What would it take for you to admit ManMade Global Warming is false??

Originally posted by atlasastro

Stalled Economy or Not, Record Year for CO2 Emissions
People Still Consumed More Per Capita in 2008

Per capita CO2 emissions are rising despite global recession

Yet global temps didnt increase?!?!?!?
wattsupwiththat.com...

What happened to 'physics'? Oh yeah, melatonin already proved physics to be a hoax

The first thing I learned in Business School is how global warming is big business at the moment. It is huge.

Man made Global Warming is a joke! It's a policy on a completely unfounded basis. And they've dumbed it down so everybody can buy into it.

CO2 emissions, bad, global warming.

Puts the fear of hell into you and you submit to whatever you need to do to save the beloved planet. Now look at all the businesses cashing in on this policy. It is everywhere. There are a lot of Scholars as well who are not buying into this utter garbage. This is actually quite a straight forward conspiracy to debunk.

It's making weknars like Al Gore very wealthy.

Originally posted by atlasastro
Who was debating about the Sun effecting Climate. Of course it does, its the bloody Sun. The argument is regarding Anthropogenic causes increasing warming.

For crying out loud.... The ONLY anthropogenic gas which the AGWers have claimed has caused Global Warming is CO2.....and CO2 has been proven TO NOT CAUSE THAT MUCH WARMING....

The increase in solar activity, which has been denied by the AGWers to no end, plus the fact that WATER VAPOR increases naturally during warming cycles which causes a feedback loop as more water vapor is release naturally with more warming and this in turn releases more water vapor... But water vapor, in the form of clouds also act to cool, since they act as a shade. The warming was caused by the sun, and by water vapor, CO2 as a greenhouse gas is neglegible.

Originally posted by atlasastro

I call your Earth Institute article and raise you with some other Earth Institute archives.

Do you know you just put a big dent on your claims?... Since 2006 there has been a Global COOLING effect, even when atmospheric CO2 levels have increased.....


As for the "lower ability of the oceans to absorb atmospheric CO2....first of all since when is that bad?.. Again, how many times do i need to point out the FACT that plants, trees, and in general the green biomass of Earth, including the oceans, THRIVE with more atmospheric CO2....

Right now atmospheric CO2 is 380 ppm, and it is a known fact that trees, plants, etc increase their harvest, grow stronger, and bigger when atmospheric CO2 is between 1,200 ppm - 1,500 ppm....

I have no idea how many times I have to explain this to people like you... It is like the truth dissapears from your eyes because you don't want to see it or read it....
Again the Earth is lacking atmospheric CO2....

Second of all...

Are scientists underestimating nature's ability to absorb CO2?

Posted On: November 10, 2009 - 6:50pm

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of CO2 has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of CO2 having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol, UK, found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

www.sciencecodex.com...

whoops.

[edit on 22/11/09 by atlasastro]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

For crying out loud.... The ONLY anthropogenic gas which the AGWers have claimed has caused Global Warming is CO2.....and CO2 has been proven TO NOT CAUSE THAT MUCH WARMING....

Proof for this is that CO2 is not the only contributor for the cause of global warming, others include methane, nitrous oxide, gases used for refrigeration and industrial processes, and loss of forests all are part of the cause.
All these greenhouse gasses have the ability to trap heat and some even 1000 times more greater than CO2, such as chlorofluorocarbons which have been banned in much of the world because they also degrade the ozone layer.
Co2 is still being sucked up by plants and the oceans most likely as much as we can throw at them for now, but when plants die or end their main growing cycle they release greater quantites of CO2 back into the atmosphere.
Glaciers that hold trapped CO2, when melted release those gasses, Ice from thermofrost fields that hold much of these gasses, after being melted will also add to the growing amount.
Changes in the temperature and salinity of oceans which hold most of all trapped CO2, will release these gasses in very lage quantities when these changes get even worse. All of which can and will flood the atmosphere with substancial amounts of greenhouse gasses that nothing will be able to stop or trap enough to not make any difference on this planet.
Is there global warming from these gasses, YES, and things will get worse as these levels will rise.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse


For crying out loud.... The ONLY anthropogenic gas which the AGWers have claimed has caused Global Warming is CO2.....and CO2 has been proven TO NOT CAUSE THAT MUCH WARMING....

Really.

