Global warming debunked, again.

[JayHawk]

Greenhouse theory smashed by biggest stone

 

[JayHawk]

The Science of Global Warming
in Perspective

 

[JayHawk]

Wow in four minutes you read all of that. Speed read much? Indeed you have no idea what it says. Feel free to read the "Why is it so difficult to undertsand" thread to find out why being informed and not a lemmming is worthwhile

 

[JayHawk]

Well, we should all bow down right. Ridiculous. Anyways I will play.

How much CO2 is increased by our burning of fossil fuels?

To that end DR DR tell me how much of that CO2 retains heat?

How much water vapor reatins heat?

Work with me.

 

[Centexfarmer]

^ Uh, I think that he was being ironical.

 

[Centexfarmer]

^ If that's true, I sincerely apologize, though I do not believe that is the case.

Well, as I'm sure that you aware, we're all entitled to believe what we wish.

Those beliefs, however and sadly, never seem to have to based upon any facts. One way or another.

 

[HenryReardon]

You really want to know how much CO2 has bee released by human activity? Here it is:

CO2 levels have been monitored regularly and precisely at the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii since 1958. This is considered the most accurate and regular measure of atmospheric CO2 recorded anywhere over the last 50 years. CO2 has been increasing at Mona Loa at a level of 1.4 ppm/year over that time.

Atmospheric CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa site.



The "greenhouse gases" include CO2, NO2, O3, and methane. CO2 began rising about the same time that humans began burning significant amounts of fossil fuels (1850 to 1900). We know this because we can measure the amount of CO2 trapped in air bubbles in ice cores at the poles.

The current global warming trend began about 1900, the same time that CO2 began increasing in the atmosphere. Republicans insist this is mere coincidence. The ten warmest years ever recorded in human history have all been in the last thirteen.

.

The current period of global warming actually began around 1800, following the end of the period known as the "little ice age."

http://www-earth.usc.edu/geol150/evolution/images/littleiceage/LittleIceAge.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0318/p13s01-sten.html

If you would watch the history channel, instead of mtv, you would know these things.

 

[Andreus]

The current period of global warming actually began around 1800, following the end of the period known as the "little ice age."

http://www-earth.usc.edu/geol150/evolution/images/littleiceage/LittleIceAge.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0318/p13s01-sten.html

If you would watch the history channel, instead of mtv, you would know these things.

he is a scientist

he doesnt need the history channel

he has degrees in the field

reread the thread

 

[Andreus]

"Watch the History Channel," indeed! Andreus, this so-called "Henry" number -- she's not one of your "invented" posters, is she? You know, a caricature of a wingnut? She can't be real -- no one is that sick.

I thought he was a sock puppet at first, but

to be honest

the person that usually creates those in this forum usually does a better job of it

soooo....

i'll just keep an open mind

for now

 

[HenryReardon]

he is a scientist

he doesnt need the history channel

he has degrees in the field

reread the thread

A scientist? Because he says so? LOL Where's the proof??

This link has a great deal of science, including charts and graphs:



http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

 

[HenryReardon]

"Watch the History Channel," indeed! Andreus, this so-called "Henry" number -- she's not one of your "invented" posters, is she? You know, a caricature of a wingnut? She can't be real -- no one is that sick.

I forgot that you people are so puffed up in your arrogance, that you have no sense of humor.

Once again, since you cannot refute the message, you attack the messenger. That is truly and typically pathetic.

 

[Apollo]

Did any of your republicans bother looking at Jannus' post. Here it is again for those of you who seem to still believe Global Warming isnt happening do to human activity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackoroe View Post
I know full well? Rather presumptuous on your part, no? Almost 100% of the Climate Scientists (sometimes called climatologists) agree? Really, provide a citation for that one or is it simply more dim talking points? Evidence so overwhelming that's it's considered axiomatic? By whom, sir? So you've investigated each and every one of the scientists claiming otherwise, and concluded their all crackpots? How did you arrive at this conclusion? And what expertise qualifies you to do so? Maybe when you provide a cogent response, I might take you seriously.

Quote:
Among climate scientists there is consensus that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

Quote:
Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Dec25.html

Quote:
American and international researchers have reached a consensus on the role of industrialization in climate change, though consensus doesn't equal unanimity.

In its 2001 assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, a worldwide network of 2,500 scientists sponsored by the United Nations, said there is "new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020400953.html

Quote:
"There's broad agreement that the burning of fossil fuel and deforestation are causes," Tom Wilbanks, a senior researcher in Ook Ridge National Laboratory's Environmental Services Division.

http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/NS-10-25-03.html

Quote:
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

Quote:
The National Academy of Sciences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and even, grudgingly, the Bush administration now believe Earth is warming.

