, 1994. Nature, Vol. 369, p. 97.

P.H. Abelson, 1990. Science, Vol. 247, p. 1529.

A. Meyer, Nature, Vol. 378, p. 433.

ESEF, 1996. The Global Warming Debate, J. Emsley, ed. (London: The European Science and Environmental Forum).

ESEF, 1998. Global Warming: The Continuing Debate, R. Bate, ed. (London: The European Science and Environmental Forum).

F.S. Singer, 1999. "New Heat in Global Warming," Financial Post (Toronto).

S. Boehmer-Christiansen, 1996. In The Global Warming Debate, J. Emsley, ed. (London: The European Science and Environmental Forum, London), pp. 234-248.

A.S. Manne and R.G. Richels, 1990. In Scientific Perspectives on the Greenhouse Problem, R. Jastrow, W. Nierenberg, and F. Seitz, eds. (Ot tawa, III.: The Marshall Press; Jameson Books, Inc.), pp. 211-243.

T.R. Malthus. An Essay on the Principle of Population; or A View of its Past and Present Effects on Human Happiness; With an Inquiry into our Prospects Respecting the Future Removal or Migration of the Evils Which It Occasions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

F. Hoyle, 1996. In The Global Warming Debate, J. Em-sley, ed. (London: The European Science and Environment Forum), pp. 179-189.

S.l. Rasool and S.H. Schneider, 1971. Science, Vol. 173, pp. 138-141.

Z. Jaworowski, T.V. Segalstad, and V. Hisdal, 1990. Atmospheric CO2 and Global Warming: A Critical Review, Report of the Norsk Polarinstitutt, Oslo, No. 59, pp 1-75.

Z. Jaworowski, T.V. Ssgalstad, and N. Ono, 1992. The Sci. Tot. Environ., Vol. 114, pp. 227-284.

Z. Jaworowski, T.V. Ssgalstad, and V. Hisdal, 1992. Atmospheric CO2 and Global Warming: A Critical Review, Second revised edition (Oslo: Norsk Polarinstitutt), Meddelelser No. 119, pp. 1-76.

Z. Jaworowski, 1994. Environ. Sci. & Pollut. Res., Vol. 1, pp. 161-171.

Z. Jaworowski, 1996. In The Global Warming Debate, J. Emsley, ed. (London: The European Science and Environment Forum), pp. 95-105.


Z. Jaworowski, 1996. "Greenhouse Gases in Polar Ice – Artifacts or Atmospheric Reality?" Umwelttagung 1996, Umwelt und Chemie, Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker, Ulm, 7-10 October, 1996.


Z. Jaworowski, 1997. 21st Century Science and Technology, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring), pp. 42-52.

H.E. Heyke,1992. Fusion, Vol. 13, pp. 32-39.

H.-E. Heyke, 1992. Erd. Kohle-Erdgas-Petrochemie, Brenn.-Chemie" Vol. 45, pp. 360-362.

G. Slocum, 1955. Month. Weether Rev. Oct., pp. 225-231.

F. Wagner et al., 1999. Science, Vol. 284, pp. 1971-1973.

C.J. Yapp and H. Poths, 1992. Nature, Vol. 355, pp. 342-344.

M.l. Budyko, 1982. The Earth's Climate: Past and Future (New York: Academic Press).

R.A. Kerr, 1996. Science, Vol. 271, pp. 146-147.

J. Imbrie and J.Z. Imbrie, 1980. Science, Vol. 207, pp. 943-953.

E.J. Barron, S.L. Thompson, and S.H. Schneider, 1981. Science, Vol. 212, pp. 501-508.

J. Imbrie and J.Z. Imbrie, 1979. "Ice Ages, Solving the Mystery", (Short Hills, N.Y.: Enslow Publ.).

T.J. Crowley, 1983. Rev. Geophys.; Vol. 21, pp. 828-877

G.-R. Wsber, 1996. In "The Global Warming Debate", J. Emsley, ed. (London: The European Science and Environment Forum), pp. 113-138.

W.O. Brown and R.R. Heim, 1996. Climate Variation Bulletin 8, Historical Climatology Series 4-7, (Dec.), National Climate Data Center, USA; http://www.ncd.noaa.gov.ol/documentlibrary/cvb.html

A.H. Gordon, 1998. "Bias in Measured Data," in R. Bate, Ed., Global Warming: The Continuing Debate (London: The European Science and Environment Forum), pp. 52-62

J. Christy, R. Spencer, and W.D. Braswell, 1999. "Scientists Present 1998 Earth-Temperature Trends. Updated 20-year Temperature Record Unveiled at 1999 AMS Meeting," as reported in NASA Space Science News, Jan. 12, 1999. http://wwwssl.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd12jan99 1.htm


A.B. Robinson, S.L. Baliunas, W. Soon, and Z.W. Robinson, 1998. Medical Sentinel, Vol. 3, pp. 171-178.

R.A. Kerr, 1996. Science, Vol. 271, pp. 1360-1361.

E. Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen, 1991. Science Vol. 254, pp. 698-700.

K. Lassen and E. Friis-Christensen, 1996. In "The Global Warming Debate", J. Emsley, ed. (London: The European Science and Environment Forum), pp. 224-232.

E.S. Posmetier, W.H. Soon, and S.L. Baliunas, 1998. In "Global Warming – The Continuing Debate", R. Bate, ed. (London: The European Science and Environment Forum), pp. 159-171.

T. Landscheidt, 1999. "Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña," http://twww.microtech.com.au/daly/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm

S.G.H. Philander, 1990. "El Niño, La Niña and the Southern Oscillation" (San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press). Cited from T. Landscheidt, 1999 (Ses Reference 52.)

J.P. Peixoto and A.H. Oort, 1992. "Physics of Climate" (New York: American Institute of Physics).

M. Pudvokin and S. Veretenenko, 1995. J. Atm. Terr. Phys., Vol. 57, pp. 1 349-1 355.

H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen, 1997. J. Atm. Sol. Terr. Phys., Vol. 59, p. 1225.

R. Bryson, 1993. Environmental Conservation, Vol. 20, pp. 339-346.

L.S. Kalkstein, 1991. "Global Comparisons of Selected GCM Control Runs and Observed Climate Data." Report PM-221 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Climate Change Division)

R.D. Cess et al., 1989. Science, Vol. 245, pp. 513-516.

R.D. Cess et al., 1991. Science, Vol. 253, pp. 888-892.

I. Hanssen-Bauer, M. Kristensen-Solas, and E.L. Steffensen, 1990. "The Climate of Spitsbergen." DNMI Rapport Nr. 39/90 (Oslo: Det Norske Meteorologiske Institutt).

P.J. Michaels, 1990. Liberty, Vol. 3, pp. 27-33.

B. Aune, 1989. "Lufttemperatur og Nedbor i Norge." DNMI Rapport Nr. 26/89 (Det Norske Meteorologiske Institutt).

K. Frydendahl, 1989. "Global og Regional Temperaturudvikling siden 1850." Scientific Report No. 89-6 (Da-nish Meteorological Institute).

J.A. Dowdeswell et al., 1997. Quaternary Research, Vol. 48, pp. 1-14.

J.E. Gordon, 1980. Nature, Vol. 284, pp. 157-159.

K.C. Jezek, 1993. Nature, Vol. 366, pp. 17-18.

G.C. Jacoby, I.S. Ivanciu, and L.A. Ulan, 1988. Palaeo-geography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Vol. 64, pp. 69-78.

A.J. Aristarain, J. Jouzel, and C. Lorius, 1990. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 17, pp. 2369-2372.

W. Graf, O. Reinwarth, and H. Moser, 1990. Annals of Glaciology, Vol. 14, pp. 90-93.

C.K. Folland, D.E. Parker, and F.E. Kates, 1984. Nature, Vol. 310, pp. 670-673.

P.E. Damon and S.M. Kunen, 1976. Science, Vol. 193, pp. 447-453.

H.J. Zwally, A.C. Brenner, J.A. Major, R.A. Bindschadler, and J.G. Marsh, 1989. Science, Vol. 246, pp. 1587-1589.

H.J. Zwally, 1989. Science, Vol. 246, pp. 1589-1591.

B.C. Douglas et al., 1990. Science, Vol. 248, pp. 288-289.

H.J. Zwally, A.C. Brenner, J.A. Major, R.A. Bindschadler, and J.M. Marsh, 1990. Science, Vol. 248, pp. 288-289.

R. Thomas, W. Krabill, E. Frederick, and K. Jezek, 1995. Global and Planetary Change, Vol. 9, pp. 17-28.

A. Weidick, 1991. Gronlands Geologiske Undersekolse Vol. 152, 39-41 (1991).

K. Melvold and J.O. Hagen, 1998. Joumal of Glaciology, Vol. 44, pp. 394- 403.

J. Bogen, B. Wold, and G. Ostrem, 1989. In Glacier Fluctuations and Climactic Change, J. Oerlemans, ed. (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989), pp. 109-128.

O.H. Loken, 1972. In "Growth and Decay of Glaciers as Indicators of Long-term Environmental Changes", Symposium on Environmental Conditions in the Northwest Atlantic, pp. 1960-1969.

J.O. Hagen, 1996. Memoirs of the National Institute of Polar Research (Tokyo) Vol. 51, pp. 343-354.

M.F. Meier, 1990. Nature, Vol. 343, pp. 115-116.