The increase in solar activity, which has been denied by the AGWers to no end, plus the fact that WATER VAPOR increases naturally during warming cycles which causes a feedback loop as more water vapor is release naturally with more warming and this in turn releases more water vapor... But water vapor, in the form of clouds also act to cool, since they act as a shade. The warming was caused by the sun, and by water vapor, CO2 as a greenhouse gas is neglegible.

So you are going to Ignore the World Radiation Centre link. Ok. Fair enough. I guess Wilson rocks your socks and that is enough. Oh, and now its water vapor too. Of course. So water vapour warms but cools. Ok. In a constant feed back cycle that gets warmer but then cools. Ok. Sure. So why the increase in temp trends?
Oh. I get it, Solar, more water vapor that warms but makes clouds that cool, but its still warmer!




Considering too, that we are at solar minimum, the planet is not cooling.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ed89e8136ec7.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8e3208fe0a91.jpg[/atsimg]

See the red line. That is the average. It stops at October this year, but is on the way up, see the blue lines in front of the red line end point, the October end of the 13 average if you continue the redline of average it is rising and matching the warm temperatures, and we have seen the cooler periods for that average in the middle of the 09 block(where the blue line meets the 0.0 degree axis.) Look at every other cool period for the years, the over all trend is still up. So its all up hill baby. The average is actually +.28 on running a 13 month average. Up. In Solar Minimum. The Last Solar Max was in 2000. The trend in the graph has maintain the Temps, or maybe Absorbed the heat would be a better way to say it.

The trend is up. Look at the whole graph.
Consider this though. We are at Solar Minimum.
We are still pumping CO2, the Ocean sinks are struggling to keep up although Vegetation has picked up some slack in the sinks( thank god).
What do you think will happen when we hit solar Maximum Again.
I am not Ignoring Solar fluctuations or activity and I am also not Ignoring CO2.

Do you think we can afford to Ignore Human Activity?


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8896336c7b13.gif[/atsimg]

Do you know you just put a big dent on your claims?... Since 2006 there has been a Global COOLING effect, even when atmospheric CO2 levels have increased.....

No I didn't. I am claiming that we are effecting change, are you seeing change in CO2 level in the Ocean. I am. They are not coping now. CO2 out put has increased and nature has been picking up the slack but that is CHANGING TOO. Anthropogenic Change on Climate regulators!
Luckly, vegetation is compensating for some. I actually linked an article in my last post that states this, so you are explaining nothing except claiming that it is a Solar Trend. I am saying that they may or are related and neither can be ignored. READ MY POST. I DO NOT IGNORE THE SOLAR DATA. READ THE POST.

As for the "lower ability of the oceans to absorb atmospheric CO2....first of all since when is that bad?.. Again, how many times do i need to point out the FACT that plants, trees, and in general the green biomass of Earth, including the oceans, THRIVE with more atmospheric CO2....

Of course, I mean we are just letting Biomass grow ar'nt we.
11 million ha cut, nearly 6 million lost to deforestation annually with only 5 million estimated replanted. That is 12 million ha of cutting and deforestation. So we are effecting change on these possible sinks too.

Right now atmospheric CO2 is 380 ppm, and it is a known fact that trees, plants, etc increase their harvest, grow stronger, and bigger when atmospheric CO2 is between 1,200 ppm - 1,500 ppm....

Yes that is a fact that plants will grow faster, if they actually exist that is in the first place to grow. They also need water, have Global precipitation patterns changed due to Anthropogenic activity? Sorry, I can't hear you? Oh, its the Sun changing the rain patterns too. Ok.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

I have no idea how many times I have to explain this to people like you... It is like the truth dissapears from your eyes because you don't want to see it or read it....
Again the Earth is lacking atmospheric CO2....

You have never explained anything to me. I have read plenty of Links that you provide but none of them are as conclusive as you seem to believe they are. Whilst I agree this could be argued in relation to CO2, I am not ignoring the possibilities or pretending that it must be a grand scheme or scam being perpetuated by thousands of scientist from all over the world.

Are scientists underestimating nature's ability to absorb CO2?

This is a question not an answer.

Posted On: November 10, 2009 - 6:50pm

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of CO2 has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of CO2 having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.

Actually they have just found that the Ocean has started to decline its rate of absorption.

The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. .

Yes it is contrary because it is wrong. The Ocean is in decline.
So what, its contrary to an extent but it agrees with other researchers who predicted that the oceans would reach a physical limit effected by anthropogenic C02. The Ocean which is a climate regulator and anthropogenic released C02 Gas. Did you even read the links I provided. One of them describes the above, It says that the Ocean has reached that limit. And that yes! Some slack is being picked up by biomass.

