I'll believe their 50 year predictions of global temperature, when they can figure out how to accurately predict what the weather is going to be next week.

End of discussion.

When I was in grade school in the '70s, the wailing was about:

1. Deforestation of the rain forests. In 20 years all the rain forests would be gone.

2. Acid Rain. In 20 years all trees in North America would be dead.

3. The coming Ice Age. Hmmmm.

4. DDT. WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!

5. Whaling. All the whales will be gone by 1999.

Yes, FOLLOW THE MONEY.  A state of fear is what we as humans NEED and which science had been fighting.  We eliminated smallpox and most childhood diseases like polio, hence no more fear of the iron lung.  Then we got proud and let AIDS scare us.  Now with advanced cancer screenings, we "see" cancer "rising" when all but skin cancer is dropping.

Back to the money.  Over half of the carbon man releases into the air ends up MISSING each year.  And this "missing carbon" has been INCREASING, meaning nature somehow is working in a way we don't know to reduce our impact.  Imagine that, the earth is HEALING itself.  To the thermodynamicist, this is a given because the Earth HAD to be a stable system in order for life to evolve (yes, this means the envirowackos must dismiss evolution because that REQUIRES a somewhat stable environment).

So the Creationists and Envirowackos have a nexus.

Quoted: I was gonna yell a lot and have a lot of that rolleyes icon but ive kinda took a deep breath and realised i better say something constructive. All you people who seem to want to expound your opinion on Global warming should really do some reasearch first, i mean really, this is pathetic. Some of the lamest crap i've ever heard in a long time. When some fool talks about "creationism" i dont really care cause what he belives really does'nt hurt anyone. But when people say that man is not causing greenhouse gas emmissions to warm the planet, that, in the end, could do harm to everyone as we end up living on Venus. Start with  college level text books on Geology, Chemistry, Oceanography, Climatology etc. No dont use the internet. It's too "unreliable", just cause some dumb ass blogger says that the greenhouse effect is "a liberal conspiracy" does'nt make it so! Just because "someguy" who's  a fiction writer wrote a great book about how the green house effect is bullshit does'nt mean he is qualified to make that assesment. He's a fucking novel writer not a scientist. When 95% of scientists agree on something you better belive there is something to that. As to if weather "living things" like humans can change the earth's atmosphere, it's already been done. Originally the earths atmosphere was all CO2 with little O2. The original primiative creatures were all Anaerobic, meaning they breathe in CO2 and convert that to O2. but with no oxygen breathers to eat up the O2 it built up in the atmosphere to create the oxygen rich atmosphere we have today. so little critters the size of ameobae managed to generate trillions of tons of O2 and change the entire atmosphere. Oh also - volcanoes and "meteor strikes" do NOT warm up the planet they cool it down.

I suppose your textbooks fail to point out that 95% of the planets 'greenhouse gasses' is water vapor (just about all of it naturally occuring). If you think worrying about a .1% increase (a pretty large increase) in CO2 (~3.618% of greenhouse gasses) is going to cause anything to worry about, you got problems.

Some say that Global Warming is being caused by the decrease in the number of pirates.  Because Pirates are cool.

The activities of 6+ billion people have had no affect on the worlds ecosystem, hmmm? Maybe we need something on the scale of nuclear winter to prove that our presence on this little marble can have a negative impact.

Anyone who says that there's no way we could be impacting the planet negatively hasn't been to Northern Jersey. Let's stop kidding ourselves.

Yep, around 15 years ago, I remember reading claims that we only had 10 years to save the planet.

And 30 years ago we had only 10 years to save the Earth from a long ice age.  I wish the agenda-driven idiots would keep their stories straight.z

Quoted: Anyone who says that there's no way we could be impacting the planet negatively hasn't been to Northern Jersey. Let's stop kidding ourselves.

No, that's liberalism.

Liberalism can lay waste to entire swaths of land and society simply by showing up.

I think global warming is real.

You have CO2 emission (carbon dioxide).  CO2 is heavier then the air.  This means that the CO2 lingers in the lower atmosphere.  Enough of it will slow the Earth's cooling.  The CO2 stops the heat from dispersing off the planet (since the CO2 acts like a blanket that keeps the heat in).

Then you have all the industry and science experiments where humans have been inducing chemical reactions.  This creates gases that are not natural in any large numbers in the atmosphere.  Some of these also act like a blanket warming the Earth,  or bouncing the sun's rays away (which would be where the ice age comes in).  I think global warming is ALOT more real then a global ice age is.

