The joke that consensus exists re: global warming:

[DrDetroit]

Energy bill doles out project funding
Coal, oil, natural gas, utility companies in line to benefit

Will Dubya admit that the energy bills are written by lobbyists, or does he no longer believe in the ownership society?

What's the relationship??

Dubya has busted any relationship he might have ever had with fiscal restraint long ago. This is just another outrageous spending bill that will do nothing to the "issues" proponents say it would.

[At Large]

So you propose to swap one greehouse gas for another, even more potent, greenhouse gas.

What is it you expect to accomplish by doing that?

Are you really this stupid?

Water vapor accounts for the overwhelming majority of the greenhouse effect. That is established fact.

What are you attempting to argue here?

As is often said here: Link to this fact?

[Mikey]

The total amount of water on the earth is essentially at an equilibrium, whether it's solid, liquid or gas. It's neither created nor destroyed. The greenhouse effect of water vapor is what, in combination with other components of the atmosphere like CO2, regulates the temperature to the point where it is now.

CO2 is "created" by burning fossil fuels. Elemental carbon, that has until now been sequestered in the ground, is created and enters the atmospnere. It doesn't condense and rain like water does, but remains there until it's removed by photosynthesis. If more carbon is released into the air than is removed by plantlife then the concentration keeps rising.

The water component of the greenhouse gas mixture remains essentially constant. As the concentration of CO2 rises, the total greenhouse effect also rises. Pretty damn simple.

[At Large]

In my quick searching of this fact, it has been stated in many articles that more water vapor would be beneficial and would actually help cool the planet a little. Do a google search for 'water vapor greenhouse effect' if you don't believe me.

[Felix]

The water component of the greenhouse gas mixture remains essentially constant. As the concentration of CO2 rises, the total greenhouse effect also rises. Pretty damn simple.

Combine those facts with the introduction of oxides of sulfur, nitrogen and carbon particulate matter, such as smoke and dust
metal oxides, especially those of lead, cadmium, copper and iron which are trapped by the CO2, and it makes for a bad combination.....

there ya go mvs....

[Felix]

Your ignorance is quite astounding...even for a liberal.

Then enlighten us......

[Bizzarofelice]

Your ignorance is quite astounding...even for a liberal.

Teach us, meteorology major.

[DrDetroit]

It's already been posted here before...

[Mister Bushice]

He can't. He only strives to point out that everyone here is stupid, that the intelligence community is usually wrong and that he knows this because he is right, and that if he had been allowed to run the world, we've have none of these problems.

[DrDetroit]

Is Mikey going to link us to his source for that information?

And is bushice going to argue that water vapor is not a green house...again?



The principal greenhouse gas is water vapor (incl. clouds)

I know, it's from CEI, but unless you can undermine the validity of their report, fuck off.

[DrDetroit]

The total amount of water on the earth is essentially at an equilibrium, whether it's solid, liquid or gas. It's neither created nor destroyed. The greenhouse effect of water vapor is what, in combination with other components of the atmosphere like CO2, regulates the temperature to the point where it is now.

CO2 is "created" by burning fossil fuels. Elemental carbon, that has until now been sequestered in the ground, is created and enters the atmospnere. It doesn't condense and rain like water does, but remains there until it's removed by photosynthesis. If more carbon is released into the air than is removed by plantlife then the concentration keeps rising.

The water component of the greenhouse gas mixture remains essentially constant. As the concentration of CO2 rises, the total greenhouse effect also rises. Pretty damn simple.

Your ignorance is quite astounding...even for a liberal.

I wonder if he has read the recent reports of the oceans behaving as carbon sinks??

[Mikey]

Another 10 year old article. :roll:

This phony pseudo-know-it-all (mvscunt) has absolutely nothing of substance to post himself. His only recourse is to call anybody he disagrees with ignorant, and when called on his ignorance comes up with more out of date crap and wants everybody to believe it's somehow cutting edge.

[Mikey]

The total amount of water on the earth is essentially at an equilibrium, whether it's solid, liquid or gas. It's neither created nor destroyed. The greenhouse effect of water vapor is what, in combination with other components of the atmosphere like CO2, regulates the temperature to the point where it is now.

