Care to weigh in on the claim that any number of natural occurrences completely eclipse man's entire carbon producing history, thus rendering our collective carbon emissions, while certainly not non-existent, more or less inconsequential?

I thought the relationship between the concentration of an absorbing species and the amount of radiation it absorbed was logarithmic.  Doesn't that mean we'd have to pump an enormous amount of carbon dioxide (many, many times more than we already have) in order to cause a substantial change in climate?

yes - you have clearly explained how the increase in CO2 levels are causing the temperatures to spike on earth - and on the other planets as well

you get the dumbass post for the day prize

Is C02 causing temperatures to spike on other planets?

I think he's trying to say that other planets are experiencing temperature increases as well, absent of mans effect on their climate, I don't know if that's accurate or not, but that's how I'm reading it.

How confident are we that other planets are experiencing temperature increases, and how do we know the causes are the same?

How confident are we that OUR planet is experiencing temperature increases and that the causes are known?

We're confident that we experienced recent rises in temps and wild fluctuations all through the Pleistocene.  I have yet to see a testable reason why.

But I haven't been looking too hard.

As you know, correlation is not causation.  If you look at that chart, you'll see that the temperature is the leading indicator - as in, the Earth heats up, therefore there is more CO2 in the air.  

 

Tagged

I, for one, can't take the "scientists" seriously for one simple reason...............they can't even get the weather prediction right for THIS week!!!      


Until they can get that nailed down, sorry if I'm a little skeptical about the "predicted" temperature rising, sea levels, etc, etc......

I love how the far left only question those things that detract from their views; all else is "FACT" and can never be called into question!  Yeesh!!  Guess ignorance is bliss.    

You should address future people in spanish.




 

Well, that pretty much speaks for itself.

The good thing is that nature is built around negative feedback cycles.  It will soon eliminate the source of the problem.

The high Church of Global warming and Evolution are 2 of the biggest beliefs of liberals...it makes them feel better, that they are so smart.

That chart shows temp and CO2 changes for the past 300K years.  It fails to show out impact on the system as a whole given that we've been giving off CO2 via machinery for less than 200 years now.  Our timespan is a mere blip on that chart with regards to time...there is not much information that can be gathered from that chart with regards to our effects on the planet.

essentially correct

do your own research - there is plenty of evidence for this

The Earths weather is effected by it's location relative to ...in theory....all other bodies of matter in space even though 99.99999% the amount is so small it's negligible.  However, our temp is effected by solar radiation which differs depending on where in our galactic revolution we are...(among other things obv)...and I believe that's what they're referring to.

This will be followed by Thursday's topic "Weather IS Climate. Any heat wave this summer will be proof positive of Global Warming..."

LOL.


Al gore did not invent the internet. He DID, however, invent global warming.

FACTS.

The mantra of the government environmental health agencies is "It is not important that we tell people the truth.  It is important to get them to do what we want them to do."  I know.  I was there.

Global temperatures were stable/cooling until the early 1990's when NASA (Al Gore did not invent global warming) discovered their theories did not mesh with reality.  They "recalibrated" the satellites to properly reflect what must be going on.

EEU and French officials have already publicly admitted their climage change initiative is "not about the environment, it is about becoming competitive with the US."




Some people who have come on the scene late, choose to ignore what happened a few years ago or last week, and don't understand funamental scientific principles can be easily confused.  Also, sometimes people embarass themselves by tirading against a joke.  I thought that's how this started.

REPOST:


Man-made global warming is not about evidence and science - it's about money and politics.


1. How much of the total atmosphere is composed of CO2?
ANSWER: Approx 0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2

2. How much of the "greenhouse gas" warming effect of the atmosphere is due to CO2?
ANSWER: CO2 accounts for approx 5% of the warming effect of "greenhouse gases" (the vast majority 90-95% is due to water vapor).

3. How much of the total atmospheric CO2 is man-made?
ANSWER: Approx 3.5% of total atmospheric CO2 is man-made.

4. (and here's the biggie) - How much of the "greenhouse gas" warming effect of atmospheric CO2 is due to man-made CO2?
ANSWER: (5%) x (3.5%) = 0.175% of the warming effect of "greenhouse gases" is due to man-made CO2.

