NationStates Jolt Archive

Another leg in the conservative-led attack on Global Warming cut out from under them. What have they got left to use in helping them ignore the bleeding obvious? (i.e GW is mostly due to us)

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.

"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.

Warming trend

The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple; to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.

The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.

But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.

But in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as, if not faster than, at any time during the previous 100 years.

"This paper re-enforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.

Cosmic relief

The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.

But the organisation was criticised in some quarters for not taking into account the cosmic ray hypothesis, developed among others by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen of the Danish National Space Center.

Their theory holds that cosmic rays help clouds to form by providing tiny particles around which water vapour can condense. Overall, clouds cool the Earth.

During periods of active solar activity, cosmic rays are partially blocked by the Sun's more intense magnetic field. Cloud formation diminishes, and the Earth warms.

Mike Lockwood's analysis appears to have put a large, probably fatal nail in this intriguing and elegant hypothesis.

He said: "I do think there is a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover. It works in clean maritime air where there isn't much else for water vapour to condense around.

"It might even have had a significant effect on pre-industrial climate. But you cannot apply it to what we're seeing now, because we're in a completely different ball game."

Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen could not be reached for comment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

Clearly these "scientists" are part of the global warming conspiracy. They're trying to make us buy fuel efficient cars, those bastards.

as any well paid scientists will tell you "the Sun" could mean any sun...

curse you Sirius with your brightness!

Wait...how many people actually claimed this anyway? I only ever saw one person claim it, and it was one of the trolls we've got around here on NSG.

And considering I live in Tancredo country where everyone is just as stupid as he is, you'd think I'd hear it more.

Of course most global warming skeptics tend to be Busheviks as well, so it explains their imperviousness to logic and reality, as well as their determination to deny responsibility for this world's ever more fucked up climate. Someone'll come up with a rant about how the source is liberal, or come up with some paid tool's writings to "refute" it.

Speaking of which, in before New Mitanni rants.

as any well paid scientists will tell you "the Sun" could mean any sun...
Or indeed even this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/210000/images/_212737_sun_logo300.jpg
Which certainly cannot be fingered as a major source of Global Warming.
Major source of Global Stupidity definitely but not Global Warming.

Looks like both sides are manipulating the date for their own ends. Graphs that stop at 1980, graphs that start at 1970 - two sides of the same coin. :p Hopefully we'll get the real story one of these days. ;)

for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined

THE SUN IS DYING?!?! NOOOOOOO

THE SUN IS DYING?!?! NOOOOOOO

I don't think so. :p Sunspot activity is way up, according to a couple Ham Radio enthusiasts I know - so if it's dying, it's not going down easy. ;)

THE SUN IS DYING?!?! NOOOOOOO
yup. Of course you'll need a few more 'O's to that "NOOOOOOOO" - to take you up to the year 5 Billlion (give or take a billion years)

yup. Of course you'll need a few more 'O's to that "NOOOOOOOO" - to take you up to the year 5 Billlion (give or take a billion years)

I took his 'nooooo' to mean "sooner than expected." :p Nothing lasts forever, of course. :)

I took his 'nooooo' to mean "sooner than expected." :p Nothing lasts forever, of course. :)
maybe. I just was struck by the idea of a person being cursed to yell, "NOOOOOOO" until the sun finally dies.

I read a lot of fantasy.

maybe. I just was struck by the idea of a person being cursed to yell, "NOOOOOOO" until the sun finally dies.

I read a lot of fantasy.

That would be a sad fate indeed. :p

Wait...how many people actually claimed this anyway? I only ever saw one person claim it, and it was one of the trolls we've got around here on NSG.

And considering I live in Tancredo country where everyone is just as stupid as he is, you'd think I'd hear it more.

KNEEL before Tancredo! :p

(*15-second pause*)

You DO know I'm kidding, don't you?

KNEEL before Tancredo! :p

(*15-second pause*)

You DO know I'm kidding, don't you?

If you're not I'm going to have to give you a stern talking to and mock you for your lack of intelligence.

Just wait until the sun goes red giant. Then we'll see some global warming!

Or indeed even this one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/210000/images/_212737_sun_logo300.jpg
Which certainly cannot be fingered as a major source of Global Warming.
Major source of Global Stupidity definitely but not Global Warming.I wouldn't even go that far. As far as I know, The Sun has only been linked to major stupidity clusters in the UK.

I'm still a bit skeptical about global warming. People are like "The climate's changing! The climate's in crisis!" but the weather's exactly the same here as it was ten years ago.