The only way I see to stop global warming is to somehow trigger huge lightning storms.  The energy released by the lightning storms will debond the CO2 in the atmosphere and the carbon will fall to the earth,  while the oxygen will rejoin the atmosphere in its natural state.  I'm not 100% hip on my chemistry but I think that enough energy will debond the CO2 molecules and other harmful gases in the atmopshere into their natural elements.

But some gases such as chlorine or other gases that don't belong in the atmosphere would require some other kind of treatment.  I dont know how much chlorine weighs but it will probably take hundreds or thousands of years for these gases to exit the planet or settle back to the ground.   I'm sure the planet already has some natural defense mechanisms that will help,  but I don't think it can keep up if we don't help too.

I never understood why scientists will make statements that CO2 emissions and other harmful compounds will hurt the atmoshpehere but none of them talk "science".  It is very easy to find out how much CO2 it would take to affect the planet by figuring out how much heat CO2 will blanket from leaving the planet.  There are also ways to test the CO2 levels in the air.  Why they havent come out with hard facts is beyond me.  THey all want to sound like amateurs by making statements without any knowledge presented behind their statements.

Of course you notice the scientists on MSNBC was an EXXON MOBILE employee.  Of course he isn't going to present any facts.  He is in the pockets of the oil companies.  And he was crying censorship,  but he works for the same people who influenced that censorship.    He has no integrity.

I think it's definatly real but what I dont know is how bad it is yet.

OK, I m going to try to adress some of the "assertions" i've seen posted here. Because most of them are bogus or at best not carefully thought out.

#1 Follow the money. Green house warming is false because it's just Scientists who just want more money to do research, perpetual research that seems to lead nowhere.

Even if the latter statment WERE true it still has nothing to do with weather the green house effect is real or not. Thats like saying "my brain surgeon is a greedy SOB, therefore he is unable to operate on my brain". One does'nt really affect the other, and false data can ruin a scientists reputation. If his data is made-up others will conduct the same experiment and prove him wrong, then he'll end up a burger flipper, not worth the risk. ALSO, and this has more to do with it, There is also money on THE OTHER SIDE. There are literally billions of dollars being spent by corporations to try and put forth propaganda that the green house effect is "minimal". They pay off and give grants to "think tanks" in DC to write up lame excuses as to why scientists are wrong. Meanwhile these people are nothing but lawyers who think they can argue their way out of a scientific truth. Most "psuedo-scientists" who have said the greenhouse effect is nonsense have been proven to be paid hacks and shills for oil companies. So just remember anytime a person who has "bona fides" writes a paper sayng the greenhouse effect is wrong, is ALSO getting grant money, he also has a hidden motivation to "tow a certain view"

#2 people talked about a "global freeze" 30 years ago and nothing came of it, therefore the greenhouse effect is wrong. Well that "talk" only lasted 5 years at most. It was mainly a reaction to a string of severe winters we had. So some pop culture show does a "are we heading into global freeze?" show, big whoop. That's just talk, not research. The plain fact is that it went on for a few years then died as silly pop culture nonsense. No real scientists ever did research on it. Second, This talk of global warming has been going on for 30 years! At first it was just pop culture speculation and little research. But 30 years have gone by and the issue has not faded like the "global freeze" talk. Why? Because after a few years the winters became normal again, but anyone with a thermometer and a chart of mean global temprature can see that the earth HAS been warming up since 1900. You can even see it first hand when you step outside in Feburary and it's 68 degrees! (in NY) Comparing pop culture trends with real science does not prove that anything is true OR false, they are unrelated.


AHH i se while i typed this i had a few detrators comment on my original thred well, i'll try to address those things.

I suppose your textbooks fail to point out that 95% of the planets 'greenhouse gasses' is water vapor (just about all of it naturally occuring). If you think worrying about a .1% increase (a pretty large increase) in CO2 (~3.618% of greenhouse gasses) is going to cause anything to worry about, you got problems.