BONUS QUESTION: How much of a reduction in man-made CO2 was the Kyoto Protocol supposed to result in AND what percent of the total "greenhouse gas" warming effect of the atmosphere would that reduction have caused?
ANSWER: Kyoto Protocol called for 30% reduction in CO2 emissions, which would translate into a decrease in the man-made CO2 "greenhouse gas" warming effect from 0.175% down to 0.122%, or a reduction in the warming effect of 0.053%. That's about five one-hundreths of a percent reduction in the warming effect of greenhouse gases.


And to show that the man-made Global Warming garbage is based mostly on politics rather than science:
1) China and India, the two greatest polluters in the world (and most other third-world nations) are exempt from Kyoto Protocol - they can pollute all they want, no questions asked. Does only American and European CO2 affect the atmosphere?

2) Any nation can still pollute all they want, they just have to pay more "carbon offsets". In other words - it's all about MONEY and POWER, not the environment. The environment is just an excuse for organizations like the UN to gain more power over our economy and suck more money from us.

3) So much of the man-made Global Warming hysteria is just that - hysteria. It's built on fear, not science. "Oh but what if it's true? We must act now just in case it is true" they say. Is that how scientists operate? We KNOW that's how politicians operate. That argument of "what if it is true - we have to act now!" is exactly like George Bush's argument for going to war in Iraq, "What if Saddam really does still have WMDs?" So is THAT how scientists want our national science policy to work - just like Bush's Iraq WMD policy?

4) The leaders of the Religion Of Global Warming have already announced that the "debate was over". Of course, all those hundreds of scientists and climatologists who weren't already in agreement were threatened with losing their jobs if they dared "question authority" and dispute the findings of the self-annointed high priests of Global Warming. HUGE Federal grants are awarded to those who study "crises", not "lack-of-crises". Environmentalists have created a huge cash-cow for themselves. The more they study and publish about the global-warming "crisis", the more Federal money will be funneled into this "crisis". Follow the money... it leads right into politician's and their useful-scientist's pockets.


And then of course - you have to doubt the very data and computer models themselves being used to measure and predict this so-called global warming:
So up to 50% of the measured warming in some areas is now being attributed to CLEANER AIR!

And all the current climate models that have been being fed warming data over the past decade or more were never taking this clean-air warming effect into account!

I have proof for you that evolution is a scam:

Monkeys––––––>cavemen––––––––->Al gore and Lootie = FAIL

Ignorance is so thick in this thread.

I'm sorry, because I usually agree with the majority of posters in these forums, but to say that man-made global warming is a scam and that we have no effect on our environment is bull****.  All respected scientists agree that it is occuring.  Regardless of your political stance, you should take this seriously.

Umm, the chart clearly shows that we are at the peak of a regularly recurring cycle that is based upon long established data and science.  Anyone with a first grade education can look at that chart and tell which way the temps are going to start heading over the next 5000 years.  I think the global warming hoopla is more about liberals desperate desire to prove they have had an impact on something/anything rather than facing the cold hard facts that our insignificant (and the liberal ego's) impact on the environment (outside of the natural cycle) is virtually irrelevant.

Yeah, well you keep on believing that buddy.  In the mean time, I've got some beach front property in Montana I'd like to sell you.

Billy

Do your own research.

No scientist would say, as Al Gore did, "The debate is over" about any scientific theory. It's a theory that is politically expedient.

Always look to see who benefits from the alleged problem: That's where you'll find the truth makers.

Why else would those in the scientific field that dispute Global Warming are so viciously attacked? Why can't they debate this issue?

Don't be a fool....

The very idea that 'we are destroying the planet' plays to human (liberal) arrogance...as if 'we' could...the earth is going to be here a lot longer then we are...we couldn't destroy the earth if we tried.

Actually, they DO NOT KNOW.  They want to seem important so they err on the side of caution, that being it COULD get hotter.  Because if it gets colder, there is NOTHING we could do.  But if their hypothesis is correct (jury is still out on that one), then we MIGHT have a chance to avert it...or not.

