No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
It's getting bit late for an old man. I will post a few tidbits then more tomorrow.

Schwinger


I've just had time to read through this article, as it seems to be the only scientific article you have posted.

Can you tell me what you find so compelling about the argument contained within?

[edit on 3-4-2007 by melatonin]




posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
The fact is, I have asked elementary questions, like how CO2 causes global warming more vs. water vapor and have yet to get a credible answer from anyone.
[edit on 4/3/2007 by TheAvenger]


OK, then how's this: Water vapor condenses into clouds, which have a COOLING effect. So how in the world could it be contributing to global warming more than CO2??

Here's another point: You said earlier I believe that deforestation and the oceans are more important than worrying about global warming.
I don't understand where you're coming from. Everything I've read link deforestation and troubled oceans to global warming as causes for GW.
Can you explain that please?



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady

OK, then how's this: Water vapor condenses into clouds, which have a COOLING effect. So how in the world could it be contributing to global warming more than CO2??


Water vapor is the most important and most abundant "greenhouse gase, also known as trace gas, it retains twice the amount of heat than CO2 does.


March 15, 2004 - (date of web publication)

SATELLITE FINDS WARMING "RELATIVE" TO HUMIDITY

A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases.

www.nasa.gov...


Originally posted by forestlady
Here's another point: You said earlier I believe that deforestation and the oceans are more important than worrying about global warming.
I don't understand where you're coming from. Everything I've read link deforestation and troubled oceans to global warming as causes for GW.
Can you explain that please?


Although trees are important, the oceans are one of the major factors which contribute to Climate Change.

As i have posted from other articles, it has been found that the oceans are warming due to Holocene sea level rise, or the warming the Earth has been experiencing since we came out of the last Ice Age for 11,500 years. Nothing to do with mankind.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Forestlady:

First of all, global warming is caused by greenhouse gases absorbing infrared radiation (heat) and holding it, creating a "greenhouse effect" instead of letting it escape into space. Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gas abundance in the atmosphere, and is a much better infrared absorber than CO2. CO2 is thus only 5% of the whole bloody thing to begin with, thereby making CO2 a very unlikely cause of global warming. Some would have you believe that the water vapor merely amplifies the effect of the CO2, but I disagree.

By the way, when CO2 is cooled, it solidifys and it is then called dry ice. CO2 has an unusual property known as sublimation, where a solid is converted directly to a gas without an apparent liquid intermediate phase.

I did not make any claims concerning deforestation.


[edit on 4/3/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gas abundance in the atmosphere, and is a much better infrared absorber than CO2. CO2 is thus only 5% of the whole bloody thing to begin with, thereby making CO2 a very unlikely cause of global warming.


I note with interest that you failed to comment on this: Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

Maudibb

How about that source for your graph???



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I realize this may constitute splitting hairs to some people, but I think it's an important distinction. For the moment, ignore the phrase Global Warming and ignore the CO2 debate, and instead consider the following:

Do you agree or disagree with the assessment that we are experiencing global climate change and that it is being amplified by the actions of mankind?

Frankly the term "Global Warming" only ticks me off nowadays in the same way the term "The Big Bang" does, because so many people automatically assume they know what it means because of the name, and then assume they can debunk it based off their misconceptions of that name.

So please enlighten me as to how you have found peer reviewed papers printed in the last year that adequately refutes mankind's involvement in global climate change. I'm going to hazard that you haven't, and that instead you've found articles in magazines, newspapers, or a web site. I could be wrong, and I leave myself open to this possibility, but so far more than 90% of the worldwide scientific community has the hard, peer-reviewed data to prove that "Yes, humans have significantly contributed to global climate change."



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
Frankly the term "Global Warming" only ticks me off


Ditto.


Originally posted by thelibra
So please enlighten me as to how you have found peer reviewed papers printed in the last year that adequately refutes mankind's involvement in global climate change.


I keep waiting...


Originally posted by thelibra
"Yes, humans have significantly contributed to global climate change."


Even Bush, today, said:




Bush says he takes climate change "very seriously"

"I've taken this issue very seriously. I have said that it is a serious problem. I recognize that man is contributing greenhouse gases."



He should know. He's had his administration redacting that information from the government science for most of his administration.

For the die-hard naysayers, I ask... Why would President Bush admit this, if he wasn't fairly sure it was true?


I guess he converted religion and Al Gore must be his god now too?




[edit on 3-4-2007 by loam]



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
thelibra:

I realize this may constitute splitting hairs to some people, but I think it's an important distinction. For the moment, ignore the phrase Global Warming and ignore the CO2 debate, and instead consider the following:

Do you agree or disagree with the assessment that we are experiencing global climate change and that it is being amplified by the actions of mankind?



:standing O':

With all this debate what is the consensus wrt what can be done? Even if man contributes significantly to climate-change (seems counter-intuitive that we do not) and, even if CO2 emissions are the the number one problem (I have no clue tbh)... what can reasonably be done to repair the damage done? Logistics/reality wise. The fossil fuel infrastructure is enormous and not going away any time soon, it's getting worse/bigger, no?