I'm still a bit skeptical about global warming. People are like "The climate's changing! The climate's in crisis!" but the weather's exactly the same here as it was ten years ago.

Crazy.

Where I live the climate changes nearly every day, there's some sun, some rain, some wind - climate's always changing.

I'm still a bit skeptical about global warming. People are like "The climate's changing! The climate's in crisis!" but the weather's exactly the same here as it was ten years ago.

Well it's a darned tootin' good thing that the very last big climate change thread that was up only this past week made clear the distinction betwixt "climate" and "weather", eh?

You should remain skeptical of everything until you prove it to yourself, though, so good for you. :)

Just wait until the sun goes red giant. Then we'll see some global warming!

Bloated spent crappy blistery bulge.
Just like my uncle.
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/red_dwarf_art.jpg

Well it's a darned tootin' good thing that the very last big climate change thread that was up only this past week made clear the distinction betwixt "climate" and "weather", eh?

You should remain skeptical of everything until you prove it to yourself, though, so good for you. :)

Cos the climes they are a-chang....ing

Doo doo doo be doo be, doo doo be doo.

Cos the climes they are a-chang....ing

Doo doo doo be doo be, doo doo be doo.

Representin'.
*bows*

Well it's a darned tootin' good thing that the very last big climate change thread that was up only this past week made clear the distinction betwixt "climate" and "weather", eh?

You should remain skeptical of everything until you prove it to yourself, though, so good for you. :)

Aye. A person shouldn't take anything serious like this for granted, regardless of the topic and what scientists present it. Investigate it. Find out for yourself, and understand! Learn! It's what you do.

Aye. A person shouldn't take anything serious like this for granted, regardless of the topic and what scientists present it. Investigate it. Find out for yourself, and understand! Learn! It's what you do.

Like gravity! Yay!
http://www.pulsephotonics.com/gallery/originals/Water%20-%20falling.jpeg

Like gravity! Yay!
http://www.pulsephotonics.com/gallery/originals/Water%20-%20falling.jpeg

Well, obviously something like gravity is easily provable by anyone in their home. I'm talking about concepts like evolution or climate change that can't be.

Climate change....I guess that to most people it is bleedin' obvious. Well it is to people living where I live. We NEVER get snow in the winter anymore, we never even get a decent frost, it rains way more in the winter than it used to and gets warmer earlier and earlier every year, messing up the spring and then the summer arrives and it just rains..There are floods in places that nobody can remember ever getting flooded before, the climate is changing. It takes stupid people to ignore the obvious, but I don't KNOW the reason, I am just going to go with the reason that seems the most likely to me and millions of other people, including the very well educated and people who study this kind of thing for a living. I don't care what religion they are, what idiot they vote for or what company they might buy their car/fuel/fish fingers from. I do know that there have been sightings of pods of bottle nosed dolphins of the coast of where I live, that there has never been a wetter June in living memory, and all manner of other 'worst ever' 'since records began' and within 'living memory' climate things happening all the time, everywhere.

Wake up and smell the coffee people, or else you may all be living in waterworld, and you know that means! drinking your own wee from a filter and sharing a catamaran with Kevin Costner.

Well, obviously something like gravity is easily provable by anyone in their home. I'm talking about concepts like evolution or climate change that can't be.
Actually, the climate change issue is provable, both by prediction/consummation.
As is the evolution issue.
Both are, and have been.
As far as climate change is concerned, Alaska is a "canary state", and DM and myself posted at great length about it before, to probably the reasonable satisfaction for the layperson.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481034&highlight=Straughn+climate
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468351&highlight=Straughn+climate
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471807&highlight=Straughn+climate

I've done my part in the evolution threads as well, perhaps to the chagrin of others, but not so much to myself.

Actually, the climate change issue is provable, both by prediction/consummation.
As is the evolution issue.
Both are, and have been.
As far as climate change is concerned, Alaska is a "canary state", and DM and myself posted at great length about it before, to probably the reasonable satisfaction for the layperson.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481034&highlight=Straughn+climate
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468351&highlight=Straughn+climate
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471807&highlight=Straughn+climate

I've done my part in the evolution threads as well, perhaps to the chagrin of others, but not so much to myself.
...

The point is, I'm trying to encourage people to learn, not to just take whatever someone says at face value, even if said someone is a notable scientist who probably does know what he's talking about. It's a good habit to encourage, because it makes people think. Sure, they'll come to the same conclusion, but the point is that they think about it and learn about it, not that they know it.

...

The point is, I'm trying to encourage people to learn, not to just take whatever someone says at face value, even if said someone is a notable scientist who probably does know what he's talking about. It's a good habit to encourage, because it makes people think. Sure, they'll come to the same conclusion, but the point is that they think about it and learn about it, not that they know it.