Actually, going back further, co2 has exceeded 3000ppm in warming periods and 5000ppm in ice ages.  Right now, its barely double the minimum requirement for plant life @~350ppm.  This is the 9th consecutive cold year in a row(now that they have made the effort to monitor it with much more equipment, it'd done nothing BUT get cooler).  The new term by them is now officially Global Climate Change.

They simply change the rules as it goes along, not ONE theory presented by them has stayed the same for more then 3 months.  They also completely avoid the little ice age, only using information before and after it.  Any science that needs the information to be manipulated for EVERY single 'conclusion' made is not exactly science now, is it.

Actually, before the Younger Dryas warming period, there was a great lake in Montana.  You can see the shoreline on the mountains to the south of Missoula.  That entire valley was about 400 feet deep in water from an ice dam to the north on what is now the Clark Fork River.  That and the Bitterroot River fed the lake which frequently drained because ice makes a poor dam...that being the Corderlian Ice Sheet.

Would that property be around Lolo?

Speaking to the people of the future, I personally don't give a shit, if what we are doing now makes you a few degrees warmer...I want air conditioning, cheap gas, big trucks, cheap electricity and all the consumer goods I can afford...am I a bad person, perhaps. But I am honest! I am not going to argue one way or the other about something, I personally can't change and don't care about, but I digress...please continue.

No they don't

So apparently you believe that it is entirely reasonable and intelligent to call everyone names, and take a silly, fence straddling position.





 

No, yet they were warming anyways.  Odd.



 

 

Eath's natural cycle huh?

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb30/nancylee88/Shanghai/Shanghai1063.jpg

And no, that's not fog.




Teddy Roosevelt is rolling in his grave.

I'm not on one side or the other with this whole global warming thing.  It really comes down to "I just don't give a shit either way", I suppose.

But this "if you can't tell me what the weather will be next week then you don't know anything" crap is just absurd.

Think about what you're saying for one second.  Just a second is all it takes.

Within your post, you are correct about the ignorance. All respected scientists DO NOT agree that there is greenhouse warming. There is NOT scientific evidence that the warming which has occurred over the last 50 years was the result of greenhouse gases. The models for greenhouse warming, does not agree with data.
That there has been warming, most scientist agree, that man is the cause, FAR from all agree with that.

No way.  al gore is da man.  he wrote a book that says so.

Fixed it for ya...



 

I wonder how many of these noble scientists are receiving government grants and or political gain for all their hard work. I remember in the 80's the next coming ice age was the big scare, global warming in the 90's and now climate change. All the "Clean up America" regulation over the past three decades hasn't seemed to slow it down so now what? Just castrate American industry until it fails? Everyone rides a bike?

The only common factor here is more Government regulation on American industry and it's citizens.









 

Because China has crappy air quality?

But the problem with this is that CO2 levels lag, not lead temperatures.  CO2 is not the driver here, but solar activity.  CO2 FOLLOWS temperature.

And man is not the cause of warming.  If it was, explain past higher temperatures.

No, what "global warming" is all about, well, now they are crabbing, they have changed it to "global climate change", is the "carbon tax".  It is their scheme to tax the productive countries, businesses, citizens, and transfer that money to the unproductive ones.

It is all about money.  FOLLOW THE MONEY.

The Younger Dryas is a cold period of reglaciation.  The Missoula Lake outburst flood would have been during a warming period of deglaciation called Allerod.

I'd love to have property in Montana.

So you'll happily trust scientists that feel comfortable predicting weather changes over the next 20-50 years when the weather man can't get the weekly forecast correct?  I'm not saying that "you don't know anything" if they cannot predict the weather, but that sure raises some questions about the reliability of their "prediction" capabilities.  

So I have thought about it.....for more than a second......maybe some critical thinking needs to be employed on the other side of this conversation.    

....or if you like the taste of Kool-Aid, then drink up.........that's fine too.    

Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!

Go away, and take your emotionally laden red herring with you.

I will be that every "little" spike also coincides with sun-spot activity.

We should send the pro-Global Warming idiots to the sun to fix that.