Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[karaquazian]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

comparing mars and venus with earth is real intelligent, since obviously they have the same climate conditions, amount of water and o2 and ability to support life that we do ;p

[rubyraks]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

who is to say that our current climate is the most ideal climate anyways?

who is to say it isn't? But it is working, so why must we f^*k with it?

[cosmo]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

comparing mars and venus with earth is real intelligent, since obviously they have the same climate conditions, amount of water and o2 and ability to support life that we do ;p

Apparently you do not have the intelligence to understand what I was saying: The warming patterns on Venus and Mars are the same as what is happening here on Earth. Hence the huge numbers of scientists that are coming out by the day saying the same thing: sunspots are at their highest levels, and that it's a solar cycle.

Not manmade.

We can all agree that pollution is rising among the highly populated areas on this planet. It's just not affecting our climate being that manmade CO2 is at a whopping 3-5%.

All of the scientists with courage that are coming out against the global warming mafia say the same thing: It's all about the bling $$$.

[toasty]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

@ cosmo: what exactly is the downside of reducing pollution and carbon emissions? Even if you think global warming is BS, there are a thousand other reasons to look into alternative energy sources. Among other things, wouldn't it be nice to be able to tell the Mid-East that we don't need them anymore?

[rubyraks]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

We can all agree that pollution is rising among the highly populated areas on this planet. It's just not affecting our climate being that manmade CO2 is at a whopping 3-5%.

Ok, so even if I agree it's not affecting our climate, it is unquestionably affecting our air quality. Have you ever been to Los Angeles? The air is almost thick enough with pollution to take a bite out of. So why not do something about the air quality, even if it has nothing to do with climate?

[cosmo]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

If you're having a difficult time finding any reports from scientists who think that global warming is a man-made phenomenon, I'm not really sure what to tell you. Perhaps stepping outside of the right-wing echo chamber would be a good place to start. When Hannity, Rush, Savage, et al keep referring to the same study over and over again and denying the existence of anything to the contrary, it probably does seem like there is a drumbeat of support for even the most preposterous notions...



Gotta call bullshit on this tactic as well. Ask for something you know doesn't exist, and use the failure of anyone to provide it as evidence that you must be right. So, without further ado...

So in a nutshell, I'm an idiot who listens to misinformation from talk show hosts?

Nice.

[WaveSculptor]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

3 to 5 percent of what? The gasses which interact with infrared radiation and thus cause the greenhouse effect (which is clearly demonstrable whether or not you believe in global warming) make up only a single percent of the Earth's atmosphere, yet they are responsible for an average surface temp difference of 20-30 degrees celsius. From the time that humans have walked the Earth up until the dawn of the industrial age, CO2 had never had a higher atmospheric concentration than 280 parts per million, yet now it has reached 380 ppm, and continues to rise by about 2-4 ppm anually. The reason CO2 is a focal point of the debate is the length of its stay in the atmosphere is much greater than that of water vapor, which also disperses heat through scattered cloud covering.

But others here have raised excellent points. Just as deterrence is not sufficient reason to impose the death penalty, uncertainty about global warming doesn't justify the 'Phoenix brown cloud' getting any thicker. We also have to think about air and water quality, as well as the impact our relentless consumption is having on biodiversity. Limiting our impact on the ecosystem just makes sense, no particular scientific validation necessary.

[toasty]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

So in a nutshell, I'm an idiot who listens to misinformation from talk show hosts?

Nice.

I don't see the part where I called you an idiot, but if listening to right-wing talk makes you feel like an idiot, far be it for me to disagree.

In all seriousness, I do find it hard to believe that you could be getting information from a variety of diverse sources yet be totally unfamiliar with the idea that lots of real scientists believe in global warming and think we are the cause. You may think they're wrong, but the fact that they are out there is beyond serious dispute. The only possible explanation is that you're getting all of your information from a single source (BTW, the Fox News/Rush/Drudge/etc Echo Chamber counts as one source) or ignoring anything you hear to the contrary.

[cosmo]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

3 to 5 percent of what? The gasses which interact with infrared radiation and thus cause the greenhouse effect (which is clearly demonstrable whether or not you believe in global warming) make up only a single percent of the Earth's atmosphere, yet they are responsible for an average surface temp difference of 20-30 degrees celsius. From the time that humans have walked the Earth up until the dawn of the industrial age, CO2 had never had a higher atmospheric concentration than 280 parts per million, yet now it has reached 380 ppm, and continues to rise by about 2-4 ppm anually. The reason CO2 is a focal point of the debate is the length of its stay in the atmosphere is much greater than that of water vapor, which also disperses heat through scattered cloud covering.

But others here have raised excellent points. Just as deterrence is not sufficient reason to impose the death penalty, uncertainty about global warming doesn't justify the 'Phoenix brown cloud' getting any thicker. We also have to think about air and water quality, as well as the impact our relentless consumption is having on biodiversity. Limiting our impact on the ecosystem just makes sense, no particular scientific validation necessary.

What do you mean 3-5% of what?! You are supposed to be an expert on global warming, but all you seem to come up with is the simple description of what greenhouse gases are! WATER VAPOR constitutes for 95% of Earth's greenhouse gases. The remaining factor is said to come from man. NASA stated in their report that in the last 18+ years, no discernable warming trends took place.

So, according to the Global Warming hysterics all of this warming took place within a window of 30 years, being that their argument has been that all of the warming took place over the last half century. And that window was at the beginning of the last half century.