True, that.
I get to witness the climate change thing first hand, which is probably why i am so vociferous about it.

The evolution issue ... well, i've had an innoculation or two, so that could be construed as personal experience. :)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474839&highlight=Straughn+evolution
And perhaps something in here ...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=479090&highlight=Straughn+evolution

What exactly are you witnessing climate change wise anyway?

What exactly are you witnessing climate change wise anyway?

The glacial recession
Blooming patterns
Mass shoreline erosion
Temperature anomalies
Permafrost melt

Actually, it's pretty well documented in at least one of the threads i'd provided, if ya wanted to look it up.
IIRC, you were in on a conversation or two anyway. :)

The glacial recession
Blooming patterns
Mass shoreline erosion
Temperature anomalies
Permafrost melt

Actually, it's pretty well documented in at least one of the threads i'd provided, if ya wanted to look it up.
IIRC, you were in on a conversation or two anyway. :)

Yes...as I recall it was during that brief period I was being swallowed by a neoconservative teacher and I called you a silly liberal. *shudder*

Aye. A person shouldn't take anything serious like this for granted, regardless of the topic and what scientists present it. Investigate it. Find out for yourself, and understand! Learn! It's what you do.

Feh. Not my problem. If the Earth dies because of something trivial like this, it deserves to die.

Yes...as I recall it was during that brief period I was being swallowed by a neoconservative teacher and I called you a silly liberal. *shudder*

All the more reason that your growth and intellect will leave the U.S. at a loss at your departure.
:(

Feh. Not my problem. If the Earth dies because of something trivial like this, is deserves to die.
Actually, the planet itself will be just fine and dandy. We're the ones who will have a huge problem on our hands, so yes, it is your problem. Earth will weather the change in climate like it's nothing. Humanity won't find it so easy.
All the more reason that your growth and intellect will leave the U.S. at a loss at your departure.
:(
...

I suppose. But Canada will gain, and I know the U.S. will come around with or without my help.

Feh. Not my problem. If the Earth dies because of something trivial like this, it deserves to die.

In what way does this even make any sense - I'm sorry but it's just not up to your usual standards.

Feh. Not my problem. If the Earth dies because of something trivial like this, is deserves to die.
Here's something funny to consider:
The "common cold" (and all variations thereof) were once bloodborne, and since have "adapted" "to" "conditions", and is since airborne.

We all deserved it.
So how's AIDS doing, anyway?

I suppose. But Canada will gain, and I know the U.S. will come around with or without my help.
It's been The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul of late ... the times that try men's souls.
With the exception, of course, of this and a few other tidbits:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a5UWutC09_Xg&refer=home
WooT!

Balls?

Here's something funny to consider:
The "common cold" (and all variations thereof) were once bloodborne, and since have "adapted" "to" "conditions", and is since airborne.

We all deserved it.
So how's AIDS doing, anyway?

...

What does that even mean? It has nothing to do with climate change.

...

What does that even mean? It has nothing to do with climate change.
Are you thinking you'll school me on climate change? :rolleyes:

If the Earth dies because of something trivial like this, is deserves to die.
Kinda Machiavellian to me. Perhaps you need to hone your math skills a smidge.

It's been The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul of late ... the times that try men's souls.
With the exception, of course, of this and a few other tidbits:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a5UWutC09_Xg&refer=home
WooT!

Balls?

Aye, it has been, but I'm not going to be able to influence things all that much. I'd have to work from within the party system as it is right now, and if I do that I'll get sucked into the same damned thing.

No...better for me to improve some place I know I can improve without worry rather than trying to improve something I am unable to improve.

Also, I'm not entirely certain what the common cold has to do with climate change either. That sounds more like an argument for evolution. :confused:

Are you thinking you'll school me on climate change? :rolleyes:


Kinda Machiavellian to me. Perhaps you need to hone your math skills a smidge.

I made a comment about climate change, you went off about the common cold and AIDS.

You make no sense.

i left politics and all the crap that goes with it a few years ago but now i can't keep quiet any longer.
i'm so damn tired of the so called global warming issue that it's got me hooked again (that and the wholly overblown terrorist threat of course) it's em all piping on about bloody cows that's the final nail for me...
as for the sun theory, it was my understanding that solar activity takes many many years to manifest itself, so the earths warming may have been caused by activity centuries ago and far more eminent scientists have stated so...
perhaps i should invent a cow fart catcher then i too could make millions off the back of a hastily thought out concept. or perhaps i should just stay with the reasoning that the earths temperature has been constantly changing since the dawn of time and all this is NOTHING new and has sod all do do with us or f'ing cows!
:)

I made a comment about climate change, you went off about the common cold and AIDS.Good thing i covered that topic quite a bit before you, eh?