V.l. Morgan, I.D. Goodwin, D.M. Etheridge, and C.W. Wookey, 1991. Nature, Vol. 354, pp. 58-60.

R.G. Ellingson, J. Ellis, and S. Fels, 1991. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 96(D5), pp. 8929-8953.

R.G. Ellingson, in letter to the author, Feb. 10, 1999. 87. R.S. Lindzen, 1991. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, Vol. 117, pp. 651-652. 88. J. Emsley, 1992. New Scientist, (Oct. 17), pp. 53-54.

J. Barrett, 1996. In The Global Warming Debate, J. Emsley, ed. (London: The European Science and Environ-ment Forum), pp. 60-70.

T.V. Segalstad, 1996. "Carbon Isotope Mass Balance of Atmospheric CO2," in The Global Warming Debate, J. Emsley, ed. (London: The European Science and Environment Forum), pp. 41-50.

J. Barret, 1996, en The Global Warming Debate, J. Emsley, ed. (London: The European Science and Environment Forum), pp. 60-70.

T.V. Segalstad 1996. "Carbon Isotope Mass Balance of Atmospehric CO2," en The Global Warming Debate, J. Emsley, ed. (London: The European Science and Environment Forum), pp. 41-50

T.V. Segalstad and Z. Jaworowski, 1991. Rechazado por Nature.

C. Starr, 1993. Energy, Vol. 18, pp. 1297-1310.

J. Barrett, 1995. Spectr. Acta, Vol. 51A, pp. 415-417.

F.B. Cross, 1996. Washington 8 Lee Law Review, Vol. 53, p. 851.

L.D. Keigwin, 1996. Science, Vol. 274, pp. 544-545.

R.A. Kerr, 1996. Science, Vol. 271, pp. 137-138.

T.A. Boden, P. Kanciruk, and M.P. Farrell, 1990. "Trends '90 – A Compendium of Data on Global Change," ORNL/CDIA-36 (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Environmental Science Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory).

R.J. Andres, G. Marland, T. Boden, and S. Bischof, 1993. "Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil Fuel Consumption and Cement Manufacture, 1751-1991, and an Estimate of their Isotopic Composition and Latitudinal Distribution," Snowmass Global Change Institute Conference on the Global Carbon Cycle, Snowmass, Colorado (USA), July 19-30.

A.H. Gordon, 1998. In Global Warming – The Continuing Debate, R. Bate, ed. (London: The European Science and Envi-ronment Forum), pp. 53-61

One things I know about increased concentrations of CO2 is that when it reacts with water it forms carbonic acid. This has a tendency to reduce the amounts of carbonate in the water which is used in the formation of limestone. Also the carbonic acid helps to dissolve the limestone that's already there that many coral rely on.

Here is a LIST of ALL of the References used for that "One Reference" YOU SAY I have... (let me know if I can do anything more for you)

NOTES AND REFERENCES:....

Utterly irrelevent, my friend.

I once read a book about how there had never been a Nazi 'genocide'. It was an interesting read, it detailed a whole evrsion of the second world war where no Poles, no Jews, no Romany, no Russians were singled out, abused and interred in concentration camps. It had some interesting material about POW's... but no 'ethnic cleansing', etc.

It was quite a while back, which is a shame... because I cannot even remember what it was called.

What I do recall, is that it had thousands of references in it's bibliography. Literally - thousands of sources.

I wonder, did the fact that one author (or team) managed to pull bogus facts out of thousands of sources make that book true?

Did it invalidate all the thousands of texts it referenced?

Did it have anything at all to do with the texts it referenced?

Sorry - friend - but you are still quoting just one source, even if that one source got it's information elsewehere. That just means that their flawed argument is better than your flawed argument, I'm afraid.

What I do recall, is that it had thousands of references in it's bibliography. Literally - thousands of sources.

I wonder, did the fact that one author (or team) managed to pull bogus facts out of thousands of sources make that book true?

Did it invalidate all the thousands of texts it referenced?

Did it have anything at all to do with the texts it referenced?

Sorry - friend - but you are still quoting just one source, even if that one source got it's information elsewehere. That just means that their flawed argument is better than your flawed argument, I'm afraid.

And I am left to wonder how that addresses "any" of the References given?

Does your little story somehow invalidate even one of the References given?

You and others have attempted to say that the information I have presented is "one Poles theory" and I used those References to refute that assertion. Would you care to address any of the References directly and explain why you feel they desrve no consideration?

You might also look and see that several of the References might also be Referenced by the opposition here?

So, is this your attempt to divert the discussion by noting something not even remotely similar to that which is being discussed? I mean really, you can't even "remember" the Books name (you know the one that has nothing to do with the subject being discussed) for God's sake, what type of argument is that?

Changing the subject is not making a point, I believe you have failed to make any point worthy of further discussion.

Regards,
Gaar

i am, in fact, of the male persuasion.

and spotting fake numbers from global warming deniers is somethng of a hobby of mine. sorta like spotting downright silly arguments from creationists. its fun and easy, and yet every once in awhile they throw something novel and challenging at you. though i haven't seen either group be right about much of anything yet. maybe one day.

Fake numbers?

Anyone care to "peruse these"....

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/emission_tbls.html

Table 3. Global Natural and Anthropogenic Sources and Absorption of Greenhouse Gases in the 1990s

Which I believe shows natural CO2 emission during the '90's at 770,000 Million Metric Tons of Gas versus 23,100 Million Metric Tons of Gas from "man-made" Sources...

Regards,
Gaar

Fake numbers?

Anyone care to "peruse these"....

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/emission_tbls.html

Table 3. Global Natural and Anthropogenic Sources and Absorption of Greenhouse Gases in the 1990s

Which I believe shows natural CO2 emission during the '90's at 770,000 Million Metric Tons of Gas versus 23,100 Million Metric Tons of Gas from "man-made" Sources...

Regards,
Gaar

those aren't 'natural additions'.

the natural sources + the absorption rate is what we like to call 'the carbon cycle'. you will note that the annual increase of the gases in the atmosphere is whatever amount was in excess of the natural cycle of emissions and absorption. you will also note that the absorption for each easily covers the natural sources, and a good chunk of the anthropogenic ones as well. but the increased anthropogenic output has overrun the capacity of the natural cycle for these gases - which means that the only place left for the gases to do is to increase the concentrations of them in the atmosphere.

this is really basic shit, and in no way supports a damn thing you've said.

those aren't 'natural additions'.

the natural sources + the absorption rate is what we like to call 'the carbon cycle'. you will note that the annual increase of the gases in the atmosphere is whatever amount was in excess of the natural cycle of emissions and absorption. you will also note that the absorption for each easily covers the natural sources, and a good chunk of the anthropogenic ones as well. but the increased anthropogenic output has overrun the capacity of the natural cycle for these gases - which means that the only place left for the gases to do is to increase the concentrations of them in the atmosphere.

this is really basic shit, and in no way supports a damn thing you've said.

And?

Sinks are decreasing because men are cutting down forests too, do you take that into account?

How about the crops men grow to feed themselves, do we get credit for those or the environment? Because we know we are faulted for the gasses it takes to produce those things.

So are we just "blamed", in your mind, for all of the excess?

And perhaps you might also show me where the side you support in this discussion gives the Human affect relative to the entire GreenHouse Effect and not just the Human affect on the gasses we produce?

After that, maybe you would be kind enough to explain how your saying that all of the CO2 gasses are to be blamed on the Human factor, when in FACT during the most output done by Humans we actually account for less than 25% of the Total output in just CO2 gasses let alone having nearly no impact on Water Vapor, which by all accounts is the most abundant GreenHouse Gas?!?!

Care to discuss the entire Issue or only those parts that suit your “Theory”?

Regards,
Gaar

Sinks are decreasing because men are cutting down forests too, do you take that into account?

How about the crops men grow to feed themselves, do we get credit for those or the environment? Because we know we are faulted for the gasses it takes to produce those things.

land use changes account for something on the order of a quarter of the anthropogenic co2 emissions. you want a link to the specific numbers from the ipcc report?

crops serve as very poor substitutes in terms of carbon sinks compared to the diverse natural ecosystems that would otherwise fill up farmland - a diverse ecosystem has more species of plants that are better able to fill up the land to its full capacity, and is therefore able to hold more carbon in the plants and soil. this is also taken into account when these calculations are done.

After that, maybe you would be kind enough to explain how your saying that all of the CO2 gasses are to be blamed on the Human factor, when in FACT during the most output done by Humans we actually account for less than 25% of the Total output in just CO2 gasses let alone having nearly no impact on Water Vapor, which by all accounts is the most abundant GreenHouse Gas?!?!

where did i ever say that? i have been consistently talking about increases in atmospheric concentrations caused by emissions in excess of what the natural cycles can handle. i know this is hard for you, but you really need to pay more attention.

land use changes account for something on the order of a quarter of the anthropogenic co2 emissions. you want a link to the specific numbers from the ipcc report?

Please.

crops serve as very poor substitutes in terms of carbon sinks compared to the diverse natural ecosystems that would otherwise fill up farmland - a diverse ecosystem has more species of plants that are better able to fill up the land to its full capacity, and is therefore able to hold more carbon in the plants and soil. this is also taken into account when these calculations are done.

