Global warming.

[jamil]

I studied chemistry in college and yes, I do know a thing or two about the subject. Like how the vibrational stretches of CO2 correspond to the same frequency as the black body radiation given off by the earth, trapping and re-radiating energy that would otherwise have escaped into space. We had to demonstrate that in lab and show why CO2 retains heat but N2 or H20 dont. I also know that CO2 levels have risen considerably since the industrial revolution, when we as a species started the large scale burning of coal and fossil fuels.

If global warming was really just one big hoax and you had the evidence to back it up, why not submit a paper proving it to Nature? You'd uncover the largest scientific conspiracy since the suppression of the tobacco/cancer link, and almost certainly win yourself a Nobel prize in the process. How come nobody's ever done that yet?

Studying chemistry in college (what college student doesn't have to take chemistry?) and knowing a thing or two about the subject does not make you a climatologist. In fact, what you've described only makes you a little more knowledgeable than the average person about the subject, compared to climatologists.

So, those of us who aren't climatologists depend partly on the arguments of the scientists in the middle of it to know **** from shinola. Normally I tend to accept science for what it is, but I've lived long enough to see enough scientists' predictions utterly fail, that I am quite comfortable believing that the scientific community can be wrong.

Also, there's enough politics and money surrounding it, and enough red flags raised, that it's difficult to take them very serious. I mean really, who could take Al Gore the climate whore seriously?

 

[jwh20]

The leftists have latched onto "global warming" (now called global climate-change since it's not 100% clear that warming is actually happening) as the ultimate CONTROL mechanism.

Here's why it's so attractive to them:

1) It's virtually IMPOSSIBLE (in our lifetimes at least) to PROVE that such a thing is happening. We have only a tiny slice of worldwide temperature history since the invention of the thermometer. Since climate varies in cycles that run from 1000s to 100s-of-thousands of years, nobody alive today will ever know if this is true or not. Actually I believe that we are in a warming cycle since it's well established that central Indiana (where I live) was covered with ice a mile think about 10,000-15,000 years ago. Since it's melted and we no longer contend with glaciers in Indiana, clearly there has been a warm-up. Doh!

2) Even it there is a warming trend, it's inconclusive that human activity is behind it. Of course the media and the old-fat-carbon-emitting Al Gore love to point out on the hottest days that we can clearly see. Often the news will say, "hottest day/week/month/etc. since 1852". Ok, so WHY was it so hot in 1852? That's LONG before the so-called greenhouse effect would have started.

3) Most people are now products of public schools where science is NOT taught. The books that are used for "science" today are filled with fancy pictures but have little to do with science. So people don't know bull-crap when they hear it. Besides, what does Al Gore, a life-long political hack know about climate? He doesn't know squat beyond what his advisors have told him to say.

This whole thing is just a line of crap to gain further control over American's lives. Clearly we need to tax anything that looks like a carbon atom since we all know this is happening.

My bottom line is this. Even if climate change is happening (probably), and even if it's warming (perhaps), is that a BAD THING? Ok, so New York is going to be under 10 ft. of water in 100 years. Good! That place is a slime-hole! I wish it would hurry up and get warmer so we wouldn't have to go to Florida in the spring to find some warm weather!

 

[5.56'aholic]

It would appear that our resident "scientist" has left the discussion. Perhaps he/she would do better in a forum where there is no scientific evidence discussed contrary to his/her opinion.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

51 pages for this, really?

There's no man-made global warming. Al Gore is a fraud.

/thread

 

[BigMatt]

You may need to retake your college courses, Einstein. H20 (humidity) in the air, is the main culprit of the green house effect, selectively absorbing infrared heat reflected off the earths surface. It is this very effect that causes tropical areas to retain heat overnight and dry desert regions cool so much. But you probably already knew that since you demonstrated that in your scientific "labs"....

This is correct. The sarcasm wasn't needed, but it is correct anyway.

 

[scattergunner]

I think we should take the volcano's and sea vents that are releasing too much CO2

 

[5.56'aholic]

This is correct. The sarcasm wasn't needed, but it is correct anyway.