I wonder sometimes what this debate would've looked like had Gore not been out front on this... and I like him/voted for him. But if there's a conspiracy here it's - as always - political. Who I don't know, but distraction seems likely for the why. The focus of this debate seems trivial...


thelibra:

the same way the term "The Big Bang" does, because so many people automatically assume they know what it means because of the name


Wait until you tell 'em it was small, quiet, dark and that there's no such thing as "before" time.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Even Bush, today, said:



Bush says he takes climate change "very seriously"

"I've taken this issue very seriously. I have said that it is a serious problem. I recognize that man is contributing greenhouse gases."


He should know. He's had his administration redacting that information from the government science for most of his administration.


Oh you'd LOVE this article which explains why Eric Schaeffer left Bush's EPA, then, especially in light of today's quote...

Oh yeah, our "president" has just been the #1 advocate for Environmental Responsibility and Stewardship.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
First of all, global warming is caused by greenhouse gases absorbing infrared radiation (heat) and holding it, creating a "greenhouse effect" instead of letting it escape into space. Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gas abundance in the atmosphere, and is a much better infrared absorber than CO2. CO2 is thus only 5% of the whole bloody thing to begin with, thereby making CO2 a very unlikely cause of global warming.


You do know that when all water is removed from climate models that 34% of the longwave radiation is still absorbed?



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   



Schwinger


I've just had time to read through this article, as it seems to be the only scientific article you have posted.

Can you tell me what you find so compelling about the argument contained within?

[edit on 3-4-2007 by melatonin]



You must be a very poor judge of science.

[edit on 4/3/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
With all this debate what is the consensus wrt what can be done? Even if man contributes significantly to climate-change (seems counter-intuitive that we do not) and, even if CO2 emissions are the the number one problem (I have no clue tbh)... what can reasonably be done to repair the damage done? Logistics/reality wise.


You'd be surprised. I started to address the problem here, back when I still tried using the term "Global Warming". Unfortunately, it just kinda died out.

However, there's a helluva lot you can do for free or only like $10. Hell, using the recycling bin and starting a compost heap alone reduced my household trash output by 75%. As Americans we waste ENORMOUS amounts of EVERYTHING. The reason the problem seems insurmountable is because you're looking at it as one big huge problem. The reality of the situation is that it is the combination of many many little problems, a very large number of which you have the power to affect, and so do your friends and family.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
You must be a very poor judge of science.

[edit on 4/3/2007 by TheAvenger]


Hmm, yeah, if you say so. Doesn't really answer the question though.

What do you find compelling about that article?



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   


Since you changed your last post:


Originally posted by TheAvenger
I will not be insulted by members here who clearly know little of the subject matter.


Who insulted you?


Just based on past experience on A.T.S.


Originally posted by TheAvenger
The fact is, I have asked elementary questions, like how CO2 causes global warming more vs. water vapor and have yet to get a credible answer from anyone.


Then, let's start with this: Water vapour: feedback or forcing?


[edit on 3-4-2007 by loam]


To answer you like you do me, Real climate is an Al Gore affiliated/sponsored site , has their own agenda and has zero credibility with me.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger

posted by melatonin

Schwinger

I've just had time to read through this article, as it seems to be the only scientific article you have posted.

Can you tell me what you find so compelling about the argument contained within?



You must be a very poor judge of science.



Why are you insulting him? Answer his question.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   

[

Why are you insulting him? Answer his question.





Not at all.

I have no time for these kind of games .I am too old to put up with nonsense. Either talk science or politics, but please take your politics to the political area.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger


[

Why are you insulting him? Answer his question.





Not at all.

I have no time for these kind of games .I am too old to put up with nonsense. Either talk science or politics, but please take your politics to the political area.


1. Roble & Dickenson (1989) made a prediction from AGW theory that the middle atmosphere would cool, was this a scientific prediction?

2. What do you find compelling about the one scientific article posted?

3. Do you know that 34% of longwave radiation is still absorbed when water vapour is removed from climate models based in basic physics?

All of these are about science, not politics. You posted the article, with all your experience at the forefront of science, you must be able to point out what in their argument was compelling.

It was compelling enough for Lindzen And Bob Carter to cite as well. So what is in this article that is so damning for AGW?



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger

Originally posted by loam
Who insulted you?


Just based on past experience on A.T.S.


For a scientist, you seem very imprecise.


Originally posted by TheAvenger
To answer you like you do me


WRONG. I suggest you go back a reread my posts. I haven’t only questioned your initial source, but challenged the science. Your characterization is untrue.


Originally posted by TheAvenger
Real climate is an Al Gore affiliated/sponsored site


Really? Prove it.


Originally posted by TheAvenger
…has their own agenda…


Possibly… But unless you’ve factually disputed the science, it really doesn’t matter who the messenger is.



Originally posted by TheAvenger
…has zero credibility with me.


You are of course entitled to your opinion.


[edit on 3-4-2007 by loam]



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I started this thread, I'm not here to take a schoolboy's quiz. Perhaps I should kill it because it has digressed to this level of absurdity.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

I note with interest that you failed to comment on this: Water vapour: feedback or forcing?


And I also note with interest that you are giving a link to Real Climate, a website where Michael Mann is one of the directors...the same Mann that tried to make a dissapearing act of the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age events....


Originally posted by loam
Maudibb

How about that source for your graph???


That graph itself gives credit to it's creators.

Here is another site with more information of that graph.

BTW, the information in that site is quite enlightening.


There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only 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.


www.clearlight.com...


[edit on 3-4-2007 by Muaddib]





top topics
 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join