Uh no they didnt. But you seem to have little grasp of the concept of "closed system" cycles such as the "carbon cycle" or the "water cycle" and you confuse what is natural with what is manmade that causes the system to become unbalanced, I bet you think trees are "the greatist polluters" becuase of thier "high emmission of greenhouse gasses"
First off, green house gases are needed to keep the planet from freezing so they naturally occur. That is not the problem, the problem is when you ADD more gases then  there were originally. (carbon cycle) WE are NOT adding more water vapor thorough our industrial output. Before man ever used oil or coal there were "greenhouse gasses" like H2O, CO2, Me4 etc. in the atmosphere. They kept the planet warm and stable. The problem is newly added CO2 (burning fossil fuels) that previously was locked deep beneath the earth and no longer part of the MODERN carbon cycle. (they were part of the cycle 60 million+ years ago).

If you think worrying about a .1% increase (a pretty large increase) in CO2 (~3.618% of greenhouse gasses) is going to cause anything to worry about, you got problems.

Yes i  do have a problem, the problem is other peoples ignorance! Ignorance of science.
Science can measure things in Large quantities and in small ones. You make it seem like  .1% is a small amount. IT is not! when refering to scientific reading it CAN be a large amount. That is why scientists measure some things with the PPM or BPM measurement becuase only a small amount of somthing in chemistry can mean a lot. A perfect example is Cyanide, all it takes is a super miniscule amount measured in PPM to kill a person who weighs 150 punds or more. Or consider Dyes, All it takes is .0001 % of an Azodide red dye to make a whole gallon of pure water turn a deep red. even though the total measuerment of dye in the water might onlt amount to .000001%
Here is something that can also put it into perspective, .1% = 1 in 1000. therefore for every 1000 "air" molecules there is 1 carbon dioxide molecule. Now suppose i told you that everytime you started up your car you had a 1 in 1000 chance of blowing up from a bomb. Hey those are'nt bad odds are they? Well within 3 years you would be dead.

                 The plain fact is that a increase of .1% CO2 will raise the "mean global temprature" by 1 degree clesius. this is bad and will cause all sorts of "domino" effects to happen. The I'd like to explain them but this post is geting damn long! Go look them up.

Quoted: I think global warming is real. You have CO2 emission (carbon dioxide).  CO2 is heavier then the air.  This means that the CO2 lingers in the lower atmosphere.  Enough of it will slow the Earth's cooling.  The CO2 stops the heat from dispersing off the planet (since the CO2 acts like a blanket that keeps the heat in). Then you have all the industry and science experiments where humans have been inducing chemical reactions.  This creates gases that are not natural in any large numbers in the atmosphere.  Some of these also act like a blanket warming the Earth,  or bouncing the sun's rays away (which would be where the ice age comes in).  I think global warming is ALOT more real then a global ice age is. The only way I see to stop global warming is to somehow trigger huge lightning storms.  The energy released by the lightning storms will debond the CO2 in the atmosphere and the carbon will fall to the earth,  while the oxygen will rejoin the atmosphere in its natural state.  I'm not 100% hip on my chemistry but I think that enough energy will debond the CO2 molecules and other harmful gases in the atmopshere into their natural elements. But some gases such as chlorine or other gases that don't belong in the atmosphere would require some other kind of treatment.  I dont know how much chlorine weighs but it will probably take hundreds or thousands of years for these gases to exit the planet or settle back to the ground.   I'm sure the planet already has some natural defense mechanisms that will help,  but I don't think it can keep up if we don't help too. I never understood why scientists will make statements that CO2 emissions and other harmful compounds will hurt the atmoshpehere but none of them talk "science".  It is very easy to find out how much CO2 it would take to affect the planet by figuring out how much heat CO2 will blanket from leaving the planet.  There are also ways to test the CO2 levels in the air.  Why they havent come out with hard facts is beyond me.  THey all want to sound like amateurs by making statements without any knowledge presented behind their statements. Of course you notice the scientists on MSNBC was an EXXON MOBILE employee.  Of course he isn't going to present any facts.  He is in the pockets of the oil companies.  And he was crying censorship,  but he works for the same people who influenced that censorship.    He has no integrity. I think it's definatly real but what I dont know is how bad it is yet.

Lightning will stop global warming?  Stop it you are killing me

Ever heard of trees, grass and vegetation and something called photosynthesis?  Converting CO2 to sugar?

Quoted: Some say that Global Warming is being caused by the decrease in the number of pirates.  Because Pirates are cool. www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

Sounds more realistic than ANY other theory on global warming (which doesnt exist to begin with).

Quoted: One volcano eruption puts more CO2 in the air than man has during our ENTIRE history.