I'll spell it out for you this one time then.
You said:

If the Earth dies because of something trivial like this, is deserves to die.
Now, do you know who Machiavelli is, of whom i'm referring?
By way of comparison:
Things seeming trivial by one in one regard doesn't mean those things actually are trivial. You are simply applying myopia at one point in its stage of influence and dire nature. Further, the attitude you employ is akin to at least irresponsibility and at most outright neglect about both nature and consequence.
You make no sense.Nah, i just have to try harder with some people. :rolleyes:

Also, I'm not entirely certain what the common cold has to do with climate change either. That sounds more like an argument for evolution. :confused:
Think nothing of it.

snip

I'll just sum it up: I don't care.

Think nothing of it.
No, I see your point now. Bit too obscure though. Gotta watch that.
I'll just sum it up: I don't care.

Why?

I'll just sum it up: I don't care.

I think the counter point was: you should.

However trivial it might seem to you, it isn't necessarily so.

Just like the common cold may have seemed trivial while it was adapting itself to become airborne, so it may seem trivial that the climate is changing.

In actuality, the common cold is probably a whole lot more common because of its adaption and the climate changing may very well lead to your death. That's what the whole issue is about, after all, our pollution (note "progress") killing ourselves. The earth, however, will be fine.

You guys/girls are unreal you really are have you thought about looking post your arms reach and thinking about it for even a moment for yourselves?

Climate change, the heating or cooling of the Earth's ambient temperature.
Yes admitted it has happened in the past throughout history, there is lots of evidence of this. It will continue to happen with or with out us, its part of the Earth's natural cycle.
But have any of you stopped to think, oh wait last time it happen humans weren't about pumping millions of tonnes of CO2 and the like into the atmosphere everyday. Do you not think that would have an impact? Your body would release methane into the atmosphere of an enclosed space, but if i started pumping extra in that would have and effect. Ergo, WE ARE AFFECTING IT! ITS BLATENTLY OBVIOUS WITHOUT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, COMMON SENSE IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED!

Jesus why do people bother trying to prove it to you or even save you and your children if you can't even see that for yourselves.

Wake up and smell the coffee people, or else you may all be living in waterworld, and you know that means! drinking your own wee from a filter and sharing a catamaran with Kevin Costner.
Given the choice I'd opt for drinking my own wee than spending time in a boat with Kevin Costner.

It was a 'either-or' question was it not?

Given the choice I'd opt for drinking my own wee than spending time in a boat with Kevin Costner.

I've got to agree there!

Here's something funny to consider:
The "common cold" (and all variations thereof) were once bloodborne, and since have "adapted" "to" "conditions", and is since airborne.

We all deserved it.
So how's AIDS doing, anyway?Oh noes, airborne AIDS! That's about what I'm getting from your post. Atleast it would dramatically decrease the amount of humans on the planet, thus reducing the amount of CO2 being released. It's a solution, but I'll prefer something a little more sensible.

Oh noes, airborne AIDS! That's about what I'm getting from your post. Atleast it would dramatically decrease the amount of humans on the planet, thus reducing the amount of CO2 being released. It's a solution, but I'll prefer something a little more sensible.

Someone else doesn't get it. To put it simply:
Just because Ferrous Oxide thinks that global warming is trivial now, doesn't mean it is. People once thought the common cold was trivial, not so much anymore. People used to think AIDS was trivial. See the pattern here?

Given the choice I'd opt for drinking my own wee than spending time in a boat with Kevin Costner.

It was a 'either-or' question was it not?

Nope, it was AND


So stop consuming right now or take the consequences!

Nope, it was AND


So stop consuming right now or take the consequences!
Dammit! What am I going to do now with all these litres of wee I've saved?

mmmm....


lemonade stand...

The sun drives our global climate. So I am not going to jump on this anymore then I would if it was a article claiming the opposite. I don't think that we have enough data either way to determine what the hell is going on. We just know it's changing.

as any well paid scientists will tell you "the Sun" could mean any sun...

curse you Sirius with your brightness!Not really, no. You've prooved so in your post as well. The word 'sun' is synonymous with 'star', but the word 'Sun' isn't. It's like the difference between the Conservatives and the conservatives. Though if you really wanted to be precise then I'd guess you'd call it Sol.

http://www.businessdayonline.com/?c=125&a=14551

The world is facing an oil supply “crunch” within five years that will force up prices to record levels and increase the west’s dependence on oil cartel Opec, the industrialised countries’ energy watchdog has warned
By Javier Blas, Commodities Correspondent

In its starkest warning yet on the world’s fuel outlook, the International Energy Agency said “oil looks extremely tight in five years time” and there are “prospects of even tighter natural gas markets at the turn of the decade”.