Link please...


where did i ever say that? i have been consistently talking about increases in atmospheric concentrations caused by emissions in excess of what the natural cycles can handle. i know this is hard for you, but you really need to pay more attention.

And where have you addressed the FACT that these gasses have accumulated in much larger quantities over the normal course of the Earths evolution, before now, without any influence from man what-so-ever?

Just how did that happen if it is man that creates such things?

Regards,
Gaar

for stuff on anthropogenic co2 from land-use changes see:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/109.htm#342

for stuff about relative value of different land-uses as carbon sinks see:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/100.htm

And where have you addressed the FACT that these gasses have accumulated in much larger quantities over the normal course of the Earths evolution, before now, without any influence from man what-so-ever?

Just how did that happen if it is man that creates such things?

for larger quantities you need to look at least 400,000 years ago (and that's based on ice core samples, using other methods it looks more like 20 million years ago). so its not like this is exactly a common thing. it is completely unprecedented in the entire course of human existence

and here is the thing - there are many possible causes, but this time around the rapid increase coincides exactly with the time when humanity began pumping out excess gasses that would otherwise still be stored in various sinks at a rate that is measured in gigatonnes per year. the dots aren't exactly hard to connect.

and here is the thing - there are many possible causes, but this time around the rapid increase coincides exactly with the time when humanity began pumping out excess gasses that would otherwise still be stored in various sinks at a rate that is measured in gigatonnes per year. the dots aren't exactly hard to connect.

Actually, that's not true. Care to look at the empirical data?

Probably not, but I'll post it anyway...

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

The computer models project the greatest warming of the Northern Hemispheric atmosphere in the Arctic, by as much as 8°C to 10°C.35 These projections, however, have not been confirmed by the in situ measurements. At Spitsbergen, where the Norwegian Meteorological lnstitute has carried out observations since 1912, temperature does not show a positive trend.61 A lack of warming was also found in five other Arctic regions,62 on the Scandinavian Peninsula, in Den-mark, and in Greenland.62, 64

A long series of measurements from 10 meteorological stations, forming an arc around the Arc-tic, demonstrates that there has been not warming, but rather cooling of the region.65 Analysis of the data from these stations, covering a Canadian sector of Arctic, Greenland, Iceland, and Eurasia, shows that a strong warming occurred in the Arctic around 1920. Between 1912 and 1920, in Spitsbergen and West Greenland, the air temperature increased by 3.5°C to 5°C. After l950, the Canadian stations Resolute and Alert observed a cooling trend, In this period, the temperature in Western Greenland decreased by 1.5°C. A negative trend was observed also in the Russian Arctic, with the greatest, short-term temperature decreases of 4°C to 5°C in Franz Josef Land.

Nine Danish meteorological stations in Greenland observed similar long-term changes, with coo-ling of this region between 1940 and 1985.65, 66 During the decade 1955-1964, in a sector of the Arctic between Greenland, Norway, Spitsbergen, and Novaya Zemlya, the temperature of surface sea-water decreased by 0.1°C to 0.6°C in winter, and 0.1°C to 0.25°C in summer. Between 1945 and 1975, a decrease of seawater temperature of 1°C was also observed around the Faeroe Islands, and the average temperature of the Atlantic north of 35°N decreased by 0.5°C, between 1940 and 1987.64

A review of temperature measurements from the Greenland ice Sheet shows a decrease of air temperature during the past 30 years, and a 15 percent decrease of precipitation; both these effects are just the opposite of what computer models project.67

Farther south, dendrological measurements indicate a systematic summer cooling of 3°C in the Northern Quebec region, between 1800 and 1950.68 On the southern side of the globe, at the Antarctic Peninsula, the climate has cooled gradually by 2°C since 1850.69 In comparison with the 19th century, the air temperature at Ronne Shelf decreased by about 0.7°C, and by about 4°C in the l980s.70

On the global scale, temperature measurements show a lack of systematic increase of air tem-perature after the optimum around the 1940s; instead, there is a cooling trend during the next three decades.57, 71 Since the 1940s, the greatest cooling of climate has been observed at the high northern latitudes,72 – that is, exactly where the man-made global warming hypothesis projects the highest temperature increase.

Urantia II,

Give up. You've lost on so many levels ain't even funny. Your arguing like you did in your friggin Constitution-Unconstitional Thread.

Meaning that you've been throughly hammered and debunked.

Even I can quote sources backing up Global Warming and I don't even believe in it. I could destroy your arguements myself but alas, that'll violate my principles in fighting unarmed opponets.

*Grabs popcorn and continues to watch the show*

Urantia II,

Give up. You've lost on so many levels ain't even funny. Your arguing like you did in your friggin Constitution-Unconstitional Thread.

Meaning that you've been throughly hammered and debunked.

Even I can quote sources backing up Global Warming and I don't even believe in it. I could destroy your arguements myself but alas, that'll violate my principles in fighting unarmed opponets.

*Grabs popcorn and continues to watch the show*

So instead of actually making any point you resort to ad Hominem...

Regards,
Gaar

So instead of actually making any point you resort to ad Hominem...

Regards,
Gaar

Just trying to be your friendly neighbor and to save you from further embarrassment.

Just trying to be your friendly neighbor and to save you from further embarrassment.

Me?

I am not the one not addressing the "whole" of the problem, or ignoring "empirical data" in favor of "Computer Models" that have and continue to be totally inaccurate.

That's what your side is doing.

Which would be something on the order of not making a "cogent" argument, would it not?

Regards,
Gaar

Me?

I am not the one not addressing the "whole" of the problem, or ignoring "empirical data" in favor of "Computer Models" that have and continue to be totally inaccurate.

That's what your side is doing.

Which would be something on the order of not making a "cogent" argument, would it not?

Regards,
Gaar

1.) You should check your facts again. a) We are exiting an Ice Age! Because we are exiting an ice age, temps are going to go UP!!! b) Weather is cyclical. Yes, you'll have stronger than average storms but guess what? That is the nature of weather. I was studying to be a meteorologist at one point but couldn't pass the math but I still do a shift at the Campus Weather Service here. c) The sun also plays apart in our temperatures. The Sun also has cycles. Its an 11 year cycle.

2) My side! I'm against Global Warming and I don't recognize it. Its a theory only and NOT fact.

3) your arguements aren't cogent but the one's arguing against you, have used cogent arguements.

1.) You should check your facts again. a) We are exiting an Ice Age! Because we are exiting an ice age, temps are going to go UP!!! b) Weather is cyclical. Yes, you'll have stronger than average storms but guess what? That is the nature of weather. I was studying to be a meteorologist at one point but couldn't pass the math but I still do a shift at the Campus Weather Service here. c) The sun also plays apart in our temperatures. The Sun also has cycles. Its an 11 year cycle.

2) My side! I'm against Global Warming and I don't recognize it. Its a theory only and NOT fact.

3) your arguements aren't cogent but the one's arguing against you, have used cogent arguements.

Really!?!?

Maybe you should go look up "cogent" in the dictionary...

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

Temperature Changes: The Long Cycles

In the longer time scale, the duration of alternating and asymmetric cycles of long glaciations, and much shorter warm inter-glacial periods, was from 20,000 to 400,000 years. Since about 2 million years ago, one cycle has typically lasted about 100,000 years, with glacial cycles that were about 90,000 years long, and warm periods that were about 10,000 years long.6, 40, 41 During the last 85Ó,OOO years, there have been seven or eight such cycles (Figure 1). The temperature difference between the warm and cool phases is 3°C to 7°C.42

The present warm period started about 10,500 years ago,6 and thus one may expect the co-ming of the new Ice Age soon, perhaps in the next hundred or thousand years. After a Climatic Optimum around 800 YBP, there was a Little Ice Age between 1550 and 1700, when the ave-rage surface temperature of the globe was about 1°C lower than it is now (Figures l and 2). After 1750, the climate began to warm again, but we still have not reached the warmth of the 12th century (Figure 2). An acceleration of warming occurred around 1938, and then for 40 years, until 1976, the globe was cooling. Between 1976 and 1984, there was a rapid increase of the global surface temperature. The 40-year-long period of cooling of the global atmosphere between 1938 and 1976 occurred when about 75 percent of the total mass of man-made CO2 was released into the atmosphere (Figure 3). It is obvious that all these changes were not dependent on the anthropogenic emission of CO2.

Really!?!?

Maybe you should go look up "cogent" in the dictionary...

*snip*

Um, Gaar ...

Corneliu is on the same side as you on this one, but you're managing to tick him off anyway. Perhaps a change in tactics is advisable ...

(BTW, we do appreciate that you've stopped the capitals and the sig. Thanks.)

Um, Gaar ...

Corneliu is on the same side as you on this one, but you're managing to tick her off anyway. Perhaps a change in tactics is advisable ...

(BTW, we do appreciate that you've stopped the capitals and the sig. Thanks.)

My side?

Sorry, "my side" admits there is another Ice Age coming and that these warming periods have happened on Earth long before People were ever around, and will likely continue to happen long after we are gone, no matter what we Humans do...

So I don't know "which side" he was on, but it wasn't "mine".

My "tactic" by the way is to represent my views in this discussion and to refute information I believe to be incomplete or incorrect.

And I haven't stopped signing my posts, I just don't normally sign something I just cut-and-pasted without any comment. Wouldn't want people accusing me of any claim to being the "Author" of such things.

Regards,
Gaar

Really!?!?