If you compare the mass of lava released and burning in one volcano versus the mass of hydrocarbons that are burned you will see that you have been fed BULLSHIT.  We burn ALOT more hydrocarbons then lava is released.  And we burn alot more hydrocarbons then lava burns.

I dont subscribe to your little statistic.   It could be possible,  but common sense tells me that is illogical.

Quoted: Quoted: 25 years ago these same "scientists" said we had 20 years until SHTF. BTW, there's more and more evidence that Earth is experiencing global cooling not warming. Bingo. Winner! Winner!

That's ludicrous.  So the rapid world-wide dissolution of ice packs and glaciers is caused by global COOLING?  This winter was the fifth warmest of the last 100 years, with the other top four being since 1997 (see http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2006/mar06/noaa06-027.html).  That's not indicitive of a COOLING trend.  

There's evidence everywhere you look that the planet is getting warmer and it's having tremendous consequences.  We ran out of letters to name hurricanes last year.  Droughts are commonplace and now effect a quarter of the continental US.  Sure, human beings produce only a fraction of the green house gasses created on Earth, but they are also a prime contributor to the destruction of the planet's carbon sinks.

So think what you want about the 'cause' of global warming.  But don't pull this 'actually the earth is cooling' bullshit, it just shows how willfully ignorant you are.

Quoted: Quoted: One volcano eruption puts more CO2 in the air than man has during our ENTIRE history. If you compare the mass of lava released and burning in one volcano versus the mass of hydrocarbons that are burned you will see that you have been fed BULLSHIT.  We burn ALOT more hydrocarbons then lava is released.  And we burn alot more hydrocarbons then lava burns. I dont subscribe to your little statistic.   It could be possible,  but common sense tells me that is illogical.

Well if that is the case then we should all be dead from being poisoned!  But yet the life expectency continues to raise  Your statement about Exxon Mobile's employee shows your true socialist colors.

AR-15 is the worst site in the world to agrue global warming... or anything that threatens "economic progress"   The brainwashed an ignorant are much too strong here...

Quoted: htning Ever heard of trees, grass and vegetation and something called photosynthesis?  Converting CO2 to sugar?

Yeah but that only works when CO2 is settled.  CO2 is a gas,  it might be heaver then air but it still is very hard for it to settle.  When there is alot it takes awhile.

And yes lightning(which is energy) can debond the bond in chemical compounds,  such as CO2.  You know this is basic chemistry.  When this happens the CO2 will seperate into Carbon (which is the C in CO2) and Oxygen2 (which is the O2 in CO2).  O2 is what is found in air naturally.  O3 is Ozone and what makes up our upper atmoshphere.

Quoted: One volcano eruption puts more CO2 in the air than man has during our ENTIRE history.

you are sooo smart.

Quoted: AR-15 is the worst site in the world to agrue global warming... or anything that threatens "economic progressfreedom"   The brainwashed an ignorant are much too strong here...

I am sorry but I don't want to live in the stone ages and have my freedom restricted in case your theories on global climate change happen.  I also have a background in both economics and environmental science so put that in your pipe.

I still say that my board certified local TV meteroligist's inability to use his "Tripple Doppler Radar"/"Storm Tracker" thingie to accurately tell me whether or not it's going to fucking snow tommorow is proof enough that nobody has a fucking clue what the weather is going to be like 50 years from now.

When I see a scientist predicting weather any better than all these other assholes, I'll lend him an ear.

Quoted: Quoted: Lightning will stop global warming?  Stop it you are killing me Ever heard of trees, grass and vegetation and something called photosynthesis?  Converting CO2 to sugar? Yeah but that only works when CO2 is settled.  CO2 is a gas,  it might be heaver then air but it still is very hard for it to settle.  When there is alot it takes awhile. And yes lightning(which is energy) can debond the bond in chemical compounds,  such as CO2.  You know this is basic chemistry.  When this happens the CO2 will seperate into Carbon (which is the C in CO2) and Oxygen2 (which is the O2 in CO2).  O2 is what is found in air naturally.  O3 is Ozone and what makes up our upper atmoshphere.

Yes I know what carbon and oxygen are  If you think lightning will do more to reduce global warming than what nature can do with trees and other vegetation then you really need to put down the crack pipe.

Guessing it's a cycle for now.  Only time will tell

Quoted: Well if that is the case then we should all be dead from being poisoned!  But yet the life expectency continues to raisehock.gif  Your statement about Exxon Mobile's employee shows your true socialist colors.