"All the new data are in the same direction, showing that warming is continuing," says Ralph Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist and president of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar.../10warming.htm

[/QUOTE]

 

[Andreus]

no they didnt

they want us to believe their sources and they want us to answer what they say, and we have

but they arent interested in reading anything that may threaten their political agenda

because its not about the truth for them... its about winning an arguement

those are two different things for a republican

sadly

 

[HenryReardon]

The CO2 increase began about 1800, but was miniscule in the first 50 to 100 years, as the graphs above show. The really noticable rise in temperatures began about 1900 (although some say 1850). One of the features of global warming is the long persistence of the CO2 effect in the atmosphere. Even if mankind were to completely stop emitting all CO2 today, the temperatures would keep rising for another 50 to 100 years. That is why it is so important that we begin to try to at least slow down our ever-increasing CO2 emissions now.

And the "History Channel" is not a reviewed source of scientific literature.

And I am not a climatologist. But they drill statistics and the interpretation thereof into your head over and over and over again when you pursue graduate degrees in science. I can usually spot cooked-up data a mile away. And I agree with those above who say the Republican Party hates science. Republicans seem to think you can make up whatever data you want, to satisfy whatever conclusion you want. I assure you, science is quite the opposite. Data does not have a political preference.

Data may not have a political preference, but skewed or misleading data certainly does. Your chart is a prime example.

If you have that much statistics under your belt, you surely know that a 140 year slice of time out of the earth's 4 billion (or so) year history is hardly a "statistically valid' sample.

Your chart begins roughly at the end of the so-called "little ice age."

Look it up.

German and Swiss scientists have shown conclusively, that the sun warms and cools in 900 to 1000 year cycles. The data is out there.

There was a period known as the Roman warm period, then there was some cooling. This was followed by the medieval warming period, which was followed by the little ice age. We are now in a warming period once again.

The history channel has nothing to do with anything - the reference was a failed attempt at humor.

So many of the priests of the religion of global warming bleat about scientific consensus. Here is what Michael Crichton has to say about that:

(BTW, Crichton is a Doctor, Scientist, and best selling author. His book "state of fear," is very instructive about global warming, and it includes a bibliography that runs to 20 pages or so.


"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

 

[Apollo]

Henry, did you bother looking at all his other graphs and statistics? Or any of the links that the people for Global Warming that has been provided.

Your right, science isnt about consensus, if it were, than we wouldn't have advanced as fast as we have. That being said, most climatologists (the area of science SOLELY and FULLY for the study of climate) agree that Global Warming is due to human events. The links are up there. They are in a quote in my former post. The links are originally from Jannus.

You are right about climate change starting in 1800, but due to CO2 emissions, that climate change has been accelerated. The clock of the Earth goes much slower than the clock of humans. Climate should rise this fast and this extreme is such a short period of time.

 

[Andreus]

you are the one that asked about a specific time period, martha reardon

and as for crighton, i tell ya what

when we start talking about cloning dinosaurs and time travel, we will consult him as the expert

until then...

shall we stick to science fact instead of science fiction?

you know, alfie....

HR is kinda the JUB rights ultimate nightmare.... his statements just make anything they do or say look like a looney tunes cartoon once hes had a go with it

i wonder who he helps more.....lol

 

[Andreus]

Zooks

Martha Reardon is many things

but a leader she can never be called

lol

well

maybe of the republican constituency here

she certainly is the most vocal of them and they dont seem disposed of refuting her nonsense

well so we have it

martha reardon is the head republican at jub due to their silence in disputing all of her claims

done deal

so martha...

can you summ up your feelings for us on your clans views on this topic....

just a few sentences to let us know the bottom line here

 

[lancelva]

With all the time that we waste debating whether or not gobal warming is real, we could actually be coming up with solutions to reverse its effects. The arguments against global warming are mute--overwhelming evidence suggests that it is a reality so there is no point in even having such a debate. The focus should be on stopping and reversing the trend.

 

[lancelva]

Also, try watching An Inconvenient Truth once more.

 

[Andreus]

With all the time that we waste debating whether or not gobal warming is real, we could actually be coming up with solutions to reverse its effects. The arguments against global warming are mute--overwhelming evidence suggests that it is a reality so there is no point in even having such a debate. The focus should be on stopping and reversing the trend.

thats the big joke of the tread that the guys on the right arent getting

i think they would argue that the world was flat if they thought there was political gain to be had

the thread title that announces global warming is debunked is ludicrous

a political editor took a shot at Gore and the right wingnuts believe that there are new scientific developements

naaa

some twit just rewrapped the old crap political hatchet job on real science and our guys here wanted us to believe it