2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved

[Chris]

i have a better idea.

get over yourself and then go fuck yourself.

there is nothing fascinating about you in any sense of the word, and if getting neg repped gets your panties in such a twist, i suggest hormone therapy.

You have such a way with people.

 

[del]

You have such a way with people.

i know. i like it that way.

now piss off, otay?

 

[Zoomie1980]

Happy to hear it.

Now what are we going to do about global warming?

Get Canadians to grow tomatoes and Nebraskans to grow bannanas

 

[Abelian Sea]

Now what are we going to do about global warming?

[tool]
I've got a suggestion
To keep you all occupied...
learn to swim
learn to swim
learn to swim
[/tool]

See you down in Arizona Bay

 

[Old Rocks]

Pretty naive sealy. Follow the money. then you might figure out why so many of the 'scientific organizations' you fawn over have bought into (or been bought, as it were) man being the predominant cause of global warming.

OK, how is the AGU going to gain by saying that based on their observations that global warming is a threat, and that it is caused by the burning of fossil fuels? As opposed, say, to Exxon, which stands to lose billions in profits per quarter were we to switch to a non polluting energy.

 

[elvis]

i have a better idea.

get over yourself and then go fuck yourself.

there is nothing fascinating about you in any sense of the word, and if getting neg repped gets your panties in such a twist, i suggest hormone therapy.

That's classic. I like how she has to get over herself before she can fuck herself.

 

[Old Rocks]

Quite the list of baseless inaccurate generalizations you've made there. Are these 600 (650+ actually) just made up? Do they just not count?

Hard to tell. Inhofe has told numerous lies on this subject. We have the OISM list of supposedly 32,000 scientists that turn out to be mostly non-scientists, and some of the scientists that are listed issued vehement denials that they ever signed the document. But we do know the stand of all the scientific societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major universities. And that stand is that global warming is occuring, that it is a clear and present danger, and that the primary cause is the burning of fossil fuels.

 

[Old Rocks]

The point is people like yourself and rocks lack perspective. In terms of Earth history our time here barely registers a blip on the radar. The amount of time that we could have been effecting would require a high power microscope to see on Earth's timeline. Despite the contention that we have possibly doubled the amount of CO2 in the air that would still be only about .3% of the entire atmosphere.

What we are being asked to buy into is that about .0003% increase in total atmospheric content in one gas is going to have, by some estimates, a 1% increase in avg global temperature (that'a bout 5 degrees fahrenheit). We're suppossed to believe that relatively insiginficant increase in a gas will somehow yield a 10,000 fold result. Then we're suppossed to believe that 1% is signifcant.

Lack perspective? How about 4.6 billion years of perspective? Yes, we, as a species have only been here a very short time. So what does that have to do with the subject at hand? And why do you think that changing a vital part of the Earth's atmosphere by a small percentage is inconsequential? It is that very small part that keeps the Earth from being a frozen snowball. A couple of times in the past when that "inconsequential" diminished we approached that state. And several times in the past when that "inconsequential" amount doubled, it set off a series of feedbacks that resulted in the deaths of a major portion of all the species on earth at the time.

Perhaps if you would really study the history of this planet, instead of blindly repeating the really ignorant talking points of people like Inhofe and Limpbaugh, you might actually gain some real perspective on what the reality of the subject is. Now the science that you need to know a little of to gain proper perspective is called geology. A specific subsection, paleoclimatology.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - NCDC Paleoclimatology Branch

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm not a qualified climate scientist, are you? I doubt Rocks or sealy are either.

Why bother playing armchair scientist, when none of us are remotely qualified to do so? Saying that incremental increases in gases should have no effect is sheer uninformed punditry, baseless speculation.

Science informs us that small, incremental increases in the mercury or arsenic content of your drinking water would increase your risk of cancer or death by orders of magnitude.

On what basis do you speculate that small increases in greenhouse gas content wouldn not upset the delicate equilibrium of the atmosphere? I'm sure actual climate scientists, with years of training in the subject, would know better than you or me.

No, I am not a qualified climate scientist. However, I do have about three years of university level training in Geology. And I was introduced to the concepts of global warming in an early geology class in the mid-60s. I have watched as the science has developed on this subject, and as the glaciers, tree lines, and snow packs in the mountains that I play in have all reflected the reality of the present rapid warming.

This is not new science, the recognition of greenhouse gases goes back to the 1820s and Fourier. Svante Arnnhenius, a Swedish chemist and Nobel prize winner, quantified the effects of CO2 in 1896. For those interested, here is a site where one can trace the science of recognition of the affects of GHGs;
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Andrew2382]

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears

 

[Chris]

2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year
Jan. 16, 2008

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.

"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature," said Hansen. "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

NASA GISS: Research News: 2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year

 

[sealybobo]

<yawn>



are you typing fiercely?

wanna buy some carbon credits, cheap?

i'm sorry you're too stupid to recognize a scam when you see one, but that seems to be the case.

happy now, tough guy?

I can't believe you neg repped someone for no good reason. That's not like you. That's something I would do.