No,  because there isnt enough CO2 in the air for us to be poisoned.  Something like if 4% of the air was CO2 we would die,   I think it is around 1%-2% right now.    The plants only extract the CO2 that comes into contact with the leaves of the plants.  The majority of the CO2 is not so close to the ground.

Face it,  you're not a scientist.  You are uneducated in the sciences.  So don't argue with people?

It is true,  that scientist on 60 minutes was an EXXON MOBILE EMPLOYEE.  He presented 0 knowledge on why he thought global warming was real,  why he gave a timeframe,  or any facts on anything else.  He said he was being censored but it was not cencorship,  the white house memo said that all articles relating to the environment releaed from the government would go into reveiw.  Because they were contradicting each other and some of them had agendas.  

They are playing stupid,  they are saying global warming is real but they arent saying why they think that.  


It owuld be nice for them to show the CO2 levels,  how that CO2 is affecting the temperature of the planet,  what other compounds and in what numbers are in the atmosphere.  What affect do those other compounds have?  How long does it take for the CO2 to settle roughly.  How much can be handled by earth's natural machanisms,  such as photsynthesis.  ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC.  They have showed NOTHING.  

Quoted: Yes I know what carbon and oxygen are hink

Then you should know that the LARGE MAJORITY of the CO2 is nowhere near plant height.

And you should also know from High School that energy breaks down compounds.  And some common sense tells you that lightning can reach alot higher into the atmosphere then can the tallest plant.  

Since most of the CO2 is not at plant height,  Lightning is the only way to reach the MAJORITY of it.

+1 to you.  Another person in life that goes around in life without a clue.  

Quoted: Quoted: Well if that is the case then we should all be dead from being poisoned!  But yet the life expectency continues to raise  Your statement about Exxon Mobile's employee shows your true socialist colors. No,  because there isnt enough CO2 in the air for us to be poisoned.  Something like if 4% of the air was CO2 we would die,   I think it is around 1%-2% right now.    The plants only extract the CO2 that comes into contact with the leaves of the plants.  The majority of the CO2 is not so close to the ground. Face it,  you're not a scientist.  You are uneducated in the sciences.  So don't argue with people? It is true,  that scientist on 60 minutes was an EXXON MOBILE EMPLOYEE.  He presented 0 knowledge on why he thought global warming was real,  why he gave a timeframe,  or any facts on anything else.  He said he was being censored but it was not cencorship,  the white house memo said that all articles relating to the environment releaed from the government would go into reveiw.  Because they were contradicting each other and some of them had agendas.   They are playing stupid,  they are saying global warming is real but they arent saying why they think that.   It owuld be nice for them to show the CO2 levels,  how that CO2 is affecting the temperature of the planet,  what other compounds and in what numbers are in the atmosphere.  What affect do those other compounds have?  How long does it take for the CO2 to settle roughly.  How much can be handled by earth's natural machanisms,  such as photsynthesis.  ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC.  They have showed NOTHING.

Ok  so the 2 semesters of inorganic chemistry, 1 semester of organic chemestry and the gazillion classes on environmental science, geology, biology and ecology from one of the top universities in the nation doesn't measure up to your education.  So I am wondering what your qualifications are besides being a DU troll.

Quoted: Quoted: Yes I know what carbon and oxygen are  If you think lightning will do more to reduce global warming than what nature can do with trees and other vegetation then you really need to put down the crack pipe. Then you should know that the LARGE MAJORITY of the CO2 is nowhere near plant height. And you should also know from High School that energy breaks down compounds.  And some common sense tells you that lightning can reach alot higher into the atmosphere then can the tallest plant.   Since most of the CO2 is not at plant height,  Lightning is the only way to reach the MAJORITY of it. +1 to you.  Another person in life that goes around in life without a clue.

Lightning also hits the ground and causes forest fires which also puts tons of carbon into the atmosphere.........pretty counter productive.   I guess we can lookfoward to government mandated lightning rods on our homes to combat global warming.

I dunno.  They can't even tell us with any certainty whether or not it will rain next week-----yet, they are predicting what the temperatures will be in 20 years.  Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me!

Quoted: Lightning also hits the ground and causes forest fires which also puts tons of carbon into the atmosphere.........pretty counter productive.   I guess we can lookfoward to government mandated lightning rods on our homes to combat global warming.

Well fly airplanes with magnets and giant spark plugs in between. Should break down the CO2 eventually.

