former astronaut speaks out on global warming

[Chris]

That's a good start.

Now here's a good link about global warming and the sun's activity...

Global Warming -- Research Issues

I'll tell you what, when I see that you've proven, without a doubt, that CO2 and Humans are causing global warming, I'll chime in. Good luck, cause it'll never happen. Keep ignoring the fact that it's called AGW THEORY.

Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat. That is not a theory.

 

[DiveCon]

YOU'RE QUOTING FREEREPUBLIC!!!

Give it a rest. I'm quoting data. Those were just the 3 links that came up in a google search. Look at the data, not the religion.

Here's some data for you, kid...we haven't had a frost in five years. Before that, we had one on average every year.

you know thats anecdotal, right?

 

[KittenKoder]

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

Actually ... if you look at the whole graph it does show an increase in sun spot activity, though this is only one cause for radiation increases it is easily seen that there are fewer low points than high points, indicating a stable increase. So this only proves you are not accounting for all factors.

 

[Old Rocks]

Kitten, 2008 was a solar minimum, with almost no sunspots the whole year. It was a year of a strong La Nina of exceptionally long duration. It was also the eighth warmest year on record. How does that fit with your sunspot theory?

 

[KittenKoder]

Kitten, 2008 was a solar minimum, with almost no sunspots the whole year. It was a year of a strong La Nina of exceptionally long duration. It was also the eighth warmest year on record. How does that fit with your sunspot theory?

You really don't know much about radiation and heat do you. It takes longer to cool than to warm, thus if there isn't enough time between spikes the temperature will build up as will the radiation level. So the effects of this one fall are lost to the many spikes in solar flares (which is only one phenomena of stars in the first place), thus why the charts "mean" values are more important. The mean values have been at a high level for some time, since about the same time as the increase in our temperatures started. Thus by scientific logic the solar activity as a whole is more likely to be the cause in spite of any other phenomena. There have been many times when the CO2 and CO levels spiked due to volcanic activity both aquatic and dry land, but during those times the temperatures fell slightly globally, so the roll of CO2 is more likely reversed, an effect of the increased heat instead of the cause. However, the chart only shows a very tiny portion of data, not even enough to prove that solar activity isn't to blame, even though from just that small amount of data it is easy to see that there has to be a link. Environuts are just ignoring the possibility because they don't care about the survival of humans, they only care about crying wolf, which will result in the death of billions if the heating trend continues since it isn't likely an effect of pollution, by placing so much importance on trying to stop something that can't be stopped, we miss the chance to find a way to survive it. But meh, I don't really care if billions of humans die myself, even if I was included, no skin off my nose.

 

[Chris]

Kitten, 2008 was a solar minimum, with almost no sunspots the whole year. It was a year of a strong La Nina of exceptionally long duration. It was also the eighth warmest year on record. How does that fit with your sunspot theory?

You really don't know much about radiation and heat do you. It takes longer to cool than to warm, thus if there isn't enough time between spikes the temperature will build up as will the radiation level. So the effects of this one fall are lost to the many spikes in solar flares (which is only one phenomena of stars in the first place), thus why the charts "mean" values are more important. The mean values have been at a high level for some time, since about the same time as the increase in our temperatures started. Thus by scientific logic the solar activity as a whole is more likely to be the cause in spite of any other phenomena. There have been many times when the CO2 and CO levels spiked due to volcanic activity both aquatic and dry land, but during those times the temperatures fell slightly globally, so the roll of CO2 is more likely reversed, an effect of the increased heat instead of the cause. However, the chart only shows a very tiny portion of data, not even enough to prove that solar activity isn't to blame, even though from just that small amount of data it is easy to see that there has to be a link. Environuts are just ignoring the possibility because they don't care about the survival of humans, they only care about crying wolf, which will result in the death of billions if the heating trend continues since it isn't likely an effect of pollution, by placing so much importance on trying to stop something that can't be stopped, we miss the chance to find a way to survive it. But meh, I don't really care if billions of humans die myself, even if I was included, no skin off my nose.

It always boils down to political attacks. "Environuts" and the like.

It's ridiculous.

The people whose job it is to study the sun say that the sun's activity can't account for all the increase in temperature.

There is no question the CO2 causes the Earth and Venus to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 levels by 40%.

 

[BrianH]

That's a good start.

Now here's a good link about global warming and the sun's activity...

Global Warming -- Research Issues

I'll tell you what, when I see that you've proven, without a doubt, that CO2 and Humans are causing global warming, I'll chime in. Good luck, cause it'll never happen. Keep ignoring the fact that it's called AGW THEORY.

Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat. That is not a theory.

Ok, listen here ass-face...quit putting words in my post and quit assuming that you know what I'm talking about. I have not once stated that increasing CO2 doesn't cause the earth to warm, and I have not stated that it was a theory. I've stated that MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING is a theory. And you know it as well as I do.

Quit self-proclaiming yourself as a climatologist by copy and pasting political theory off the internet. Go ahead and google the next topic that you can't prove. Still waiting for you to prove that man is causing global warming.