Khatiwala says there are still large uncertainties, but in any case, natural mechanisms cannot be depended upon to mitigate increasing human-produced emissions. "What our ocean study and other recent land studies suggest is that we cannot count on these sinks operating in the future as they have in the past, and keep on subsidizing our ever-growing appetite for fossil fuels," he said.

Obviously you think it should be business as usual and the planet will just suck it up.

Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol, UK, found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

No it is essentially 0.7+/-1.4%

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

So its strength it relies on Statistics, historical records, Antartic Ice core data. Just wondering, that Ice data that they used. I that this ice, that is melting faster.www.theaustralian.com.au...
So they used historical Ice data that has been there for thousands of years and years to show a trend, but that Ice is disappearing. So that could be construed as being outside of the trend then.

But anyway, Even Your own Source agrees.
Knorr:

So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? "Not necessarily", says Knorr. "Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed"..

You seem pretty certain EU even though your source is not. I am not going to ignore evidence relating to CO2.
But you are free too. Obviously!

Actually a few pointers and facts would work for me. I already think this was just a scheme to create another industry. Same thing with the vaccines we have now. Just a money maker.. Anyone find it weird how Al Gore ended up making a documentary about Global Warming?

I believe in air pollution, and were messing up our air.

Anyone seen the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?"
www.imdb.com...
Seems like the car and oil companies don't give a f about 'global warming' or pollution, Whatever puts another $10 million in your fat pockets right?


[edit on 22-11-2009 by mike84596]

Originally posted by atlasastro

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
For crying out loud.... The ONLY anthropogenic gas which the AGWers have claimed has caused Global Warming is CO2.....and CO2 has been proven TO NOT CAUSE THAT MUCH WARMING....

Really.

Did muaddib actually say that? lol

Some things never change - the arrogance of ignorance. Halocarbons, CH4, N2O, ozone don't exist in muaddib world. Glad I have him on ignore.

Consensus.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
What fact, development, trend, chart, etc piece of data or admission would it take for you to admit it's false / a hoax? Even better, is it possible for you to admit it ever, under any circumstances, even to yourself?

Is it unreasonable to admit that we truly dont know with absolute certainty, meaning science is too weak, computers too lackluster and these so-called scientists lack the ability to even be sure themselves.

I would need to see the scientific community come together and present the belief backed by research that AGW is not a potential threat.

Your second sentence above both highlights a truth and your personal bias. While there is no absolute certainty making the case for AWG there is a fair consensus in the scientific community that leads me to believe that AWG is a potential threat and should thus be dealt with. I this consensus were to shift so to would my concern over how our actions contribute to global warming.

While it is true that scientific research can not always prove theories to be 100% true that does not make them 'so called scientists'. that is the nature of the beast.

If you did change your mind, after a reputation of arguing for it, would you just not join in the discussions, or would you bark just as loud against it? A thread of this concept is imporant in many other areas as well, but especially important considering the measures about to be enacted in response to this whoel ordeal.

there would be no reason. my rational for 'barking' on the issue is because it endangers the entire planet's well-being.

Doesnt it make sense to discount dire warnings from scientists whom it can be demonstrated that they go to great lengths to make data fit their theories? If a scientist is absolutely convinced of something despite an equal debate from the other side(s), shouldn't they in effect be ignored in general?

Consensus. There are far more reputable and trust-able scientists who argue for the threat of AWG than against it. it is that simple.

Under the premise of inconclusive science, shouldnt the most energy go into the economics, social impacts and potential uninteded consequences of proposed measures to deal with the potential risks. I think you'd call that a cost/risk analysis. Assuming you have spent oodles of time studying and debating the potential risks, what ratio of time in comparison have you spent researching the economic etc impacts mentioned here?

it sounds like you are suggesting ignoring the threat the consensus warns of. that makes no sense.

Are you familiar with the history of Politicized Science, such as the history of Eugenics, a key example? Don't you find it alarming how deeply this issue is fueled by other political agendas? When the celebrity proponents of the alarmism talk the talk but dont walk the walk, as well as have financial interests in their theories spreading, shouldnt they be cast down and be totally rejected?

not when the bulk of the scientific community is behind them mate.

Where does reason begin or end on this matter?