Problem solved, well within Gore's "I pulled the date out of my ass" six year window.

We'll run out of oil, and stop driving and using oil and gas for power generation.

No government need do anything - it will happen whether we like it or not.

I'm still a bit skeptical about global warming. People are like "The climate's changing! The climate's in crisis!" but the weather's exactly the same here as it was ten years ago.

Heheh yeah I love that line of reasoning.

'Well nowt here has changed for the last 10 years which means logicaly that nowt has changed everywere'

But I thought the global average temperature has decreased in the last 20 years.

Oh noes, airborne AIDS! That's about what I'm getting from your post. Atleast it would dramatically decrease the amount of humans on the planet, thus reducing the amount of CO2 being released. It's a solution, but I'll prefer something a little more sensible.

I don't think you can get AIDS from his post.

http://www.businessdayonline.com/?c=125&a=14551

Problem solved, well within Gore's "I pulled the date out of my ass" six year window.

We'll run out of oil, and stop driving and using oil and gas for power generation.

No government need do anything - it will happen whether we like it or not.

When the oil and gas run out everyone'll just go back to burning coal, the most polluting form of fossil fuel.

When the oil and gas run out everyone'll just go back to burning coal, the most polluting form of fossil fuel.

I don't think so.

Here's the problem.

The Middle East oil nations (and other oil producing nations) have borrowed trillions of dollars on the basis of oil reserves.

Reserves that apparently, are vastly overstated.

When the crunch comes, the banking system of the world will collapse, and humanity will be plunged into chaos.

There won't be time, or money, to invest in coal.

It takes time to build coal plants, and coal gasification plants. Time has already run out. You would never get enough plants up in the next five years.

o understand who he was, you have to go back to another time. When the world was powered by the black fuel. And the desert sprouted great cities of pipe and steel. Gone now, swept away. For reasons long forgotten, two mighty warrior tribes went to war and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel, they were nothing. They built a house of straw. The thundering machines sputtered and stopped. Their leaders talked and talked and talked. But nothing could stem the avalanche. Their world crumbled. The cities exploded. A whirlwind of looting, a firestorm of fear. Men began to feed on men. On the roads it was a white line nightmare. Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice.

sorry kids, man-made global warming ain't for real.

According to the "global warming theory", man is pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the upper atmosphere, which is trapping heat and causing the Earth to boil. Sounds like a great sci-fi film, but it doesn't happen.

Man produces CO2 and other pollutants from between 1-100 feet above ground level. CO2 is heavier than air, and sinks upon cooling. Excess CO2 is absorbed either by soil or plant life. The only way to get CO2 into the upper atmosphere is to propel it there by force, and we don't send up rockets to do that.

Mother Nature, on the other hand, does. Volcanos, which are essentially exploding mountains, exude so much more CO2 than mankind could ever aspire to. Just Mt. Saint Helens in 1980 released more gas in one day than man has done in the last 100 years, and, St. Helens shot it up in the air 2.5 miles.

So, why global warming now? After all, Volcanos have been around for quite awhile. Well, volcanic activity is at it's highest point in 100 years, beginning in 1975. That begs the question of why that might be as well. Well, it seems the sun has been increasing in electro-magnetic output since about 1940, which matches the last period of global cooling. Take a giant electro magnet, put it next to a ball of iron and the ball of iron (that would be the Earth) is going to shake. Shake the Earth, and mountains will explode. Oh, by the way, every planet in the Solar System is experiencing this, and every one of them has "global warming".

The idea that man can increase or decrease this natural system is absurd, unscientific and illogical. The idea that scaring the hell out of people can raise taxes and increase government power is pretty accurate.

sorry kids, man-made global warming ain't for real.

According to the "global warming theory", man is pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the upper atmosphere, which is trapping heat and causing the Earth to boil. Sounds like a great sci-fi film, but it doesn't happen.

Man produces CO2 and other pollutants from between 1-100 feet above ground level. CO2 is heavier than air, and sinks upon cooling. Excess CO2 is absorbed either by soil or plant life. The only way to get CO2 into the upper atmosphere is to propel it there by force, and we don't send up rockets to do that.