Really!!

Maybe you should go look up "cogent" in the dictionary...

I think you should tool

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

Temperature Changes: The Long Cycles

In the longer time scale, the duration of alternating and asymmetric cycles of long glaciations, and much shorter warm inter-glacial periods, was from 20,000 to 400,000 years. Since about 2 million years ago, one cycle has typically lasted about 100,000 years, with glacial cycles that were about 90,000 years long, and warm periods that were about 10,000 years long.6, 40, 41 During the last 85Ó,OOO years, there have been seven or eight such cycles (Figure 1). The temperature difference between the warm and cool phases is 3°C to 7°C.42

http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/Archive/200412/NAT20041207a.html
http://www.CNSNEWS.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=\Commentary\archive\200412\COM20041202d.html

Two interesting articles regarding global warming.

Um, Gaar ...

Corneliu is on the same side as you on this one, but you're managing to tick her off anyway. Perhaps a change in tactics is advisable ...

(BTW, we do appreciate that you've stopped the capitals and the sig. Thanks.)

I'm male The Cat-Tribe :D

My side?

You don't believe in global warming do you?

Sorry, "my side" admits there is another Ice Age coming and that these warming periods have happened on Earth long before People were ever around, and will likely continue to happen long after we are gone, no matter what we Humans do...

And I agree. I think an Ice age will come and that this warming and cooling period is all cyclical. After all, the dark ages were hotter than it was now.

So I don't know "which side" she was on, but it wasn't "mine".

The "I don't believe in Global Warming side?" And I'm male.

My "tactic" by the way is to represent my views in this discussion and to refute information I believe to be incomplete or incorrect.

And at the sametime, refutting yourself. Your making us anti-global warming people look like idiots.

I'm male The Cat-Tribe :D

Sorry. I knew that too. :headbang:

I assume you wouldn't consider changing that to preserve my accuracy.? ;)

Sorry. I knew that too. :headbang:

No sweat dude. I could drag my sis into here and really confuse this poor devil. But I won't do that. :D

And at the sametime, refutting yourself. Your making us anti-global warming people look like idiots.

Refute myself? Would you be so kind as to point out just where that has happened?

You don't expect me, or anyone else for that matter, to just accept something just because "you" say it, do you?

And I "make you" look like nothing... You are making "yourself" look like what you look like, I have no control over that, do I?

So, instead of just making some statement that neither adds to the discussion or does anyone any service in increasing their understanding, perhaps you would better serve your own interests in actually giving empirical evidence of things you SAY have happened?

Otherwise, I believe your only intent on doing such things is to divert the discussion and avoid having to answer direct questions posed to you...

Did you look up "cogent" yet?

Regards,
Gaar

No sweat dude. I could drag my sis into here and really confuse this poor devil. But I won't do that. :D

Actually, it is obvious just who is confused...

Care to try again, with "real" information to support "your Theory" of the Ice Age just getting over?

That is what you said, is it not?

Regards,
Gaar

Actually, it is obvious just who is confused...

Care to try again, with "real" information to support "your Theory" of the Ice Age just getting over?

That is what you said, is it not?

Regards,
Gaar

Do you have proof that it isn't? I thought you didn't believe in Global Warming!

And your the one that is confused my young padawan apprentice!

Do you have proof that it isn't? I thought you didn't believe in Global Warming!

And your the one that is confused my young padawan apprentice!

Did you miss my post about how an Ice Age is just starting again and not getting over?

Do you need me to re-post it for you? It was posted very recently...

One would wonder why you wouldn't know this, unless of course you don't bother to read the posts that are replies to some of the bull you assert here.

Here, try this...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cogent

Regards,
Gaar

Refute myself? Would you be so kind as to point out just where that has happened?

I believe you tripping over your own arguements regarding temperatures in this thread is proof enough.

You don't expect me, or anyone else for that matter, to just accept something just because "you" say it, do you?

Do you expect me to believe half the crap you stated? Nope. I know my limitations and I at least comeup with my own opinions. Unlike you who uses websites to form your opinions.

make you" look like nothing... You are making "yourself" look like what you look like, I have no control over that, do I?

I do but its people like you that give anti-global warming people a bad name.

So, instead of just making some statement that neither adds to the discussion or does anyone any service in increasing their understanding, perhaps you would better serve your own interests in actually giving empirical evidence of things you SAY have happened?

That your a complete idiot that doesn't know what he is talking about and that has been hammered and debunked by people in this thread on numerous occassions? Yea I was trying to be nice to save you some dignity. I guess you don't care about your dignity at all.

Otherwise, I believe your only intent on doing such things is to divert the discussion and avoid having to answer direct questions posed to you...

Nope. Just trying to be friendly and tell you to give up when you get destroyed like you have been.

Did you look up "cogent" yet?

Did you?

http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/Archi...T20041207a.html

http://www.CNSNEWS.com/ViewCommenta...M20041202d.html

Did you read these two articles?

I believe you tripping over your own arguements regarding temperatures in this thread is proof enough.

Really, point out the quote please... Otherwise you are talking out yer...


Do you expect me to believe half the crap you stated?

Nope, that's why I also include links to "real information", so you don't have to take my word for anything, unlike what you do...

Nope. I know my limitations and I at least comeup with my own opinions. Unlike you who uses websites to form your opinions.

Yep, perhaps you should try it sometime, it's called being "fully informed".


I do but its people like you that give anti-global warming people a bad name.

People like me, or the people like yourself who refuse to look at the evidence and claim that they "know it all" and don't need references to real information?


That your a complete idiot that doesn't know what he is talking about and that has been hammered and debunked by people in this thread on numerous occassions? Yea I was trying to be nice to save you some dignity. I guess you don't care about your dignity at all.

And while you are welcome to your opinion, I believe stating that I am an "idiot" is against Forum Rules and I now am going to have to report such behavior.

And I am pretty sure I have addressed "each" of the "debunkings" unless you would like to actually "point one out" rather than, yet again, making a statement without any proof...


Nope. Just trying to be friendly and tell you to give up when you get destroyed like you have been.

Did you?

Calling someone an idiot is being "friendly"?!?!?

I think I will let a Moderator Rule on that one, thanks for your opinion though.

Regards,
Gaar

Calling someone an idiot is being "friendly"?!?!?

I think I will let a Moderator Rule on that one, thanks for your opinion though.

Regards,
Gaar

Go ahead. I won't be broken hearted if the deat this nation. It'll free up more of my time to get real homework done.

BTW: The word idiot is constently tossed on NS General.

Go ahead. I won't be broken hearted if the deat this nation. It'll free up more of my time to get real homework done.

BTW: The word idiot is constently tossed on NS General.

Tell it to the Moderator...

Regards,
Gaar

Tell it to the Moderator...

Regards,
Gaar

The moderators already know that the word idiot is thrown around here constently.

Did you Read:

http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/Archi...T20041207a.html

http://www.CNSNEWS.com/ViewCommenta...M20041202d.html

The moderators already know that the word idiot is thrown around here constently.

Did you Read:

http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/Archi...T20041207a.html

http://www.CNSNEWS.com/ViewCommenta...M20041202d.html

Yes, and now they know that you are one of the people using it.

And perhaps you should check your links before you post them, it doesn't help your case when you post expired links that say nothing.

Shall we revisit cogent, again?

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, and now they know that you are one of the people using it.

And perhaps you should check your links before you post them, it doesn't help your case when you post expired links that say nothing.

Shall we revisit cogent, again?

Regards,
Gaar

Funny!! They worked before I posted them! I will go back and try it again!

EDIT:

Here we go again!

There Is NO Man-Made Global Warming (http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewCommentary.asp?Page=\Commentary\archive\200412\COM20041202d.html)

Essay Claiming 'Scientific Consensus' for Global Warming is Ridiculed (http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200412\NAT20041207a.html)

Funny!! They worked before I posted them! I will go back and try it again!

They still work. But when links are parsed, you can't copy them from one post to another.

Try again, Gaar.

http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/Archive/200412/NAT20041207a.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=\Commentary\archive\200412\COM20041202d.html

This has been a public service announcment, brought to you by The Cat-Tribe.

They still work. But when links are parsed, you can't copy them from one post to another.

Try again, Gaar.

http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/Archive/200412/NAT20041207a.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=\Commentary\archive\200412\COM20041202d.html

This has been a public service announcment, brought to you by The Cat-Tribe.

I got it Cat-Tribe! Thanks though!

They still work. But when links are parsed, you can't copy them from one post to another.

Try again, Gaar.

http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/Archive/200412/NAT20041207a.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=\Commentary\archive\200412\COM20041202d.html

This has been a public service announcment, brought to you by The Cat-Tribe.

Thanks Cat...

After a quick "run-through" I am left to wonder how this isn't basically what this says...

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

Despite billions of dollars and millions of propaganda headlines, the global warming prophesied by the climate modeling industry is not scientifically real

The amount spent on climate studies worldwide has now reached the astonishingly high level of about $5 billion per year.1 In the United States alone, more than $2 billion is spent annually for climate studies, not including the costs of satellites, ships, and laboratory construction. 2 Climatologists have obtained this immense amount of funding by creating the vision of a man-made planetary climate catastrophe.
_________________________________

Which brings me to a couple of more questions...

First, where has any of the information provided in either of those links "refuted any" of the postulations and assertions I have made in this Thread.