CO2 is "created" by burning fossil fuels. Elemental carbon, that has until now been sequestered in the ground, is created and enters the atmospnere. It doesn't condense and rain like water does, but remains there until it's removed by photosynthesis. If more carbon is released into the air than is removed by plantlife then the concentration keeps rising.

The water component of the greenhouse gas mixture remains essentially constant. As the concentration of CO2 rises, the total greenhouse effect also rises. Pretty damn simple.

Your ignorance is quite astounding...even for a liberal.

I wonder if he has read the recent reports of the oceans behaving as carbon sinks??

I guess you haven't studied science much, have you?

The oceans didn't just recently become carbon sinks, dimwit. Carbon dissolving in the ocean has been part of the equilibrium process all along. As you increase the atmospheric concentration the concentration will increase in the ocean as well, but not enough to offset all of the atmospheric increase. Why do you think the atmospheric concentrations have been increasing? And don't try to tell me they haven't.

[Mikey]

Another 10 year old article. :roll:

This phony pseudo-know-it-all (mvscunt) has absolutely nothing of substance to post himself. His only recourse is to call anybody he disagrees with ignorant, and when called on his ignorance comes up with more out of date crap and wants everybody to believe it's somehow cutting edge.

So water vapor no longer acccounts for over three quarters of all greenhouse gases? Is that your rationale for dimissing it?

Or is it because it hammers your idiotic belief that atmospheric water vapor remains "essentially constant" straight up your dumb motherfucking ass?

What feebleminded dipshit you are.

So, your guy's theory trumps all others.

Blindered much?

Tell me something, if your hack is so well respected, where's his Nobel Prize in atmospheric chemistry?

Climate Change and Its Consequences
Rowland, FS
Environment (Washington DC) [Environment (Wash. DC)]. Vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 28-35. Mar 2001.

The Earth's climate is changing, in large part because of the activities of humankind. The simplest measure of this change is the average temperature of the Earth's surface, which has risen approximately 0.7 degree Celsius over the past century, with most of the increase occurring in the past two decades. In other words, the Earth is undergoing global warming. The simplest predictor of this climate change is the steady growth of the amount of carbon dioxide (CO sub(2)) in the atmosphere. The concentration of CO sub(2), the most important greenhouse gas, has increased by more than 16 percent in the past 40 years and by more than 30 percent since the beginning of the industrial revolution 200 years ago. Although there are several consequences of climate change other than this increase in global average temperature, the most significant fact as we face the future is that scientists have, at best, an imperfect understanding of the global climate system. The possibility exists for noticeable deterioration of the climate in the United States even on a decadal time scale. Furthermore, unless the drivers of climate change are successfully addressed and controlled, no future stabilization point can be identified against the otherwise inexorable warming of the globe. As CO sub(2) continues to accumulate, doubling and then tripling in concentration, the expected warming will continue to increase. The further this proceeds, the greater the possibility that new chemical or physical processes will be triggered that release still more greenhouse gases. Many of the time scales for these processes, both human and geophysical, are decades to centuries in length, and major efforts must be begun before any irreversible processes begin.

Descriptors: Carbon dioxide; Greenhouse gases; Human factors; Climatic changes; Global warming; USA; Temperature effects; Atmosphere; Human impact; Air pollution; Population-environment relations; Carbon dioxide effects on climate; Man's influence on climate; Atmospheric greenhouse effect; USA

I can tell you where Dr. Rowland's is. It's hangning the the building named after him at UCI.

[Mikey]

It's the only moving part that's moving like this:

[Felix]

But Broecker is of the opinion that man is largely responsible for global warming--which you say isn't happening.

So on the one hand he's right, but then he's wrong?????

KYOA much....

[Felix]

Go fuck yourself, dumbshit.

Stick it up your ass melty......

[Mikey]

So what?

There is no evidence that CO2 causes warming. There is barely enough evidence to postulate an as yet not understood correlation.

Bullshit

Atmospheric CO2 has fluctuated wildly many times throughout geological history and it didn't have a goddamn thing to do with human activity.

Link?

