It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
reply to post by illumin8ed
Indeed!
Here's another simple equation:
1. CO2 is undeniably a greenhouse gas that, if removed from our atmosphere, would reduce global temperatures by 60 degrees Fahrenheit
2. Within just a century humans have increased Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 280ppm to 390ppm
3. Solar irradiance/sunspots have DECREASED over the past few decades
Once again, even simple intellectual math makes humanity's overwhelming contribution to global warming quite obvious.
Originally posted by Mez353
. Your type are seriously the reason that this argument is a long standing one, the general public (of which I presume you are a member of) have not been provided with the facts and it seems to me that the winner will be who shouts the loudest. Fair enough. Just don’t expect that everyone out there will agree and be persuaded easily.
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Indeed!
Here's another simple equation:
1. CO2 is undeniably a greenhouse gas that, if removed from our atmosphere, would reduce global temperatures by 60 degrees Fahrenheit
2. Within just a century humans have increased Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 280ppm to 390ppm
3. Solar irradiance/sunspots have DECREASED over the past few decades
Once again, even simple intellectual math makes humanity's overwhelming contribution to global warming quite obvious.
Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by NoHierarchy
Oh please do not tell me you are still trying to use NASA as a source.
Where is that I read, oh yeah here we go-
Researcher: NASA hiding climate data
...
Another small part of that article-
...
Oh well, have you heard about this-
CEI Suing NASA Over Climate Stonewall
...
In a 2006 profile of CEI and other global warming skeptics, Washington Post reporter Joel Achenbach noted that "the most generous sponsors" of CEI's 2005 annual dinner were "the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Exxon Mobil, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and Pfizer. Other contributors included General Motors, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Plastics Council, the Chlorine Chemistry Council and Arch Coal." [6]
Christopher C. Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a think tank that's received more than $2 million in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998, among other corporate funders.
Horner is a practicing attorney, and at CEI "oversees petitions and litigation on topics including data access and quality laws, the Freedom of Information Act, and government science and agency statutory compliance, and other legal matters involving environment and energy issues, international environmental treaties, and climate policy." [2] His CEI duties also include being counsel to the Cooler Heads Coalition, a global warming skeptics group. He "works on a legal and policy level with numerous think tanks and policy organizations throughout the world," according to his profile on the CEI site. [3]
Or how about New Zealand's escapade into the courts-
New Zealand’s NIWA sued over climate data adjustments
...
So, we have NASA, rehashing numbers to make things look like what, well if you read the 2nd article, come to find out, NASA was being used as a propaganda dissemination site for CRU manipulated data. Hmmm. Amazing idon it?
Then we have another country manipulating data.
Why is it that the governments are all pushing to institute a CO2 credit scam?
Could it be, I mean really could it be all TRUE?
A conspiracy!?
Originally posted by Mez353
Um, this to me seems like a massive contradiction and I am totally in disagreement to your so called facts.
Global warming is a rubbish term, climate change is extremely accurate. The climate here on earth is changing and has been changing for millennia. Research suggests that mankind was almost wiped out in central Africa until the climate miraculously changed at just the right time, turning arid into arable etc.
The only point I can agree on is your one about sunspots, but as these have only been studied for around 150 years we can safely say that we don’t have the exact correlation as yet and on a hypothesis.
ALL of the planets in our solar system have shown an increase in warming, storms and electrical and electromagnetic activity. All of the planets have been observed to have had significant ‘wobbles’ in their electromagnetic fields, ours very much so, over what would be considered the standard ‘set-up’.
The Sun has been behaving ‘erratically’ of late and this unpredictability also backs up my statement about knowledge of sun spots – we just haven’t observed this before and we don’t know if it is normal or not.
The biggest, by a mile, greenhouse gas is water vapour and we can’t do anything about that.
The real deal is that climate is changing, we don’t know enough about the innumerable causes (sun, electromagnetic field, ocean currents, jet stream, greenhouse gasses) and how they interact. Also, the climate is not a constant all over the world so there are different points on earth changing in different ways.
I agree that climate is changing as it always has done. I do not agree that mankind is the only cause. I do agree that we should pollute our earth a lot less.
Originally posted by Mez353
Let me make this simple, you seem to enjoy a one sided argument. You believe that CO2 generated by mankind is the sole contributor of global warming. I do not.
You seem to be under the impression that your ‘facts’ are proven and correct and any attempt to refute them will not be entertained. Your type are seriously the reason that this argument is a long standing one, the general public (of which I presume you are a member of) have not been provided with the facts and it seems to me that the winner will be who shouts the loudest. Fair enough. Just don’t expect that everyone out there will agree and be persuaded easily.
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
1. CO2 is undeniably a greenhouse gas that, if removed from our atmosphere, would reduce global temperatures by 60 degrees Fahrenheit
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
www.dnr.sc.gov...
[SNIP]Water vapor is responsible for most of this warming, but carbon dioxide (CO2) also plays an important role in warming the earth's atmosphere.