In the past I've posted threads directed at both sides to give their best arguments for their case. Hopefully this thread wont be derailed as they were...

i can understand questioning the reality of AWG, if personally do every time i think about the issue but my commitment to working towards ensuring humans do not play a roll remains. it is after all our responsibility to take care of our planet and if we are potentially doing harm it should be mitigated.

i think the way you are reviewing the aspects of the issue are based more on personal bias than on the facts at hand. while there is decent in the scientific community there remains a clear consensus pointing in favor of the AWG theory.

Science has brought us pretty far pretty fast and i think dismissing them because you don't agree with them (which is what it appears to me that you are doing on this issue) makes no sense and is a flight from reason.

while i respect your conviction i fond your argument to be less than moving. until i see more evidence that supports the myth of AWG i will be a supporter.

The same scientists who received money from Big-Tobacco to debunk the cancer-cigarette link are now receiving money from Big-Oil to debunk GW.

Check out the Fifth Estate on CBC.ca to watch the program.

reply to post by loner007


That will only happen when we stop breathing out


I just wonder when we will get taxed for respiration?

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


I think you have asked the wrong question. it should be: what would it take for you to buy into man made global warming?

For the answer to that, it would take all the previous information about the global temperature to be the same. meaning that before human influence, the temperature in Iceland was always 20 degrees F in March, and that the temperature in Sydney Australia was always 90 degrees F in October. See then you would have taken all the Cycle data out of play. But since that isn't possible (changing history and all) I guess I will have to go on assuming that since the earth has always had temperature swings at different times in history, perhaps they will continue. (even after we are gone)

cow farts.

reply to post by atlasastro


Firstly CO2 is not the only so called "greenhouse gas," others include sulpher which the planet produces way more than we could!

Next; the oceanic carbon sink? Again the planet produces more CO2 in terms of vulcanism and natrural geo processes like aolean deposits thanwe ever could.

One thing though? Why are the reat of the planets in our solar system experiencing the same thing?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

He claimed that the increased CO2 would stop GLobal COOLING...and what has been happening?...

Well, oddly enough, global cooling stopped and instead we've been experiencing global warming

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

 

I think you have asked the wrong question. it should be: what would it take for you to buy into man made global warming?

For the answer to that, it would take all the previous information about the global temperature to be the same.

Ignorant of the argument for anthropogenic global warming? It sure sounds like it. No-one, at least no-one who really is involved and knowledgeable on the issue, in the AWG camp says that the earth's climate was static. This is really one of the more common, mast basic, and ignorance based arguments against AWG.

meaning that before human influence, the temperature in Iceland was always 20 degrees F in March, and that the temperature in Sydney Australia was always 90 degrees F in October. See then you would have taken all the Cycle data out of play. But since that isn't possible (changing history and all) I guess I will have to go on assuming that since the earth has always had temperature swings at different times in history, perhaps they will continue. (even after we are gone)

cow farts.

An irrelevant and ignorant argument. The concern is the scale and speed of change based on the historic evidence.

Originally posted by Selahobed
reply to post by atlasastro

 

Firstly CO2 is not the only so called "greenhouse gas," others include sulpher which the planet produces way more than we could!

Can you name any others? Can you back up the notion that we are producing less of these gasses than the planet?

Next; the oceanic carbon sink? Again the planet produces more CO2 in terms of vulcanism and natrural geo processes like aolean deposits thanwe ever could.

Sorry but you should continue on with the argument of the 'sink' and show us how it is not 'full' ...

One thing though? Why are the reat of the planets in our solar system experiencing the same thing?

natural cycles, which no one argues against. any reason why a natural cycle can not be acerbated by endemic properties?

Originally posted by Animal
Consensus.

I would need to see the scientific community come together and present the belief backed by research that AGW is not a potential threat.

Consensus. There are far more reputable and trust-able scientists who argue for the threat of AWG than against it. it is that simple.

The fact of the matter is there never actually was 'consensus':
Catastrophic 'Global Warming' "Consensus" & "Causes"!
Amazing how the alarmists completely ignored that thread. Not one single response in 2 years.

And now the consensus is against AGW:
31,000 Scientists Sign Petition Against AGW

But were it not for the unscience of the alarmist crowd would we even need that. It's all irrelevent to any real scientist, because consensus is merely opinion. Opinion IS NOT science. Science is science.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Is it unreasonable to admit that we truly dont know with absolute certainty, meaning science is too weak, computers too lackluster and these so-called scientists lack the ability to even be sure themselves.