But then again the airplanes echaust would probably put out more CO2 then the machine on board would be cleaning.

I think lightning would work if it could be controlled to not cause fires.  But maybe not.  I havent put much brainpower into it in nailing down the facts of the propsoal,  its not my job.  But the people's who's job it is,  havent been doing anything either.

Quoted: Quoted: Lightning also hits the ground and causes forest fires which also puts tons of carbon into the atmosphere.........pretty counter productive.   I guess we can lookfoward to government mandated lightning rods on our homes to combat global warming. Well fly airplanes with magnets and giant spark plugs in between. Should break down the CO2 eventually. But then again the airplanes echaust would probably put out more CO2 then the machine on board would be cleaning. I think lightning would work if it could be controlled to not cause fires.

Yeah but then you would have a problem with ozone pollution(another greenhouse gas) you greenies are too much

What happens when we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions down to 1% of what we currently produce, and then a volcano erupts and dumps ten times that amount into the atmosphere?  Aren't we even more fucked?  Shouldn't we ban volcanos for the chirrun?

It is incredibly egotistical to think that man has any real affect on this earth, we are just a passenger and we can't even begin to comprehend what is really happening, and there is insufficient information available to us to make any realistic estimates.  

So far, not a single one of the doomsday predictions from the far left has happened, it's a "follow the money" scenario, researchers depend on grants, the more ridiculous their propositions the more likely they are to get grants to study them, there is a clear profit motive behind their actions.  If you watch TV you get the idea that global warming is an accepted scientific fact, while actually it is a minority view, again showing how far out of line the TV networks are with reality.

If liberals are promoting it, it is a lie and complete bull schitt.

Quoted: Quoted: Yeah but then you would have a problem with ozone pollution(another greenhouse gas) you greenies are too much hr

Ozone pollution?  How?  What are you on about?

I would ask for my money back from your "top university".  I don't think you paid attention much.  Or were taught things that were WRONG.

How lightning forms ozone pollution I am unsure.  It does'nt.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah but then you would have a problem with ozone pollution(another greenhouse gas) you greenies are too much Ozone pollution?  How?  What are you on about? I would ask for my money back from your "top university".  I don't think you paid attention much.  Or were taught things that were WRONG. How lightning forms ozone pollution I am unsure.  It does'nt.

Yes ozone pollution
Kinky
Ozone Pollution
Ozone pollution is really an increase in the concentration of ozone in the air at ground level. Because sunlight has a critical role in its formation, ozone pollution is principally a daytime problem in the summer months. Ground-level ozone is produced when sunlight combines with hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide, two compounds produced by cars, trucks, factories, and power-generating plants, and found wherever gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, oil, or natural gas are combusted. Urban areas with heavy traffic, and large industrialized communities, are the primary areas with ozone problems.

Ozone is only good if it is in the extreme uppper layer of the atmosphere at low levels it is bad.  Kills trees that are along ridgelines near cities.

Warning... This thread has been invaded!!!

         

Quoted: I dunno.  They can't even tell us with any certainty whether or not it will rain next week-----yet, they are predicting what the temperatures will be in 20 years.  Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me!

It's easier to correlate and predict long term trends than it is microtrends.  The planet is getting warmer and there are already consequences.  For a group like Arfcom that professes self reliance and independant thinking it amazes me the amount of self delusion that seems to be happening.  If I smell smoke and Karl Marx bangs on my door to say my house was on fire I wouldn't tell him "Get lost, Commie!".

To what extent mankind has had or will continue to have on global warming is debatable.  So is the extent of the impact, which could go anywhere from symtoms we see now to the tranformation to a Venusian atmosphere.  But it's here and the trend shows temperatures still going up.

Quoted: Yes ozone pollution Kinky Ozone Pollution Ozone pollution is really an increase in the concentration of ozone in the air at ground level. Because sunlight has a critical role in its formation, ozone pollution is principally a daytime problem in the summer months. Ground-level ozone is produced when sunlight combines with hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide, two compounds produced by cars, trucks, factories, and power-generating plants, and found wherever gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, oil, or natural gas are combusted. Urban areas with heavy traffic, and large industrialized communities, are the primary areas with ozone problems. Ozone is only good if it is in the extreme uppper layer of the atmosphere at low levels it is bad.  Kills trees that are along ridgelines near cities.

Alright NO2 can be broken down by lightning too.