There are many other holes in their theories, but this is just one of the ones that I could think of off the top of my head.

And your rise in the 280 to 380 per million is nil. That is NOTHING. Water vapor is up to 400,000 parts per million, thus proving how prominent water vapor is compared to CO2. CO2 is up to 370 parts per million, not 380. Divide that by a million. That comes up to close to zero. The small change, from 280 to 370, is virtually nothing at all. I do not even know why they use that factor to further their hollow arguments.

It's nothing.

[toasty]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

And your rise in the 280 to 380 per million is nil. That is NOTHING. Water vapor is up to 400,000 parts per million, thus proving how prominent water vapor is compared to CO2. CO2 is up to 370 parts per million, not 380. Divide that by a million. That comes up to close to zero. The small change, from 280 to 370, is virtually nothing at all. I do not even know why they use that factor to further their hollow arguments.

It's nothing.

Dude, PPM is a unit of measure that is used when very small amounts of a substance can be very significant. Think 370 ppm is so close to zero that it's "nothing?" Water that is contaminated with .01 ppm of arsenic is considered unsafe to drink, but that's even less than nothing, right? What do you think happens when you drink a glass that is 370 ppm?

The moral of the story: when someone is describing something in ppm, it does not mean that it should be ignored. Quite the contrary.

[cosmo]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

Dude, PPM is a unit of measure that is used when very small amounts of a substance can be very significant. Think 370 ppm is so close to zero that it's "nothing?" Water that is contaminated with .01 ppm of arsenic is considered unsafe to drink, but that's even less than nothing, right? What do you think happens when you drink a glass that is 370 ppm?

The moral of the story: when someone is describing something in ppm, it does not mean that it should be ignored. Quite the contrary.

The abbreviated term ppm = parts per million. So if you divide 370 by a million, you get .00037. And if it is up from 280 it used to be .00027. So the change is what I have been calling nothing: .0001. That is zero.

You can't simply argue that we are the source of the warming being that we make up a small fraction of the greenhouse gases to begin with. That is why scientists are now coming out after all of the Global Warming hysteria to argue that, being that we have been seeing higher sunspot activity over time, the common conclusion is that it is the sunspot activity rather than it being manmade. I can pull up several recent articles citing their arguments as such.

But I guess these scientists are a small minority versus the 'overwhelming consensus' that I always hear about.

[WaveSculptor]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

What do you mean 3-5% of what?! You are supposed to be an expert on global warming, but all you seem to come up with is the simple description of what greenhouse gases are! WATER VAPOR constitutes for 95% of Earth's greenhouse gases. The remaining factor is said to come from man. NASA stated in their report that in the last 18+ years, no discernable warming trends took place.

So, according to the Global Warming hysterics all of this warming took place within a window of 30 years, being that their argument has been that all of the warming took place over the last half century. And that window was at the beginning of the last half century.

There are many other holes in their theories, but this is just one of the ones that I could think of off the top of my head.

And your rise in the 280 to 380 per million is nil. That is NOTHING. Water vapor is up to 400,000 parts per million, thus proving how prominent water vapor is compared to CO2. CO2 is up to 370 parts per million, not 380. Divide that by a million. That comes up to close to zero. The small change, from 280 to 370, is virtually nothing at all. I do not even know why they use that factor to further their hollow arguments.

It's nothing.

1) At no point did I claim authority on the subject, but I can certainly claim the advantage of being able to listen and critically evaluate all sides of the argument, rather than address only those points to which I have a cookie cutter rebuttal locked and loaded.

2) By what I've read, water vapour could only account for 90% of the greenhouse effect if it were purely concentrated, which it isn't. I'll say again that it has a counter-effect of dispersing heat through scattered cloud cover, which CO2 does not.

3) A molecule of Water Vapor remains in the atmosphere an average of 10 days before condensing. Compare that to the average atmospheric lifespan of a CO2 molecule (200-400 years) which must be reabsorbed photosynthetically, and you might begin to understand why parts per million is a significant measurement. That is, if Toasty's arsenic analogy was too concise.

4) I can't help but notice you don't provide a link to said NASA report, which I'd love to read. In the meantime, here is a link to an interview with a NASA climatologist who directly contradicts what you claim the report says. He also debunks the sunspot theory, saying the last period of intense solar activity was in the 50s iirc.
http://www.twis.org/audio/2007/04/24/

5) The industrial revolution extends back 200 years, not 30. There has been a visible trend of rising CO2 concentrations for the past 150 years, which has greatly intensified over the past half century.

6) There are holes in every theory. It is much more difficult to confirm than disconfirm, but hey, why make an informed decision when you can just form an opinion?

7) CO2 was measured at 370 ppm around 2000. I humbly submit that it is closer to 390 now, as the rate of increase has been relatively constant for the past 50 years. I chose 380 to be on the safe side.

If the factor was insignificant, it couldn't further the argument. Ever hear of scientific notation? That's how we keep track of influential statistics on the scales of the very large and the very tiny. What you don't know can hurt me, so give it some more thought. I assure you I will too.

[rubyraks]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

[Jenks]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

X 1000000000000

[Garrick]

Re: Top Climatogolist: Global Warming is Hooey

i have read the same message on this thread 15 times put in 16 different posts.................... does that make sense? probably not. get my point? make a poll imo.


ride your bicycle!!