Go fuck yourself, dumbshit.

Easy to tell when mvscal knows he's full of shit.

[Mister Bushice]

yeah, he always melts a bit when he either doesn't get agreement or when you run rings round him logically.

No way we can dump the shit we do into the air and NOT have it affect change.

[Mikey]

I don't see any wild fluctuations there.
I see large fluctuations that took place gradually over 100's of millions of years.

I don't see how the CO2 concentrations of 100 million years ago and more have any bearing on the current situation. Unless of course you're looking forward to a world of giant ferns and 100 foot carniverous lizards.

From your posted article:

All we can say is that, over the last 400,000 years, there seems to have been a positive feedback at work: whenever the climate became warmer, carbon dioxide and methane rose and helped make the climate even warmer.

There you have it.

[Mikey]

I don't see any wild fluctuations there. I see large fluctuations that took place gradually over 100's of millions of years.

These changes have occured within decades not millions of years.

Not according to your chart.

Try again.

[Mikey]

You claimed that atmospheric CO2 fluctuated wildly.
Now you're talking about temperature?

Change the subject to save face much?

[ChargerMike]

Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth
by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson
Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doomsdayers second reading assignment...

Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.

Careful Tests: Science Has Spoken:


The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. :roll: Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average. :roll:


Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.

The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, :roll: as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.

Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, :roll: and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased. :roll: :roll:

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong :roll: --after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.

So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. :roll: We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects. :roll:

But we should worry about the effects of the hydrocarbon rationing being proposed at Kyoto. Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.

Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.

Lush Environment

What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.


Yes, I realize the article is 8 years old :roll:

[Mikey]

...It should be noted that early Holocene records from Greenland ice cores have repeatedly indicated rapidly fluctuating CO2 levels including values >300 ppmv (36, 37).

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... tid=129389

Keep on guessing, dumbshit.

Damn, you're really getting desparate aren't you?


From your article, which you so desparately searched for but apparently didn't read:

By applying the inverse relation between numbers of leaf stomata and atmospheric CO2 concentration, stomatal frequency analysis of fossil birch leaves from lake deposits in Denmark reveals a century-scale CO2 change during the prominent Holocene cooling event that occurred in the North Atlantic region between 8,400 and 8,100 years B.P. In contrast to conventional CO2 reconstructions based on ice cores from Antarctica, quantification of the stomatal frequency signal corroborates a distinctive temperature–CO2 correlation. Results indicate a global CO2 decline of ≈25 ppm by volume over ≈300 years. This reduction is in harmony with observed and modeled lowering of North Atlantic sea-surface temperatures associated with a short-term weakening of thermohaline circulation

.

If a decline of 25 ppm over 300 years is a "wild fluctuation" that resulted in a cooling event then the 85 ppm or so increase in the past 100 years must be an incredibly wild fluctuation and we'd better be ready for the sauna.

You were claiming before that there is no temperature-CO2 relationship. Now you cite an article that corroborates one. Which is it?

Or are you just confused?

[peter dragon]

according to MVSCAL's chart the human population hasnt ever lived in a climate over a 3 RCO2's in our atsmophere? (depending if you use the 6000 thory or what is it 100,000 years?) can the human race survive in an atsmophere where the concentration of RCO2's are above this level?

[Left Seater]

Is the earth warming ever so slightly? Yes.

Has the earth gone thru periods of warming like this before? Yes.

The Great Lakes were formed by glaciers, vast areas of the South, Texas and the Southwest were once under water from ice caps that had melted.

Is this current warming trend any different than previous warming trends? I'll let you know in about 10,000 years.

But the bottom line for me is this: we should persue things like natural gas cars, more solar and wind energy, etc, but I am not ready to give up most things because of this current warming trend.

[Variable]

according to MVSCAL's chart the human population hasnt ever lived in a climate over a 3 RCO2's in our atsmophere? (depending if you use the 6000 thory or what is it 100,000 years?) can the human race survive in an atsmophere where the concentration of RCO2's are above this level?

:roll:

CO2 is .036% of the atmosphere.

AHHH!!! It used to only be .03599999999999%. See? We're doomed! - Lefties