But how lightning would contribute to ozone pollution I am not sure.   You made no sense.

It would especially help fight NO2 because Nitrogen is inert and would not reform with anything else in the atmosphere.  Neither would carbon I don't think.  And O2 that is released would only form water with any Hydrogen released from lightning strikes.

SO how lightning would do anything harmful other then starting fires on the ground is beyond me.

Quoted: Quoted: Well...If you hang a tennis ball next to a 100 watt lightbulb, wont the heat of the lightbulb slowly make the tennis ball warmer, and warmer over time? Seems to me it is only natural for the earth to slowly get warmer. Makes sense to me.   Hmmm... I gotta remember to keep my balls away from lightbulbs.

The temp is going to be controlled by two factors:

1) How much energy reaches the ball (the sun's output varies, distance from sun to earth varies, the angle at which it hit's the earth varies)

and

2) How much energy is reflected. (the earth's albedo (sp) varies)

I think global warming is an urban myth propagated by the far left in a pathetic power grab attempt.  There are well credentialed scientists on both sides of the issue; which means that no one has a clue.  It's like the old saw of putting an elephant in a room full of blindmen and asking them what they "feel".  From what I have read, we are more likely to have a mini ice age.

Quoted: Quoted: Yes ozone pollution Kinky Ozone Pollution Ozone pollution is really an increase in the concentration of ozone in the air at ground level. Because sunlight has a critical role in its formation, ozone pollution is principally a daytime problem in the summer months. Ground-level ozone is produced when sunlight combines with hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide, two compounds produced by cars, trucks, factories, and power-generating plants, and found wherever gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, oil, or natural gas are combusted. Urban areas with heavy traffic, and large industrialized communities, are the primary areas with ozone problems. Ozone is only good if it is in the extreme uppper layer of the atmosphere at low levels it is bad.  Kills trees that are along ridgelines near cities. Alright NO2 can be broken down by lightning too. But how lightning would contribute to ozone pollution I am not sure.   You made no sense. It would especially help fight NO2 because Nitrogen is inert and would not reform with anything else in the atmosphere.  Neither would carbon I don't think.  And O2 that is released would only form water with any Hydrogen released from lightning strikes. SO how lightning would do anything harmful other then starting fires on the ground is beyond me.

Lightning creates ozone........ETA if it forms water (water vapor) then we are still SOL because water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas.

This is just plain stupid.

Quoted: Quoted: This is my gut reaction as well. Quoted: Global warming is an excuse for communist and socialist to shut down capitalism and private industry.  They won't be happy until we are all living in squaller like the late 1880's. Man made global warming is complete bull shit. +1...  - georgestrings

Yep, my thoughts as well.

TXL

Quoted: [Lightning creates ozone........ETA if it forms water (water vapor) then we are still SOL because water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas.his

Ozone O3 is a good thing.

And water H2O is not bad either.  It eventually combines into rain.  That IS what rain is (water vapor,  which is hot) cools and then falls back as rain.

It naturally balances unlike NO2,  CO2,  and Methane.

Quoted: Quoted: [Lightning creates ozone........ETA if it forms water (water vapor) then we are still SOL because water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas. This is just plain stupid. Ozone O3 is a good thing. And water H2O is not bad either.  It eventually combines into rain.  That IS what rain is (water vapor,  which is hot) cools and then falls back as rain. It naturally balances unlike NO2,  CO2,  and Methane.

You are living up to your internet handle "I know nothing I forgot"  Did you forget about my post about ozone pollution or the fact that water vapor is a green house gas.  Do you know anything about the carbon cycle?

Did '60 minutes' offer any peer reviewable scientific PROOF?  

  I didn't think so.

 Why would anyone watch a lying leftist 'news' magazine like 60 minutes spread fables?  When they have some PROOF then and only then will I listen.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: [Lightning creates ozone........ETA if it forms water (water vapor) then we are still SOL because water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas. This is just plain stupid. Ozone O3 is a good thing. And water H2O is not bad either.  It eventually combines into rain.  That IS what rain is (water vapor,  which is hot) cools and then falls back as rain. It naturally balances unlike NO2,  CO2,  and Methane. You are living up to your internet handle "I know nothing I forgot"  Did you forget about my post about ozone pollution or the fact that water vapor is a green house gas.  Do you know anything about the carbon cycle?

Say iknownothingiforgot, did ya knou that you are part of the carbon cycle?