 

[Bern80]

Lack perspective? How about 4.6 billion years of perspective? Yes, we, as a species have only been here a very short time. So what does that have to do with the subject at hand? And why do you think that changing a vital part of the Earth's atmosphere by a small percentage is inconsequential? It is that very small part that keeps the Earth from being a frozen snowball. A couple of times in the past when that "inconsequential" diminished we approached that state. And several times in the past when that "inconsequential" amount doubled, it set off a series of feedbacks that resulted in the deaths of a major portion of all the species on earth at the time.

All I'm saying is someone needs to show me the math. How exactley does OUR CO2 contribtion (I bold 'our' because that's really the only CO2 constribution we are debating here). Here's some quick math. The earth is estimated to br about .04% CO2 of that mans contribution is about 3-5%. Of the total approx. 400,000 parts per billion that CO2 is of teh atmosphere, man's CO2 contribition to the 400000 is about 20,000 parts per billion on the high side. As a fraction of the atmosphere that's .002%.

Now Earth's avg. temperature is (which is also kind of a googy concept) is about 58 degrees and worst case scenario is that the warming will cause maybe a 5-7 degree increase avg. global temperate. That would be about 12%

Now if you can see where I'm going with this, I find it really hard to believe (and so does the guy below) .002% percent change is going to be magnified by a factor of about 100,000 to yield this temparature change.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Perhaps if you would really study the history of this planet, instead of blindly repeating the really ignorant talking points of people like Inhofe and Limpbaugh, you might actually gain some real perspective on what the reality of the subject is. Now the science that you need to know a little of to gain proper perspective is called geology. A specific subsection, paleoclimatology.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - NCDC Paleoclimatology Branch

If you want me to change my debate style then the very least dipshits like you and bobo could do is to stop projecting assumptions onto people for the imature purpose of bolstering your argument. I mean seriously how juvenile are you that you have to attribute something to someone that you have no basis for to actual help your argument? That is exactly what ass clowns like you and bobo continue to do and it says an awful lot more about that weakness of YOUR argument than it does mine.

For the record I had not heard the name Inhoffe until you brought it up and I work so i don't get to listen to Rush.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Bern80, you debate points suck. If you had the least understanding on how atmospheric physics work in relationship to the GHGs, you would not be posting your number nonsense. As pointed out, without the 180 ppm to 280 ppm of CO2 naturally in the atmosphere, the earth would be a frozen snowball. By increasing the amount to almost 390 ppm, we have raised the amount far higher than it has been in the last million years. In fact, the last highest amount, 300 ppm 120,000 years ago, the sea level was at least 3 meters higher than today. Here is a site where you can find the facts of GHGs, and the present warming;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[KittenKoder]

The problem isn't the CO2, which environmentalists once had the right idea but are now completely screwed up in this, but it's the lack of conversion of CO2 to O2 that's the real problem. Of course don't mention that to either side because one doesn't care about our survival as a species and the other just wants to tell us what to do.

 

[glockmail]

Of course, the fact that when CO2 levels rise trees, plants and plankton grow faster, thus taking in CO2, is completely ignored.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? They must have been on strike for the last century then. The CO2 level has gone from 280 ppm to 385 ppm. No the trees, plankton, and plants are not even beginning to keep up with the rate at which we have been burning fossil fuels. Of course, the fact that we have been leveling the tropical forests, and are tearing up square miles of mountaintop forests in the Appalachians doesn't help the situation at all.

 

[KittenKoder]

Of course, the fact that when CO2 levels rise trees, plants and plankton grow faster, thus taking in CO2, is completely ignored.

Um .. wow ... um ... you really don't know much about botany ...

The amount of CO2 has little effect on the growth rate. First, every living thing has a maximum growth rate, maturing too quickly (or too slowly even) will cause mutation or even death. Plants are no exception to this. Also, the growth is dependent on other factors more, like minerals and mulch (gardening is a fun hobby). Another factor to plant growth is space, too much and the roots don't go deep enough, too little and the roots starve.

 

[Old Rocks]

Um .. wow ... um ... you really don't know much about botany ...

The amount of CO2 has little effect on the growth rate. First, every living thing has a maximum growth rate, maturing too quickly (or too slowly even) will cause mutation or even death. Plants are no exception to this. Also, the growth is dependent on other factors more, like minerals and mulch (gardening is a fun hobby). Another factor to plant growth is space, too much and the roots don't go deep enough, too little and the roots starve.

Not only that, some plants actually react negatively to increased CO2. And the ones that seem to react the in the most positive manner to increased CO2 are weeds.

 

[glockmail]

Really? They must have been on strike for the last century then. The CO2 level has gone from 280 ppm to 385 ppm. No the trees, plankton, and plants are not even beginning to keep up with the rate at which we have been burning fossil fuels. Of course, the fact that we have been leveling the tropical forests, and are tearing up square miles of mountaintop forests in the Appalachians doesn't help the situation at all.

Then liberals should be promoting use of forest products in these regions instead of boycotting lumber.