And secondly, if this is where the person disputing my assertions is getting their information, what right do they have to critique me when I offer "Websites" to provide information to support my assertions?

Shall we visit cogent again?

Regards,
Gaar

Thanks Cat...

After a quick "run-through" I am left to wonder how this isn't basically what this says...

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

Despite billions of dollars and millions of propaganda headlines, the global warming prophesied by the climate modeling industry is not scientifically real

The amount spent on climate studies worldwide has now reached the astonishingly high level of about $5 billion per year.1 In the United States alone, more than $2 billion is spent annually for climate studies, not including the costs of satellites, ships, and laboratory construction. 2 Climatologists have obtained this immense amount of funding by creating the vision of a man-made planetary climate catastrophe.

It comes from a more credible website.

Which brings me to a couple of more questions...

First, where has any of the information provided in either of those links "refuted any" of the postulations and assertions I have made in this Thread.

I was making a point that I am on your side? I don't believe in global warming either.

And secondly, if this is where the person disputing my assertions is getting their information, what right do they have to critique me when I offer "Websites" to provide information to support my assertions?

Again, showing that I AM ON YOUR SIDE!!!

Shall we visit the wonderful world of comprehension?

It comes from a more credible website.

by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.O., and D.Sc., who is a professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiologi-cal Protection in Warsaw. A multidisciplinary scientist, he has studied glacier ice samples from around the world, analyzing traces of heavy metals and radionuclides. He is well known as an expert on radiation effects, and has served as the chairman of the UNSCEAR (United Nations Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). Among his previous articles in 21st Century Science & Technology is "Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase, " Spring 1997, p. 42.
___________________________________

I suppose "you" are the "credibility" Judge?

I was making a point that I am on your side? I don't believe in global warming either.

Again, showing that I AM ON YOUR SIDE!!!

Shall we visit the wonderful world of comprehension?

Yes, I believe we should...

Are you trying to say you agreed with the information I was providing, just not the site I used to provide information from?

Because if so, I used that particular Site because it stated things in very succinct manner, easily understood by the lay person, with graphs and explanations to help.

You wouldn't mind showing me where the site you reference has done anything near that and covered several "other" subjects I didn't see covered on the site you provided?

So you wouldn't mind explaining for me how it is that I am the person not relating a clear and concise argument versus just trying to make an argument based on the use of a Website or not, would you?

Again, shall we visit cogent?

Regards,
Gaar

Do you believe in Global Warming Yes or no?

This has got to be a record.

Gaar, you've spent the last 2 1/2 pages, 30 posts, insulting the intelligence of someone who agrees with you on this issue.

*enjoying my popcorn, but choking from laughter*

This has got to be a record.

Gaar, you've spent the last 2 1/2 pages, 30 posts, insulting the intelligence of someone who agrees with you on this issue.

*enjoying my popcorn, but choking from laughter*

And then when I point it out to him, he ignores it!

Do you believe in Global Warming Yes or no?

I'm sorry, I believe I have made my position quite clear on the matter...

Perhaps you should go read what I have been saying if you are confused.

Since you seem unable to make a cogent reply to any of my posts I believe you may wish to further your understanding of the matter by reading what I have already posted and not ask me to state, yet again, my position.

Then perhaps you could ask any questions about things that you may still have questions about.

I am not going to answer any more questions from you that have already been answered in this Thread. Please feel free to read it if you really wish to know my position.

I believe your questions are merely SPAM at this point, unless you have a question about something not already covered?

Regards,
Gaar

This has got to be a record.

Gaar, you've spent the last 2 1/2 pages, 30 posts, insulting the intelligence of someone who agrees with you on this issue.

*enjoying my popcorn, but choking from laughter*

Yeah Cat, why would I not think that you would call what I am doing insulting and what they are doing is not?

Do I care what you think Cat? Not really, I have seen your opinion now in many Threads and I have very little regard for it.

Besides, if this is the type of intellect that resides on my side of this equation, perhaps it's time I reconsidered my position.

Regards,
Gaar

I'm sorry, I believe I have made my position quite clear on the matter...

Perhaps you should go read what I have been saying if you are confused.

Since you seem unable to make a cogent reply to any of my posts I believe you may wish to further your understanding of the matter by reading what I have already posted and not ask me to state, yet again, my position.

Then perhaps you could ask any questions about things that you may still have questions about.

I am not going to answer any more questions from you that have already been answered in this Thread. Please feel free to read it if you really wish to know my position.

I believe your questions are merely SPAM at this point, unless you have a question about something not already covered?

Regards,
Gaar

Just when I was starting to believe you were not a deliberate troll ...

Silly me.

Just when I was starting to believe you were not a deliberate troll ...

Silly me.

Why Cat...

I learn from the best of them.

As you have so kindly pointed out it is not ok for me to say things like people have said to me recently but it is ok to question their intelligence by succinctly pointing out fallacies in their argument, is it not?

Weren't "you" the one that started the whole "cogent" argument thing and Frisbee backed you up on it, right?

So do I get to do it too, or is it only that you guys get to use it against me?

Let me know so I make sure I don't break any Rules.

Regards,
Gaar

Why Cat...

I learn from the best of them.

As you have so kindly pointed out it is not ok for me to say things like people have said to me recently but it is ok to question their intelligence by succinctly pointing out fallacies in their argument, is it not?

Weren't "you" the one that started the whole "cogent" argument thing and Frisbee backed you up on it, right?

So do I get to do it too, or is it only that you guys get to use it against me?

Let me know so I make sure I don't break any Rules.

Regards,
Gaar

Wow. You are as confused about the Mod threads as you are about everything else.

The Troll Song (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8525738&postcount=1)

I've have not read the whole thread, but Gaar do you believe in Climate Change?

I am going to look over my university articles and match them up with some of the sources used to refute climate change.

There are places in the world where it is warming, while there are places, like where I am, that are cooling.

Cheers,
:)

I've have not read the whole thread, but Gaar do you believe in Climate Change?

I am going to look over my university articles and match them up with some of the articles all ready ready cited.

There are places in the world where it is warming, while there place,s like where I am, that are cooling.

Yes, as cited in many of my references the Worlds climate is "cyclical" and presently finishing off a warming period where we may be plunged back into an Ice-Age in the near future (near future being a relative term in the Geological sense).

Do I think this is man's fault, no. I believe it would happen whether we were here or not. We can argue for years how we may or may not be helping it along but it is going to happen regardless if we do everything we can or nothing at all. The number of years it may take to happen may change slightly but not in any significant manner that we could have prevented.

All in my opinion, of course.

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, as cited in many of my references the Worlds climate is "cyclical" and presently finishing off a warming period where we may be plunged back into an Ice-Age in the near future (near future being a relative term in the Geological sense).

Do I think this is man's fault, no. I believe it would happen whether we were here or not. We can argue for years how we may or may not be helping it along but it is going to happen regardless if we do everything we can or nothing at all. The number of years it may take to happen may change slightly but not in any significant manner that we could have prevented.

All in my opinion, of course.

Regards,
Gaar

I agree with what you've said above. I guess what needs to be discussed is what should we do to help ecosystems that are being affected around the world by the introduction of non-native species, this may or not be related to climate change, depends on the location. The changing ecosystems affect some aboriginals who directly rely on their traditional animals for food. Also people die as a result of pollution,.

I feel that these are the issues that need to addressed. I am assuming that you would prefer to do nothing, since you are not directly affected by these two issues, which is understandable.

Cheers,
:)

I feel that these are the issues that need to addressed. I am assuming that you would prefer to do nothing, since you are not directly affected by these two issues, which is understandable.

Cheers,
:)

You assume incorrectly...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402871

I believe therein lies a solution to much of what we are currently up against, particularly with regards to cleaner burning fuels and disposing of all man made waste.

I believe that would make a great start.

Regards,
Gaar

You assume incorrectly...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402871

I believe therein lies a solution to much of what we are currently up against, particularly with regards to cleaner burning fuels and disposing of all man made waste.

I believe that would make a great start.

Regards,
Gaar

Excellent I now remeber reading the start of the thread that you have linked. Honestly, I now feel that I am wasting my time, since I completely agree with you.

Cheers,
:)

I'm sorry, I believe I have made my position quite clear on the matter...

Do you believe in Global Warming? All I want is a yes or no! Is that to hard to do?

Perhaps you should go read what I have been saying if you are confused.

I've been reading but I guess you haven't figured out that I too DON'T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING EITHER

Since you seem unable to make a cogent reply to any of my posts I believe you may wish to further your understanding of the matter by reading what I have already posted and not ask me to state, yet again, my position.

I want your opinion and not those from a website. I'm asking you question that require what you think, not what someone else thinks.

Then perhaps you could ask any questions about things that you may still have questions about.

*sighs* I have tried to ask you questions but then you answer with websites and not with your brain.

I am not going to answer any more questions from you that have already been answered in this Thread. Please feel free to read it if you really wish to know my position.

You really are a confused individual. Frankly, I have asked questions and you've ignored them or answered them with a website and copy and pasted too. I wanted to know what that brain of yours was thinking. I guess you don't have one.

I believe your questions are merely SPAM at this point, unless you have a question about something not already covered?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! SPAM????? Now that's rich. You accusing me of spam when you have spammed on countless occassion.

And I am left to wonder how that addresses "any" of the References given?

Does your little story somehow invalidate even one of the References given?