Well, when someone spouts off that they know this and they know that, then use it to try to beat others down, I feel it is more than needed.

 

[efpeter]

If Global Climate Cooling Change Warming Stagnation was real, wouldn't algore do something about his own massive contributions to the problem?

I reject the idea, and algore's actions leave me little room but to conclude that he rejects the idea as well and is simply using it as a platform to make himself relevant to anything and to earn money.

 

[BigMatt]

Well, when someone spouts off that they know this and they know that, then use it to try to beat others down, I feel it is more than needed.

Touche monsieur ***** Cat!

 

[Bummer]

... Until you do it is still only a theory. ...

Only? What does science have that's more than a theory?

 

[BigMatt]

Only? What does science have that's more than a theory?

People use the words fact and demonstrable theory interchangeably. It is all semantics though.

The fact is, the "theory" of man made climate change is only a hypothesis.

 

[lucky4034]

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 400 ppm CO2 (0.040%). Compared to former geologic times,our present atmosphere,like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 450 ppm.

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were theonly geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

This is telling isn't it? There is a correlation between plant life and CO2.... During an Ice Age, plant life is decimated which would make sense right? I'm not surprised that during Ice Age periods CO2 levels can remain high for long periods of time. Especially considering that laid glacial ice contains very high levels of CO2. Should the polar caps melt from increased temperatures, they WILL RELEASE very high levels of CO2 and that cold water released into our warm circulating water could trigger another Ice Age which would again decimate plant life and CO2 levels will remain in the atmosphere until temperatures stabilize and plant life again begins to regulate it.

I don't think this graph is clear evidence that pollution doesn't affect global climate. I won't pretend to be an expert on this subject... but very few things in science are always "all or nothing".

 

[smokingman]

"SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?
Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?
Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.




SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.


Interview: Hans von Storch on Problems with Climate Change Models - SPIEGEL ONLINE

 

[printcraft]

.........



.....our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed...

Well, that sucks for Al Gores pocket book.

.........

The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

 

[printcraft]

U.N. climate change report released - WKOW 27: Madison, WI Breaking News, Weather and Sports

the rate of increase would've been even higher if not for the relative cooling of La Nina and the role of deep ocean in absorbing the heat.

The IPCC report also suggests cities like Miami, Florida might be underwater within the next few decades.

Miami MIGHT be invaded by the North Koreans.

 

[Chewie]

Oh my, smokingman, reading the teaser I was winding up to blast you with multiple barrels; now I have all this venom and no place to spew it. Guess I'll go over to the DNC thread . . .

+2

 

[printcraft]

Hey pro-man-made-global-warming cheerleaders!!!!

Where are you guys now with this fraud being exposed?!


Hello?



[video=youtube;CXiifFBHj5g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXiifFBHj5g[/video]

 

[rhino]

SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?
Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.


Interview: Hans von Storch on Problems with Climate Change Models - SPIEGEL ONLINE

[yawn] Quelle surprise. [/yawn]

 

[octalman]

It's certainly telling that essentially every single scientist who is knowledgeable about the subject agrees that anthropogenic climate change is the result of CO2 and similar greenhouse gasses, while none of the deniers have any education in the relevant fields.

Sorry, but I cannot and will not ignore evidence and science just because I don't like it.

What is the definition of knowledgeable? Plenty of knowledgeable scientists that do not agree. "CO2 and similar greenhouse gasses." What does that mean? Any gas with a C or an O or a 2 in the name. Statements like that are just jibberish with no rational context. Is is a simpleton's phrase to convince other simpletons that CO2 (i.e Carbon based fuel) is BAD.

Nobody has any more than the equivalent of a first graders understanding of how the Earths climate works. Therefore, a healthy dose of skepticism and common sense is appropriate when listening the the carping about the certainty of impending disaster. When the climate change believers have to cherry pick temperature data, squelch debate, and name call in support of their position - say no more. Their belief is based not on facts, but cult like fanaticism.

 

[rhino]

I wish I knew science!