Mother Nature, on the other hand, does. Volcanos, which are essentially exploding mountains, exude so much more CO2 than mankind could ever aspire to. Just Mt. Saint Helens in 1980 released more gas in one day than man has done in the last 100 years, and, St. Helens shot it up in the air 2.5 miles.

So, why global warming now? After all, Volcanos have been around for quite awhile. Well, volcanic activity is at it's highest point in 100 years, beginning in 1975. That begs the question of why that might be as well. Well, it seems the sun has been increasing in electro-magnetic output since about 1940, which matches the last period of global cooling. Take a giant electro magnet, put it next to a ball of iron and the ball of iron (that would be the Earth) is going to shake. Shake the Earth, and mountains will explode. Oh, by the way, every planet in the Solar System is experiencing this, and every one of them has "global warming".

The idea that man can increase or decrease this natural system is absurd, unscientific and illogical. The idea that scaring the hell out of people can raise taxes and increase government power is pretty accurate.

ummmm.....

*waits for the inevitable whacking*

sorry kids, man-made global warming ain't for real.

According to the "global warming theory", man is pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the upper atmosphere, which is trapping heat and causing the Earth to boil. Sounds like a great sci-fi film, but it doesn't happen.

Man produces CO2 and other pollutants from between 1-100 feet above ground level. CO2 is heavier than air, and sinks upon cooling. Excess CO2 is absorbed either by soil or plant life. The only way to get CO2 into the upper atmosphere is to propel it there by force, and we don't send up rockets to do that.
No, it's not. Certainly not to the extent that all human emitted CO2 is absorbed. In any case, how does mother nature tell human CO2 and Volcanic co2 apart?

Regardless, the location of carbon dioxide is irrelevant, the concentrations are the important bits.

No, it's not. Certainly not to the extent that all human emitted CO2 is absorbed. In any case, how does mother nature tell human CO2 and Volcanic co2 apart?

Regardless, the location of carbon dioxide is irrelevant, the concentrations are the important bits.



The location is essential. For man-made CO2 to be trapping heat in the upper atmosphere, the CO2 has to BE in the upper atmosphere. Since the stuff we create stays down here, it isn't the same stuff.

sorry kids, man-made global warming ain't for real.

According to the "global warming theory", man is pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the upper atmosphere, which is trapping heat and causing the Earth to boil. Sounds like a great sci-fi film, but it doesn't happen.

Man produces CO2 and other pollutants from between 1-100 feet above ground level. CO2 is heavier than air, and sinks upon cooling. Excess CO2 is absorbed either by soil or plant life. The only way to get CO2 into the upper atmosphere is to propel it there by force, and we don't send up rockets to do that.

Mother Nature, on the other hand, does. Volcanos, which are essentially exploding mountains, exude so much more CO2 than mankind could ever aspire to. Just Mt. Saint Helens in 1980 released more gas in one day than man has done in the last 100 years, and, St. Helens shot it up in the air 2.5 miles.

So, why global warming now? After all, Volcanos have been around for quite awhile. Well, volcanic activity is at it's highest point in 100 years, beginning in 1975. That begs the question of why that might be as well. Well, it seems the sun has been increasing in electro-magnetic output since about 1940, which matches the last period of global cooling. Take a giant electro magnet, put it next to a ball of iron and the ball of iron (that would be the Earth) is going to shake. Shake the Earth, and mountains will explode. Oh, by the way, every planet in the Solar System is experiencing this, and every one of them has "global warming".
Isn't it a shame that every qualified scientist, major scientific journal, academic institution and intra/intergovernmental review disagrees with you?

The idea that man can increase or decrease this natural system is absurd, unscientific and illogical. The idea that scaring the hell out of people can raise taxes and increase government power is pretty accurate.
And a conspiracy theory tops it off nicely.

By that logic, we should be breathing pure Oxygen right now.

Furthermore, those of us in cities are about to die of nitrous oxide poisoning.
*warps in front of New Burmecia*

Isn't it a shame that every qualified scientist, major scientific journal, academic institution and intra/intergovernmental review disagrees with you?


Not every.

The location is essential. For man-made CO2 to be trapping heat in the upper atmosphere, the CO2 has to BE in the upper atmosphere. Since the stuff we create stays down here, it isn't the same stuff.
By that logic, we should be breathing pure Oxygen right now.

Man produces CO2 and other pollutants from between 1-100 feet above ground level. CO2 is heavier than air, and sinks upon cooling. Excess CO2 is absorbed either by soil or plant life. The only way to get CO2 into the upper atmosphere is to propel it there by force, and we don't send up rockets to do that.

Haaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaa haaaa!

