No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

page: 26
15
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
What has anything of that to do with your ridiculous original claim that someone like Gavin Schmidt is a wannabe, although he has published dozens of peer-reviewed articles containing original science; whilst someone like Gerhard is a real scientist, although he has published little of note?

We're not talking about Michael Mann or his reconstructions.

[edit on 19-6-2007 by melatonin]




posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
The same as you dismiss every scientist you don't want to agree with such as Dr. Akasofu et al.

Face it melatonin, you don't want to accept anything which refutes your beliefs and always will claim only your sources are reliable...



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Face it melatonin, you don't want to accept anything which refutes your beliefs and always will claim only your sources are reliable...


I don't particularly care about my beliefs, more about what the science is saying.

Generally, muaddib, you either provide unreliable websites which contain errors, misleading information, cherrypicked evidence, misinterpretations of the science, unreviewed articles that have little validity; or you actually misinterpret, cherrypick, or mislead.

What do you want me to do? Bow down to your supposed scientific majesty? Won't happen mate, not whilst you show little ability to understand this stuff or show a degree of decent scholarship.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   


scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)!


That from the USGS website. I mean putting 30 billion tons of C02 into the air cannot help GCC. Not saying that this is totally humans fault, there is some natural warming, but we are changing the natural balance that has existed for billions of years. Although those 30 billion tons might not be the only reason for warming, but its adding a factor that the natural systems arent designed for.

We are curenntly at about 380ppm of C02 in the atmosphere, that higher than its been in millions of years.



Professor Sir David King, the UK government's chief scientific adviser, told the BBC that we are currently at 380 ppm. He said, "That's higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years. Mankind is changing the climate."


Scientific Academy Statements on GCC

I guess they all could be wrong, Included in the list of Scientific Academies that say GCC is due in some part to Human activies are

US National Academy of Science
IPCC
American Meterological Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Notice on the link i posted Even the American Association of PETROLEUM geologists who at first didnt believe in Man-made GCC, have updated their official statement hinting at the fact that humans atleast play some part im GCC



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Please re-check that 30 billion M.T. figure for the anthropogenic CO2 contribution. I hope you understand what a very, very small amount 380 PPM is, AND that life as we know it could not exist on Earth without CO2 in the atmosphere. A football field is 100 yards long, or 3600 inches. If Earth's entire atmosphere is represented by the length of that football field, the 380 PPM of CO2 compared to the atmosphere as a whole is represented by less than 1.4 inch.











[edit on 6/23/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Those arent my numbers thats the USGS website, ill try to find more sources though.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Yes i realize all those things, but i also realize that these small changes are not supoose to Exist. The natural systems are not designed to supoort them, which means a little change could have a big impact. I mean C02 levels are going up, the earth is warming, and neither of these are showing any sign off stopping. So almost regardledd of what degree humans are impacting the environment something needs to be done to slow this progress down. I just read a prediction of a 12 degrees Farenheit rise im temperature by 2100. And thats a big change, caused by your "little" amount of C02.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Yes i realize all those things, but i also realize that these small changes are not supoose to Exist. The natural systems are not designed to supoort them, which means a little change could have a big impact. I mean C02 levels are going up, the earth is warming, and neither of these are showing any sign off stopping. So almost regardledd of what degree humans are impacting the environment something needs to be done to slow this progress down. I just read a prediction of a 12 degrees Farenheit rise im temperature by 2100. And thats a big change, caused by your "little" amount of C02.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   
That is pure, alarmist nonsense.

[edit on 6/23/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   
I mean i cant argue with your philosophical debates, but that doesnt change the fact that small change CAN and DO have huge effects.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
That is pure, alarmist nonsense.

[edit on 6/23/2007 by TheAvenger]


No???... i mean how do i argue with that statement. Thats an opinion. cant i just as easily say that what yor saying is skeptic nonsense.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Believe whatever you like.


DOE 2000 Table 2

This is a D.O.E. and I.P.C.C. chart for CO2 from 1993, published 2000. I'm not willing to believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased over 3X in a few years. One of these charts is wrong. Note how the I.P.C.C. and/or the D.O.E. tries to make it seem worse than it is by expressing it as 8,000 million instead of the 8 BILLION metric tons that it would read on a sane and unbiased planet. The effective impact is only 3.4 billion M.T. averaged.

The Real Climate crowd of the Al Gore religion bow to all I.P.C.C. publications, so this MUST be right.







[edit on 6/23/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Not to sound dense, but how do they even arrive at an absorption number / % for green house gases? I can see how for those GHG that aren't readily used in the ecosystem, but say for example, would a really bumper crop year globally plant-wise lead to an increase in absorption of CO2 for example. It just doesn't seem that it can be a constant that can be measured very accurately and would be subject to yearly fluctuations. Is that a correct view?

[edit on 23-6-2007 by pavil]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I suspect that they make a S.W.A.G: A scientific wild assed guess. Actually, I think some of the sinks have been established to be fairly constant values.

It's not all witchcraft, just some of it is.







[edit on 6/23/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I suspect that they make a S.W.A.G: A scientific wild assed guess. Actually, I think some of the sinks have been established to be fairly constant values.

It's not all witchcraft, just some of it is.



Thanks for the reply. It just seems that it has some built in "fudge factor" that you could massage slightly either way to to get the result you desire. I would tend to think the GHG produced by man would be the eaisest to quantify, the natural GHG emissions and absorptions would be harder to quantify.



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Another factor consider when dealing with absorption, is massive deforestation.

And its not that we bow down to the IPCC, its that many of the other highly respected scientific acadamies agree with their conclusions. That being that humans have some part in GCC



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Please re-check that 30 billion M.T. figure for the anthropogenic CO2 contribution.


CO2 = C + O + O

thus 27 billion tonnes of CO2 = some C + some 2xO

C = 12/44 x 27 = 7.4 billion tonnes C or 7.4GtC.



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

I don't particularly care about my beliefs, more about what the science is saying.


You just described yourself to a "T" "mate"...

You just don't want to accept that there is more research which debunks your religion than that which corroborates it...

Of course your idols are not going to corroborate that the warming caused in the surface of Earth is being caused in great part by the troposphereic warming, if they show this data that alone will debunk their own claims...just as your little group also wants to appearently make dissapear the role the oceans have in the Global Climate.


If anyone is trying to mislead is noone else than you, Mann, et al....


[edit on 24-6-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
You just described yourself to a "T" "mate"...


Aye, my beliefs are evidence-based.





top topics
 
15
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join