Your second sentence above both highlights a truth and your personal bias. While there is no absolute certainty making the case for AWG there is a fair consensus in the scientific community that leads me to believe that AWG is a potential threat and should thus be dealt with. I this consensus were to shift so to would my concern over how our actions contribute to global warming.

Personal bias? Uncertainty is perhaps the only fact of the entire matter. The list of things humans do not know destroys the list of what we do know. And since we dont know all the details it is HOPELESSLY impossible to create reliable computer models, assuming we had the proper computers to do such, which we dont.

there would be no reason. my rational for 'barking' on the issue is because it endangers the entire planet's well-being.

Unitentional consequences can do far more damage. Do some in depth research into the history of Yellowstone and what environmentalists have done there. Pure tragedy.

reply to post by Animal


since you seem to be waaaaaaay smarter than the rest of us, how about you explain why previous cycles should be ignored and only data from today should be used. All throughout the life of the earth, there have been warm cycles and cool cycles. Even before you gained your vast knowledge of sinking ships and such. Why is THIS cycle caused by humans and none of the past (pre industrial revolution) cycles considered? Here is a hind for you. I am not a scientist, so it would be pretty easy for a real scientist to make me look foolish, just like I might be able to make you look foolish when discussing the component level design flaws of the Biostar 756 motherboard. Explain it to me where I can understand it or nobody is going to learn anything.

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


From the Peer-Reviewed-Periodical SCIENCE

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

link

Shows a CLEAR consensus.

you state:

But were it not for the unscience of the alarmist crowd would we even need that. It's all irrelevent to any real scientist, because consensus is merely opinion. Opinion IS NOT science. Science is science.

#1 the attacks devalue your argument as such statements have no value.

#2 consensus is NOT merely opinion. It is the collective agreement by a MAJORITY on any issue. In this case it is the MAJORITY agreement that the research into climate change points to a human element.

You also state:

Personal bias? Uncertainty is perhaps the only fact of the entire matter. The list of things humans do not know destroys the list of what we do know. And since we dont know all the details it is HOPELESSLY impossible to create reliable computer models, assuming we had the proper computers to do such, which we dont.

I agree we can not be 100% certain, but we can make decision based on our best analysis of the situation. To say 'well I am not sure I drank enough to be legally drunk and therefore a danger on the road I will just go ahead and drive home' is no excuse for killing someone while under the influence.

Just because we can't be 100% sure does not mean we should not modify our behaviors that are causing potential impacts on the planet.

Your first link to your thread "Catastrophic 'Global Warming' "Consensus" & "Causes"!" has nothing to back it up other than a link to wiki. and is FAR from solid evidence.

Your second link "31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming" is CLEARLY misleading. It says this:

An incredible 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science, including 9,021 Ph.D.s, have signed a petition that flatly denies Al Gore’s claims that human-caused global warming is a settled scientific fact.

This includes ANY type of science degree, you know things like veterinary science, computer science, etc...

Only 9100 have PhDs and it does not even bother to say how many research climate or even work in the profession. Thus it is another weak, if not worthless, argument.

In comparison the article I linked is from a peer-reviewed-science-periodical and it says the exact opposite.

Unitentional consequences can do far more damage.

is exactly what I am talking about.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Animal

 

since you seem to be waaaaaaay smarter than the rest of us,

Where did you get the notion that I am smarter than the 'rest of us'?

how about you explain why previous cycles should be ignored and only data from today should be used.

As I already stated data from previous cycles is considered and data from past cycles is compared to present cycles leading scientists to believe we have a problem.

All throughout the life of the earth, there have been warm cycles and cool cycles.

Yup.

Even before you gained your vast knowledge of sinking ships and such. Why is THIS cycle caused by humans and none of the past (pre industrial revolution) cycles considered?

Once again this is NOT the case.

Here is a hind for you. I am not a scientist, so it would be pretty easy for a real scientist to make me look foolish, just like I might be able to make you look foolish when discussing the component level design flaws of the Biostar 756 motherboard. Explain it to me where I can understand it or nobody is going to learn anything.

???

#1 I am not trying to make you look foolish just point out what I see to be an error.

#2 No I could not argue about a mother board of any type nor would I want to. To me it is irrelevant.

#3 I have no idea what "Explain it to me where I can understand it or nobody is going to learn anything" means.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by Animal]