*sigh*

Feathers are heavier than air, too, you know. Do they float on air?

Yes, CO2 is heavier than air. But when it comes to the behavior of gases, the effect of gravity is insignificant.

Gases DIFFUSE. Even if a heavy gas is spread out along the floor, it will eventually rise up to spread evenly throughout the whole room....otherwise we'd all be walking around in a layer of CO2 with the oxygen and nitrogen in their different layers. Gases mix.

The idea that man can increase or decrease this natural system is absurd, unscientific and illogical. The idea that scaring the hell out of people can raise taxes and increase government power is pretty accurate.

Oh of course, it's all just a scam to raise taxes.

Same with terrorism - 9/11 wasn't real either, because a Boeing 757 is heavier than air and thus couldn't possibly fly.

Have a nice day.

Not every.
As near as damn it. I doubt every scientist believes HIV causes AIDS, or that we're a result of evolution, but as things go, it's pretty close to unanamous.

Yes, CO2 is heavier than air. But when it comes to the behavior of gases, the effect of gravity is insignificant.

Gases DIFFUSE. Even if a heavy gas is spread out along the floor, it will eventually rise up to spread evenly throughout the whole room....otherwise we'd all be walking around in a layer of CO2 with the oxygen and nitrogen in their different layers. Gases mix.
Weeellllll. He does have a smidge of a point. CO2 and the like can pool in hollows and does sink - see dry ice running along a stage floor (I believe that it has more to do with it's temperature, however). However, when taken in a global context - hells, when taken in any context with a hint of an energy flux - gases do mix, and your point about the absurdity of a layered atmosphere is entirely valid.

Weeellllll. He does have a smidge of a point. CO2 and the like can pool in hollows and does sink - see dry ice running along a stage floor (I believe that it has more to do with it's temperature, however). However, when taken in a global context - hells, when taken in any context with a hint of an energy flux - gases do mix, and your point about the absurdity of a layered atmosphere is entirely valid.

I guess the guy didn't notice the wind blowing outside.

Feathers, which are heavier than air, do sink.

757's, which are heavier than air, fly, because they are propelled by force. Without that force, they too, sink.

CO2, which like most gases, diffuses, does not rise, by itself, 2.5 miles into the troposphere. Whether most scientists agree with that or not does not make it correct or incorrect, the gas doesn't care.

Global Warming is still caused by increased CO2, brought upon by volcanos, which are brought upon by increased tectonic activity, which is brought upon by increased electromagnetic energy from the sun. It is not, nor have I seen an arguement which refutes this. Anybody got one?

Oh, yes, and if Global Warming is caused by man, why are other planets where man doesn't exist affected?

I'm still a bit skeptical about global warming. People are like "The climate's changing! The climate's in crisis!" but the weather's exactly the same here as it was ten years ago.

Well that's weather not climate...

and It depends on where you live...

Where I live in Canada we have gotten almost no snow in the past few years...and now we have a ton of bugs during the summer

757's, which are heavier than air, fly, because they are propelled by force. Without that force, they too, sink.

CO2, which like most gases, diffuses, does not rise, by itself, 2.5 miles into the troposphere. Whether most scientists agree with that or not does not make it correct or incorrect, the gas doesn't care.

Forces, eh? Like the centrifugal force? Vertical and horizontal pressure gradients? Coriolis force?

You are correct that things don't magically go into the atmosphere without force. But that is a strawman. Those forces exist, so it's not magic, so you can stop trying to plug the butthole on your argument cuz it's not going to stop bleeding anytime soon.


Oh, yes, and if Global Warming is caused by man, why are other planets where man doesn't exist affected?

Oh please. The one is not dependent on the other. It's like saying, "if a gas fire burns down a house, how come my brother's house burned down and there wasn't any gas involved?" Get a new argument, this time without the stupid.

I don't really feel like arguing, but I want to know what kind of background you all have in science. I assume most of you have taken some kind of chemistry class in High school. Is anybody here a meteorologist, a scientist or a person with any professional background in weather or science?

In any case, I'm glad that you all are enthusiastic about proving how many big words you know, but you should really try to understand what your talking about before you argue about it. Thats the difference between science and politics.

Oh yeah, I am a 3rd year Chemistry student at Georgia College and States University.

Global Warming is still caused by increased CO2, brought upon by volcanos, which are brought upon by increased tectonic activity, which is brought upon by increased electromagnetic energy from the sun. It is not, nor have I seen an arguement which refutes this. Anybody got one?
:D (emphasis mine)
I don't really feel like arguing, but I want to know what kind of background you all have in science. I assume most of you have taken some kind of chemistry class in High school. Is anybody here a meteorologist, a scientist or a person with any professional background in weather or science?
2nd year Geologist here - University of Leeds.