You and others have attempted to say that the information I have presented is "one Poles theory" and I used those References to refute that assertion. Would you care to address any of the References directly and explain why you feel they desrve no consideration?

You might also look and see that several of the References might also be Referenced by the opposition here?

So, is this your attempt to divert the discussion by noting something not even remotely similar to that which is being discussed? I mean really, you can't even "remember" the Books name (you know the one that has nothing to do with the subject being discussed) for God's sake, what type of argument is that?

Changing the subject is not making a point, I believe you have failed to make any point worthy of further discussion.

Regards,
Gaar

I wasn't too worried about the name of the book, but I could probably hunt it down, if it upsets you that much.

The point I was making was - you have used (basically) one source, of doubtful provenence.

The one source is pretty unreliable... although the sources it cites may be veryreliable... but that is irrelevent... because those aren't the sources you cited.

Your 'one' source carries little weight - and just having lots of sources, doesn't actually add to it's reliability.

It's not how much information you have, it's how good it is, and what you do with it.

I wasn't too worried about the name of the book, but I could probably hunt it down, if it upsets you that much.

The point I was making was - you have used (basically) one source, of doubtful provenence.

The one source is pretty unreliable... although the sources it cites may be veryreliable... but that is irrelevent... because those aren't the sources you cited.

Your 'one' source carries little weight - and just having lots of sources, doesn't actually add to it's reliability.

It's not how much information you have, it's how good it is, and what you do wih it.

I never thought I say this but Grave_n_Idle, I agree with just about everything you said.

1.) You should check your facts again. a) We are exiting an Ice Age! Because we are exiting an ice age, temps are going to go UP!!! b) Weather is cyclical. Yes, you'll have stronger than average storms but guess what? That is the nature of weather. I was studying to be a meteorologist at one point but couldn't pass the math but I still do a shift at the Campus Weather Service here. c) The sun also plays apart in our temperatures. The Sun also has cycles. Its an 11 year cycle.

2) My side! I'm against Global Warming and I don't recognize it. Its a theory only and NOT fact.

3) your arguements aren't cogent but the one's arguing against you, have used cogent arguements.

Sorry - I find this very funny.

I seem to recall Corneliu being the one solid opponent, last time a thread like this ran... and now he's getting savaged by a one-source-expert, and relegated to 'our' side.

It's okay, Corneliu. We're not taking him seriously, here. He doesn't realise he's attacking the best ally he might find...

I never thought I say this but Grave_n_Idle, I agree with just about everything you said.

And, in a whiplash of irony - I just posted a Corneliu-support-post of my own. :)

First days of spring, maybe?

:)

Do you have proof that it isn't? I thought you didn't believe in Global Warming!

And your the one that is confused my young padawan apprentice!

+1 Cool Points awarded for Cool Thing #114; "Ironic Use of Padawan".

Sorry - I find this very funny.

I seem to recall Corneliu being the one solid opponent, last time a thread like this ran... and now he's getting savaged by a one-source-expert, and relegated to 'our' side.

It's okay, Corneliu. We're not taking him seriously, here. He doesn't realise he's attacking the best ally he might find...And, in a whiplash of irony - I just posted a Corneliu-support-post of my own. :)

First days of spring, maybe?

:)

Had to quote both! Never thought we see this day eh?

Yep! Gotta be the first days of spring!

:)

And I'm not taking him seriously after my last round of debate with him.

And your right. I could've been the best ally he could've found.

+1 Cool Points awarded for Cool Thing #114; "Ironic Use of Padawan".

I Couldn't help it. I was just watching Episode II! I guess I put it in there because I was inspired by the movie! :D

Nope, that's why I also include links to "real information", so you don't have to take my word for anything, unlike what you do...

Yep, perhaps you should try it sometime, it's called being "fully informed".


One source... I wouldn't really call that 'fully informed'...

One source, thoroughly discredited... I wouldn't really call that 'real information'.

In fact, as far as I can see... the fact that you provided 'links', is the only 'true' part of that post...

But, carry on, friend...

One source... I wouldn't really call that 'fully informed'...

One source, thoroughly discredited... I wouldn't really call that 'real information'.

In fact, as far as I can see... the fact that you provided 'links', is the only 'true' part of that post...

But, carry on, friend...

Keep this up Grave and I might have to take back most of the nasty things I've said about you including a bastard remark! :D

Had to quote both! Never thought we see this day eh?

Yep! Gotta be the first days of spring!

:)

And I'm not taking him seriously after my last round of debate with him.

And your right. I could've been the best ally he could've found.

Who'd have thought it, eh?

Corneliu AND G_n_I posting 'pro' posts on each other.

Quite made my weekend. :)

I wonder if our erstwhile friend realises the error of his ways?

Rather than harrying your flanks, he should have been begging your assistance...

Just doesn't realise the skills he could have learned...

Ah well... I sense a disturbance in the Force....

Keep this up Grave and I might have to take back most of the nasty things I've said about you including a bastard remark! :D

Lol.

I think the 'bastard' one gets to stay... at least, I wouldn't want you to fly in the face of popular opinion. :)

Who'd have thought it, eh?

Corneliu AND G_n_I posting 'pro' posts on each other.

Quite made my weekend. :)

I wonder if our erstwhile friend realises the error of his ways?

Rather than harrying your flanks, he should have been begging your assistance...

Just doesn't realise the skills he could have learned...

Ah well... I sense a disturbance in the Force....

I feel it also master!

*Notes to stop watching Star Wars movies/trailers/cartoons till May*

But seriously, you right and I'm not afraid to admit it when someone is actually right. He does need to learn to stop posting from one website. Even I use WP, CNN, MSNBC, and reuters when I try to win an arguement. Even my own local paper links if they carry the story.

Lol.

I think the 'bastard' one gets to stay... at least, I wouldn't want you to fly in the face of popular opinion. :)

Ok, if you want it to stay, you little bastard, then so let it be! :D

I wasn't too worried about the name of the book, but I could probably hunt it down, if it upsets you that much.

The point I was making was - you have used (basically) one source, of doubtful provenence.

The one source is pretty unreliable... although the sources it cites may be veryreliable... but that is irrelevent... because those aren't the sources you cited.

Your 'one' source carries little weight - and just having lots of sources, doesn't actually add to it's reliability.

It's not how much information you have, it's how good it is, and what you do with it.

Actually, at one time or another in this Thread I believe I have used the following references at one time or another...

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/130.htm
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/131.htm
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/130.htm#tab41a
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUM9T/$File/ghg_gwp.pdf

As well as a few from other people's links...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/index.cfm
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1264

And I believe there were a few others, but I am not going to waste my time hunting them down for people who have failed to read through the Thread or are now trying to misrepresent my actions here.

One Source indeed. Give me a break!

Regards,
Gaar

I feel it also master!

*Notes to stop watching Star Wars movies/trailers/cartoons till May*

But seriously, you right and I'm not afraid to admit it when someone is actually right. He does need to learn to stop posting from one website. Even I use WP, CNN, MSNBC, and reuters when I try to win an arguement. Even my own local paper links if they carry the story.

He did exactly the same 'act of folly' in his TDP thread.... cites one source, no background, no reading-round the subject.

Maybe he does do other research? But, there's no evidence, if he does.

As you say - you have to, at least, take the time to see what else is out there...

I mean - just on his one source here... the provenence is very suspicious... I believe we have a carbon-industry-sponsored 'expert' arguing against 'carbon' pollution. Maybe it's totally legitimate, but there is an element of bias and 'possible doubt' added in straight away.

Add to this - the fact that, even before I got here, others had already dissected large parts of the original material - in fact, "Cat-Tribes" pretty much had him field 'dressed' by the time I arrived.... perhaps this one source is doing more harm than good.

I do feel bad about getting so much pleasure out of watching him kick holes in his own boats....

One source... I wouldn't really call that 'fully informed'...

One source, thoroughly discredited... I wouldn't really call that 'real information'.

In fact, as far as I can see... the fact that you provided 'links', is the only 'true' part of that post...

But, carry on, friend...

Perhaps "you" might point out where anyone has "thoroughly discredited" the work of ANY of the Websites I Referenced here?

Just because “you” say it doesn’t make it true.

I remember some trying, but failing miserably...

Regards,
Gaar

He did exactly the same 'act of folly' in his TDP thread.... cites one source, no background, no reading-round the subject.

Maybe he does do other research? But, there's no evidence, if he does.


Shall I now go cite ALL of the Sources in the TDP Thread?

I mean, if I am going to be accused of such things, I do get to defend myself, do I not?

Regards,
Gaar

Perhaps "you" might point out where anyone has "thoroughly discredited" the work of ANY of the Websites I Referenced here?

Just because “you” say it doesn’t make it true.


There are none so blind...

There are none so blind...

And pray tell Grave...

Just how many links to Sources have you supplied to reinforce even one point you have made in this discussion?

Or have you even made any points, I don't recall? Mind pointing out "just one"?

Regards,
Gaar

Shall I now go cite ALL of the Sources in the TDP Thread?

I mean, if I am going to be accused of such things, I do get to defend myself, do I not?

Regards,
Gaar

Knock yourself out, skippy.

You might want to think about where your sources come from though...

One of your big-guns here seems to be Zbigniew Jaworowski...

Fair enough, a big scientist, with a list of credentials... but did you do any more research than that?