Originally posted by pavil
There are other larger greenhouse gases out there, to attribute the vast majority of Temp increase solely to the small increase in CO2 is disingenuous. There are dozens (probably hundreds) of variables that contribute to the cyclical warming and cooling of our Planet.
I wonder what the "Climate change crowd" would have been saying during the Medieval Warm Period, The Little Ice Age or more recently, during the "Dust Bowl" years in the 1930's. That probably would have seemed like the end of the world to them.
Originally posted by 19872012
The idea that 2010 is the hottest year on record is BS. Sure, Russia had some heat, and there were a few weeks of extreme heat in the US, but overall, it actually seemed like a pretty cold summer.
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Originally posted by 19872012
The idea that 2010 is the hottest year on record is BS. Sure, Russia had some heat, and there were a few weeks of extreme heat in the US, but overall, it actually seemed like a pretty cold summer.
news.discovery.com...
www.noaanews.noaa.gov...
www.giss.nasa.gov...
Just because it was colder in one region or colder for a short period of time means nothing in the bigger picture. Overall, global temperatures this year are breaking records... and there are plenty of people who will disagree with you even on your own points.
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Yeah! Wait.... what?
This:
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
1. CO2 is undeniably a greenhouse gas that, if removed from our atmosphere, would reduce global temperatures by 60 degrees Fahrenheit
DOES NOT EQUAL THIS:
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
www.dnr.sc.gov...
[SNIP]Water vapor is responsible for most of this warming, but carbon dioxide (CO2) also plays an important role in warming the earth's atmosphere.
Seems like CO2 may play an "important role" in warming the Earth, but plays second fiddle to water vapor. Strange, most Global Warming activists want more wetland conservation and also curiously haven't been protesting volcanic activity... both major contributors to water vapor in the atmosphere.
Once again, as with so many of life's scenarios, global warming illustrates the perpetual need of humans to always believe there's something the can do and someone they can blame over every occurence. The media has grasped upon this and turned it into a boom for themselves through stories like "A silent killer lurks among us... could YOUR children be next to die. We'll tell you what it is and what you can do about it after these commercial messages!" and it turns out that the story is about something ridiculous like a bee alergy and that particular summer has seen a higher than usual bee population. It's a fluke, but the media opts to sensationalize it and corporate America quickly latches onto it as a way to make money as millions of parents needlessly run out to buy steroids & adrenaline injectors in case their kid gets stung and happens to be allergic. Same with global warming... media sensationalized the story, Algore came along and was absorbed into the media blitz for massive financial compensation, and overnight assinine carbon trading firms sprung up eager to prey on weak minded fears for big bucks.
Oh, and for your 3 studies that said there was nothing to the IPCC email are flatly meaningless. UEA, CRU, and the highly vested UK government hand selected the three research groups and did not disclose the information needed to conduct any other reviews to any other groups. As a result, we had the equivalent of the right hand inspecting and clearing the misdeeds of the left hand all while the overall body encouraged no malfeasance or impropriety to be found. MEANINGLESS. About as effective as allowing a criminal case to be presided over by a judge who just happens to be the suspect's brother.
Where there's smoke, there is and always has been fire. The deletion of emails and evidence of emails directing deletion of anything which didn't support the IPCC's theories produced quite a cloud of smoke. Anyone who is capible of emotionally distancing themselves from the issue as well as considering the possibility that this fraud they had bought into wholeheartedly was wrong should be also capible of finding that fire.
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
First of all- I never said that the former was equal to the latter. Not only that, but the equation doesn't even make logical sense.
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
First of all- I never said that the former was equal to the latter. Not only that, but the equation doesn't even make logical sense.
Yes, you in fact did. I directly quoted you from early in the thread as you proudly declared that it was "indeniable" that CO2 is a greenhouse gas responsible for global warming and, if removed entirely from the atmosphere, Earth's temperature would cool by 60 degrees F. Then you backpeddled when I called you on it by posting excerpts that supported the 60% temperature reduction only in regards to the overall atmosphere of the planet. Earth would cool by 60% if it had no atmosphere at all was essentially what your later supporting external quotes stated.
Nobody knows how much of the Earth's temperature is controled by CO2, if any. There are too many variables, many of which man has no control over.
News flash: Sun is hot... gotten hotter over past 60+ years
Global Warming: natural cycle
Next up: A new Ice Age
Solanki's research has been quoted as being part of the Global warming controversy, for instance in an article in the Telegraph.co.uk in 2004[8][9] as taking a skeptical position:
“ the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself ”
But the same research has been quoted as being evidence for global warming in a news release from the Max Planck Society[10] where he is quoted as saying:
“ since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.
The GCC's own scientists noted that "Direct measures of the intensity of solar radiation over the past 15 years indicate a maximum variability of less than 0.1%, sufficient to account for no more than 0.1°C temperature change. This period of direct measurement included one complete 11 year sun spot cycle, which allowed the development of a correlation between solar intensity and the fraction of the Sun's surface covered by sun spots. Applying this correlation to sun spot data for the past 120 years indicates a maximum variability on solar intensity of 0.1%, corresponding to a maximum temperature change of 0.1°C, one-fifth of the temperature change observed during that period.