You are correct that things don't magically go into the atmosphere without force. But that is a strawman. Those forces exist, so it's not magic, so you can stop trying to plug the butthole on your argument cuz it's not going to stop bleeding anytime soon.

Oh please. The one is not dependent on the other. It's like saying, "if a gas fire burns down a house, how come my brother's house burned down and there wasn't any gas involved?" Get a new argument, this time without the stupid.

Ok, so this time without the personal insults and retorhic, what are these forces mankind is producing which force CO2 upwards 2.5 miles to cause global warming?

and, in your example, you seem to be saying that even though other planets are currently experiencing global warming, Earth's warming is the result of human interference, while with all the other planets, increasing temprature is the result of increased solar activity. Is that a correct reading?

Forces, eh? Like the centrifugal force? Vertical and horizontal pressure gradients? Coriolis force?

You are correct that things don't magically go into the atmosphere without force. But that is a strawman. Those forces exist, so it's not magic, so you can stop trying to plug the butthole on your argument cuz it's not going to stop bleeding anytime soon.

Silly Trostia… centrifugal force isn't a force. Neither is the coriolis force.
Fictitious Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force)

Ok, so this time without the personal insults and retorhic, what are these forces mankind is producing which force CO2 upwards 2.5 miles to cause global warming?

As I've said, the forces are natural. Mankind is simply producing the CO2 as a byproduct of our industrialization.

and, in your example, you seem to be saying that even though other planets are currently experiencing global warming, Earth's warming is the result of human interference, while with all the other planets, increasing temprature is the result of increased solar activity. Is that a correct reading?

I am not agreeing that other planets are experiencing global warming in the first place; I am saying that even if they are, that doesn't negate the fact that human civilization is having an impact on Earth's global climate change.

Sorry about the "personal attacks," but calling your arguments stupid is not a personal attack. It's really just stating the obvious. Frankly, you welcomed bad treatment with your condescending "sorry kids" in your first post; don't pretend you didn't.

If you're not I'm going to have to give you a stern talking to and mock you for your lack of intelligence.

What's so bad about 3 Blocks East Of Here's "Kneel before Tancredo"? What's so bad about Tancredo? Who is s/he? Please educate me.

Of course most global warming skeptics tend to be Busheviks as well, so it explains their imperviousness to logic and reality, as well as their determination to deny responsibility for this world's ever more fucked up climate. Someone'll come up with a rant about how the source is liberal, or come up with some paid tool's writings to "refute" it.

Speaking of which, in before New Mitanni rants.

How very convenient for you that every time someone disagrees with the concept of man-made global warming and can provide their own data refuting it they can be easily dismissed as being in the pay of oil companies and/or George Bush. It absolves you of any responsibility of defending your position, doesn't it? Then you can just call them names and turn your mind off to other possibilities.

We are obviously in a warming period. No-one disputes that. But to say the argument against global warming is over is being quite disingenuous.

For instance.....
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=56dd129d-e40a-4bad-abd9-68c808e8809e

How very convenient for you that every time someone disagrees with the concept of man-made global warming and can provide their own data refuting it they can be easily dismissed as being in the pay of oil companies and/or George Bush. It absolves you of any responsibility of defending your position, doesn't it? Then you can just call them names and turn your mind off to other possibilities.

We are obviously in a warming period. No-one disputes that. But to say the argument against global warming is over is being quite disingenuous.

For instance.....
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=56dd129d-e40a-4bad-abd9-68c808e8809e
Myo, old man! :fluffle:

I haven't read the thread yet, so i can't argue with you *on principle*.
Just extending howdies again, you lurk. :)

What's so bad about 3 Blocks East Of Here's "Kneel before Tancredo"? What's so bad about Tancredo? Who is s/he? Please educate me.

Tancredo is a freaking dickweed. He's an idiot who harps on about the evil brownies and how we must do our best to shut down all immigration(not just illegal mind you, but all.) That's all he talks about while in office.

What's extremely frustrating is the way he becomes all composed and talks about all of the issues during the elections, which is the only time people here who vote pay attention, thus it's all they see, and so they thusly vote him in again! GRAAAAH!

I'm going to be glad when I'm living in Canada...

Myo, old man! :fluffle:

I haven't read the thread yet, so i can't argue with you *on principle*.
Just extending howdies again, you lurk. :)

It's not just a job, it's an adventure.

It's not just a job, it's an adventure.

Attitude is the difference between an ordeal and an adventure. :)