Jaworowski is the same 'scientist' who claims that Kyoto Protocols would actually cause "enormous damage", that "Chernobyl thyroid cancers are..." [not]... "caused by Chernobyl radiation", that the concerns over Depleted Uranium ammunitions is "just much ado about nothing".

Knock yourself out, skippy.

You might want to think about where your sources come from though...

One of your big-guns here seems to be Zbigniew Jaworowski...

Fair enough, a big scientist, with a list of credentials... but did you do any more research than that?

Jaworowski is the same 'scientist' who claims that Kyoto Protocols would actually cause "enormous damage", that "Chernobyl thyroid cancers are..." [not]... "caused by Chernobyl radiation", that the concerns over Depleted Uranium ammunitions is "just much ado about nothing".

Go go Gadget G_n_i!! :D

... goes away mumbling "skippy" and laughing to himself ....

Knock yourself out, skippy.

You might want to think about where your sources come from though...

One of your big-guns here seems to be Zbigniew Jaworowski...

Fair enough, a big scientist, with a list of credentials... but did you do any more research than that?

Jaworowski is the same 'scientist' who claims that Kyoto Protocols would actually cause "enormous damage", that "Chernobyl thyroid cancers are..." [not]... "caused by Chernobyl radiation", that the concerns over Depleted Uranium ammunitions is "just much ado about nothing".

" I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "

Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.
____________________________________

Any other questions?

Now again, how many Sources have "you" provided here?

That's what I thought...

Regards,
Gaar

And pray tell Grave...

Just how many links to Sources have you supplied to reinforce even one point you have made in this discussion?

Or have you even made any points, I don't recall? Mind pointing out "just one"?

Regards,
Gaar

I'd say it was a basic rule of debate: You make the claim, you provide the evidence.

If your 'evidence' is discredited or rebutted, the burden of proof remains on you.

You have presented some flawed 'evidence' to supprt your assertion that there is no anthropogenic global warming, nothing that hasn't been called-into-question, or proved erroneous... and certainly nothing concrete yet.

I'm not sure I've even made any point, in this thread, my friend. I guess I've been more occupied with watching what you do with your 'point'.

" I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "

Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.
____________________________________

Any other questions?

Now again, how many Sources have "you" provided here?

That's what I thought...

Regards,
Gaar

No questions... not entirely sure what the point was supposed to be, though.

Your post doesn't seem to respond to anything I said, seems to change the subject and talk about a different person... or was that the point?

Do you know anything about the history of Wallace Broecker? Is that your point?

If you were actually trying to make a point, you might want to illustrate which part of the post it will be in...

You have presented some flawed 'evidence' to supprt your assertion that there is no anthropogenic global warming, nothing that hasn't been called-into-question, or proved erroneous... and certainly nothing concrete yet.

I'm not sure I've even made any point, in this thread, my friend. I guess I've been more occupied with watching what you do with your 'point'.

Perhaps "you" would be good enough to show me where I HAVE said what "you" are claiming I said?

I have never said there was no such thing as anthropogenic global warming...

I am quite sure that I have expressed it in the terms of its affect on the "entire Sysytem" and not just let some use it as a sole discussion point on the entire GreenHouse Effect argument, is there a problem with that?

You wouldn't mind not misquoting me to give me some opinion that you can then go dispute, do you?

Because I would rather argue the things I believe, and not the things YOU say I believe.

Thanks,
Gaar

Okay, well ladies and gentleman, I shall intervene on my Universities behalf. Upon studying this topic in further detail I will give you a quick rundown of this so called “Global Warming”

Fact – The Earths average temperature has increased over the past century.

Fact – The Earths temperature increases and decreases all the time for unknown reasons. Scientists only have theories currently and it has yet to be assessed if humans are the cause.

Fact – The Earths temperature on average over the planets lifespan has been considerably greater, think temperate climate and you have it.

Fact – The Earth is currently in a period of global cooling, the short term problem is global warming however our primary concern is global cooling. The planets temperature over the last fifty thousand years has been cooling constantly, our primary concern is if this continues could we see another snowball Earth phenomenon?

Fact – The planets temperature has over the past hundred years increased by a suggested 0.8 degrees centigrade. It only takes a divergence of + or – 4 degress to cause runaway global warming or cooling.

Fact – The Earths meteorological climate is far too complex and diverse for us to understand fully, we are only brushing the surface.

Fact – The Day after tomorrow is not a load of crap, global warming can trigger a Northern Hemisphere is age, but we are not yet in a state of Global warming. We have had an isolated increase in global temperature, but that happens all the time.

No questions... not entirely sure what the point was supposed to be, though.

Your post doesn't seem to respond to anything I said, seems to change the subject and talk about a different person... or was that the point?

Do you know anything about the history of Wallace Broecker? Is that your point?

If you were actually trying to make a point, you might want to illustrate which part of the post it will be in...

You said I cited "one Source" and I just provided a "Second" that I have cited on more than one occassion here.

Perhaps you should remember the accusations you make here, and be fully prepared to support them if challenged.

Regards,
Gaar

Go go Gadget G_n_i!! :D

... goes away mumbling "skippy" and laughing to himself ....

I knew I'd heard the name Jaworowski before... getting torn apart by peer review... something to do with his idea that people who lived near nuclear power plants are actually less likely to contract cancers, I think...

I think it ironic that Urantia feels comfortable using, as his main exponent, an individual who has basically made a living out of being professionally discredited, on a wealth of different subjects.

It's almost like there is no field in which he cannot climb to greatest error.

Okay, well ladies and gentleman, I shall intervene on my Universities behalf. Upon studying this topic in further detail I will give you a quick rundown of this so called “Global Warming”

Fact – The Earths average temperature has increased over the past century.

Fact – The Earths temperature increases and decreases all the time for unknown reasons. Scientists only have theories currently and it has yet to be assessed if humans are the cause.

Fact – The Earths temperature on average over the planets lifespan has been considerably greater, think temperate climate and you have it.

Fact – The Earth is currently in a period of global cooling, the short term problem is global warming however our primary concern is global cooling. The planets temperature over the last fifty thousand years has been cooling constantly, our primary concern is if this continues could we see another snowball Earth phenomenon?

Fact – The planets temperature has over the past hundred years increased by a suggested 0.8 degrees centigrade. It only takes a divergence of + or – 4 degress to cause runaway global warming or cooling.

Fact – The Earths meteorological climate is far too complex and diverse for us to understand fully, we are only brushing the surface.

Fact – The Day after tomorrow is not a load of crap, global warming can trigger a Northern Hemisphere is age, but we are not yet in a state of Global warming. We have had an isolated increase in global temperature, but that happens all the time.

Let's not try and confuse these people with FACTS...

They are having a tough enough time sorting out Sources.

ROTFLMAO!!!

*walks away singing skippy*

Regards,
Gaar

Perhaps "you" would be good enough to show me where I HAVE said what "you" are claiming I said?

I have never said there was no such thing as anthropogenic global warming...

I am quite sure that I have expressed it in the terms of its affect on the "entire Sysytem" and not just let some use it as a sole discussion point on the entire GreenHouse Effect argument, is there a problem with that?

You wouldn't mind not misquoting me to give me some opinion that you can then go dispute, do you?

Because I would rather argue the things I believe, and not the things YOU say I believe.

Thanks,
Gaar

You are, of course, correct.

If you are so obscure about what your point actually 'is', that I can no longer follow it through your sidetracks and switchbacks, it must be my fault, and I assume all responsibility.

My apologies.

So - if you would care to actually state what your 'point' is?

" I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "

Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.
____________________________________

Any other questions?

Now again, how many Sources have "you" provided here?

That's what I thought...

Regards,
Gaar

Are you under the impression that quote helps you, Gaar?

Re-read it. Slowly.

I'll try to break it down:

I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor.

Follow along:

1. there are fast, global changes

2. only one element of the climate system is capable of generating them

3. that is

4. changes in the tropical atmosphere

5. leading to changes in the inventory of water vapor, the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas.

In other words:

1. something is causing changes in the tropical atmosphere

2. leading to changes in the inventory of water vapor

3. which is the only element of the climate system capable of generating

4. the fast global changes

So, contrary to your opinion, were are experience fast global climate changes.

And, if you've been following the bouncing ball, G_n_i and Free Soviets have explained that anthropogenic contributions are responsible for the changes in tropical atmosphere ---- which ... generate changes in the inventory of water vapor!! Yeah! :D

Clearly there is some missing context to the sentence, but as it stands it only hurts you.

I know Mr. Heib, whose website you started out copying from, likes that quote, but he's clearly not very bright.

You are, of course, correct.

If you are so obscure about what your point actually 'is', that I can no longer follow it through your sidetracks and switchbacks, it must be my fault, and I assume all responsibility.

My apologies.

So - if you would care to actually state what your 'point' is?

I'm pretty sure I have stated it quite plainly, several times...

Perhaps the fault lies in ones ability to comprehend such things, or not having availed themselves of the entire information I have provided in my posts?

Either way, I cannot be held responsible if someone just doesn't "get it".

Regards,
Gaar

Okay, well ladies and gentleman, I shall intervene on my Universities behalf. Upon studying this topic in further detail I will give you a quick rundown of this so called “Global Warming”

Fact – The Earths average temperature has increased over the past century.

Fact – The Earths temperature increases and decreases all the time for unknown reasons. Scientists only have theories currently and it has yet to be assessed if humans are the cause.

Fact – The Earths temperature on average over the planets lifespan has been considerably greater, think temperate climate and you have it.

Fact – The Earth is currently in a period of global cooling, the short term problem is global warming however our primary concern is global cooling. The planets temperature over the last fifty thousand years has been cooling constantly, our primary concern is if this continues could we see another snowball Earth phenomenon?

Fact – The planets temperature has over the past hundred years increased by a suggested 0.8 degrees centigrade. It only takes a divergence of + or – 4 degress to cause runaway global warming or cooling.

Fact – The Earths meteorological climate is far too complex and diverse for us to understand fully, we are only brushing the surface.

Fact – The Day after tomorrow is not a load of crap, global warming can trigger a Northern Hemisphere is age, but we are not yet in a state of Global warming. We have had an isolated increase in global temperature, but that happens all the time.

Simply placing the word 'Fact' before a collection of other words, doesn't grant some magical power on them, to transform them into articles of truth.

Some of your 'facts' are, I would say, very much arguable.

For example - "the short term problem is global warming however our primary concern is global cooling". Oversimplified, and erroneous in terms of spheres of impact. Colorado watersheds are not worried about global cooling... not now, not in a few thousand years. For Colorado watersheds, the longterm issue is the same as the short term... the loss of water through warming, and warming-related factors.

Also - you might expect to be questioned, if you state something as 'fact'... do you have a source that backs each of the claims you assert?

snip

*walks away singing skippy*

snip

There are words and a tune? Please share.

*snip* *YAWN*

And now, as has been asked in this Thread many times and you just don't seem to want to answer...

Please explain, if all of the thing "you cite" are man-made, then how on Earth have these things happened before, on a much larger scale than we are seeing now, without "any Human" interaction what-so-ever?

Care to explain that one, skippy?

Regards,
Gaar

There are words and a tune? Please share.

Perhaps once you get some of these simpler concepts down then we can move on to other things...

But not until then.

Regards,
Gaar

Are you under the impression that quote helps you, Gaar?

Re-read it. Slowly.

I'll try to break it down:



Follow along:

1. there are fast, global changes

2. only one element of the climate system is capable of generating them

3. that is

4. changes in the tropical atmosphere

5. leading to changes in the inventory of water vapor, the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas.

In other words:

1. something is causing changes in the tropical atmosphere

2. leading to changes in the inventory of water vapor

3. which is the only element of the climate system capable of generating

4. the fast global changes

So, contrary to your opinion, were are experience fast global climate changes.

And, if you've been following the bouncing ball, G_n_i and Free Soviets have explained that anthropogenic contributions are responsible for the changes in tropical atmosphere ---- which ... generate changes in the inventory of water vapor!! Yeah! :D

Clearly there is some missing context to the sentence, but as it stands it only hurts you.

I know Mr. Heib, whose website you started out copying from, likes that quote, but he's clearly not very bright.

Aha! I do believe I got it!

Okay - so, the reason I didn't understand the significance of the post was: he was actually trying to use one of our own arguments, to discredit us?

Somehow implying that our case stands/falls on the definition of water vapour as a greenhouse agent? Even after... I believe... I (at least) have posted specifically on this very issue?

Let's not try and confuse these people with FACTS...

They are having a tough enough time sorting out Sources.

ROTFLMAO!!!

*walks away singing skippy*

Regards,
Gaar

I agree with everything Unified Sith stated. You on the other hand have had your links discredited.

I agree with everything Unified Sith stated. You on the other hand have had your links discredited.

Oh, I see...

If I had just "said" what I believed and hadn't backed it up with Sources everything would be ok...

ROTFLMFAO!!!

This is getting good!

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: Who had the Popcorn again? Can you pass some this way, please.

I'm pretty sure I have stated it quite plainly, several times...

Perhaps the fault lies in ones ability to comprehend such things, or not having availed themselves of the entire information I have provided in my posts?

Either way, I cannot be held responsible if someone just doesn't "get it".

Regards,
Gaar

I can only think of one reason why you would refuse to discuss what your actual contention is... and that would be 'obfuscation'.

It really is beginning to look like you have lost yourself so deep in arguing every point... that even you have no trace of what your initial point might have been... or I could be wrong...

So - what IS your contention?

(Because, it's looking like you don't have one any more...)

I can only think of one reason why you would refuse to discuss what your actual contention is... and that would be 'obfuscation'.

It really is beginning to look like you have lost yourself so deep in arguing every point... that even you have no trace of what your initial point might have been... or I could be wrong...

So - what IS your contention?

(Because, it's looking like you don't have one any more...)

Try reading the post recently with all the "Facts"...

If that fails you, perhaps you can read, or re-read as it were, what I have already posted in this Thread. Asking me to repeat myself because you couldn't be bothered to pay attention is not a valid debate tactic.

If you have further questions, please feel free.

Regards,
Gaar

And now, as has been asked in this Thread many times and you just don't seem to want to answer...

Please explain, if all of the thing "you cite" are man-made, then how on Earth have these things happened before, on a much larger scale than we are seeing now, without "any Human" interaction what-so-ever?

Care to explain that one, skippy?

Regards,
Gaar

Did you really go back 4 days to find that quote to snip? Try to stay current.

I'd explain, but you've got me YAWNing again.

I think G_n_i and Free Soviets have explained this to you multiple times. My cats are starting to get it.

Oh, I see...

If I had just "said" what I believed and hadn't backed it up with Sources everything would be ok...

ROTFLMFAO!!!

This is getting good!

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: Who had the Popcorn again? Can you pass some this way, please.

If you looked, you'd see that "Sith" has been asked for sources, for his/her assertions... and none have yet been forthcoming...

But, when you make an assertion - it is actually better to have no source, than to have a discredited source.

"Sith" just appears unsubstantiated.

Your 'evidence' actually counts against your argument.

I believe Corneliu would like to see "Sith" provide evidence, also... rather than just flat assertions...

Come to think of it... I believe Corneliu would be overjoyed if you were able to provide sources, that had not been so easily trivialised.

I think you are really attacking the wrong person, there.

Did you really go back 4 days to find that quote to snip? Try to stay current.

I'd explain, but you've got me YAWNing again.

Again you fail to address a direct question.

Why is that? When the going gets tough, the ill informed people who cannot support their position run away...

Does that surprise anyone? Because it has been their MO for some time now...

Regards,
Gaar

Try reading the post recently with all the "Facts"...

If that fails you, perhaps you can read, or re-read as it were, what I have already posted in this Thread. Asking me to repeat myself because you couldn't be bothered to pay attention is not a valid debate tactic.

If you have further questions, please feel free.

Regards,
Gaar

Classic Gaar move. Refuse to state your premise.

Don't let them know what you are arguing. If they don't know, they can't explain why it is idiotic.

Sheer genius. Did you get that from The Art of War?

EDIT: Gotta love the irony --

Again you fail to address a direct question.

Why is that? When the going gets tough, the ill informed people who cannot support their position run away...

Does that surprise anyone? Because it has been their MO for some time now...

Regards,
Gaar

Try reading the post recently with all the "Facts"...

If that fails you, perhaps you can read, or re-read as it were, what I have already posted in this Thread. Asking me to repeat myself because you couldn't be bothered to pay attention is not a valid debate tactic.

If you have further questions, please feel free.

Regards,
Gaar

The "Facts" post was by Sith, wasn't it?

So - your 'contention' is actually just a re-read of Sith's list of unsupported claims?

Bleieve it or not - asking you to clarfiy your point, probably wouldn't be considered a 'debate tactic', by most people.

It's not so much that I 'couldn't be bothered to pay attention'... more the fact that, I can't find any consistent 'argument' throughout your posts.

Please - do me the courtesy... just let us know what your point is actually supposed to be?

Again you fail to address a direct question.

Why is that? When the going gets tough, the ill informed people who cannot support their position run away...

Does that surprise anyone? Because it has been their MO for some time now...

Regards,
Gaar

G_n_i and Free Soviets are better informed and can explain it better than I.

Please explain, if all of the thing "you cite" are man-made, then how on Earth have these things happened before, on a much larger scale than we are seeing now, without "any Human" interaction what-so-ever?

But I believe the answer to your question is that they haven't happened before on a much larger scale. You think they have because of your goofy sources. G_n_i and Free Soviets will correct me if I am wrong -- just as they have done with your every post.

Classic Gaar move. Refuse to state your premise.

Don't let them know what you are arguing. If they don't know, they can't explain why it is idiotic.

Sheer genius. Did you get that from The Art of War?

EDIT: Gotta love the irony --

What's the problem Cat, having problems reading the Thread?

I have stated my premise many times now; I am not going to be bothered to re-state it just because you couldn't be bothered to read it the first time I posted it.

If you are unable to find it for yourself, with as many times as I have stated it here, I don't know how else I can help you.

Again, I am not going to repeat myself because you want me to.

Or how about this...

You "address" the single question asked of you and then I will post links to each place I have stated my premise here.

Unless you are willing to do as you are requesting of others then your requests will fall on deaf ears.

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: Not supporting his position seems to be a specialty of The Cat-Tribe... It seems making a cogent argument may be beyond him.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8531035&postcount=86
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8531059&postcount=89

And look at who is accusing who of "Hijacking" a Thread. Quite amusing.