 

[Chris]

I'll tell you what, when I see that you've proven, without a doubt, that CO2 and Humans are causing global warming, I'll chime in. Good luck, cause it'll never happen. Keep ignoring the fact that it's called AGW THEORY.

Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to retain heat. That is not a theory.

Ok, listen here ass-face...quit putting words in my post and quit assuming that you know what I'm talking about. I have not once stated that increasing CO2 doesn't cause the earth to warm, and I have not stated that it was a theory. I've stated that MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING is a theory. And you know it as well as I do.

Quit self-proclaiming yourself as a climatologist by copy and pasting political theory off the internet. Go ahead and google the next topic that you can't prove. Still waiting for you to prove that man is causing global warming.

Touchy aren't we?

Man made global warming is not a theory. Adding 8 billion tons of CO2 a year to the air will cause the earth to retain heat. The only question is, how much?

 

[KittenKoder]

Kitten, 2008 was a solar minimum, with almost no sunspots the whole year. It was a year of a strong La Nina of exceptionally long duration. It was also the eighth warmest year on record. How does that fit with your sunspot theory?

You really don't know much about radiation and heat do you. It takes longer to cool than to warm, thus if there isn't enough time between spikes the temperature will build up as will the radiation level. So the effects of this one fall are lost to the many spikes in solar flares (which is only one phenomena of stars in the first place), thus why the charts "mean" values are more important. The mean values have been at a high level for some time, since about the same time as the increase in our temperatures started. Thus by scientific logic the solar activity as a whole is more likely to be the cause in spite of any other phenomena. There have been many times when the CO2 and CO levels spiked due to volcanic activity both aquatic and dry land, but during those times the temperatures fell slightly globally, so the roll of CO2 is more likely reversed, an effect of the increased heat instead of the cause. However, the chart only shows a very tiny portion of data, not even enough to prove that solar activity isn't to blame, even though from just that small amount of data it is easy to see that there has to be a link. Environuts are just ignoring the possibility because they don't care about the survival of humans, they only care about crying wolf, which will result in the death of billions if the heating trend continues since it isn't likely an effect of pollution, by placing so much importance on trying to stop something that can't be stopped, we miss the chance to find a way to survive it. But meh, I don't really care if billions of humans die myself, even if I was included, no skin off my nose.

It always boils down to political attacks. "Environuts" and the like.

It's ridiculous.

The people whose job it is to study the sun say that the sun's activity can't account for all the increase in temperature.

There is no question the CO2 causes the Earth and Venus to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 levels by 40%.

So, you can't deny or counter anything in my post ... did science finally slap you in the face?

 

[Chris]

s

You really don't know much about radiation and heat do you. It takes longer to cool than to warm, thus if there isn't enough time between spikes the temperature will build up as will the radiation level. So the effects of this one fall are lost to the many spikes in solar flares (which is only one phenomena of stars in the first place), thus why the charts "mean" values are more important. The mean values have been at a high level for some time, since about the same time as the increase in our temperatures started. Thus by scientific logic the solar activity as a whole is more likely to be the cause in spite of any other phenomena. There have been many times when the CO2 and CO levels spiked due to volcanic activity both aquatic and dry land, but during those times the temperatures fell slightly globally, so the roll of CO2 is more likely reversed, an effect of the increased heat instead of the cause. However, the chart only shows a very tiny portion of data, not even enough to prove that solar activity isn't to blame, even though from just that small amount of data it is easy to see that there has to be a link. Environuts are just ignoring the possibility because they don't care about the survival of humans, they only care about crying wolf, which will result in the death of billions if the heating trend continues since it isn't likely an effect of pollution, by placing so much importance on trying to stop something that can't be stopped, we miss the chance to find a way to survive it. But meh, I don't really care if billions of humans die myself, even if I was included, no skin off my nose.

It always boils down to political attacks. "Environuts" and the like.

It's ridiculous.

The people whose job it is to study the sun say that the sun's activity can't account for all the increase in temperature.

There is no question the CO2 causes the Earth and Venus to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 levels by 40%.

So, you can't deny or counter anything in my post ... did science finally slap you in the face?

What science?

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[KittenKoder]

s

It always boils down to political attacks. "Environuts" and the like.

It's ridiculous.

The people whose job it is to study the sun say that the sun's activity can't account for all the increase in temperature.

There is no question the CO2 causes the Earth and Venus to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 levels by 40%.

So, you can't deny or counter anything in my post ... did science finally slap you in the face?

What science?

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

Why is that so hard to understand?

The fact that you are ignoring all other causes, possibilities, and sciences just to force more government control and to take our basic freedoms away. Do you own stock in Gores companies or are you really just that blind?

 

[DiveCon]

you actually have to ask?

 

[KittenKoder]

you actually have to ask?

No, but I love seeing people talk themselves into corners.

 

[Chris]

KK, I have ignored nothing.

I posted the info from the Stanford Solar scientists that says there has not been enough of an increase in solar radiation to account for the increase in temperatures.

I have also never mentioned Al Gore(what is it with rightees and Al Gore?). I have never even seen his movie.

It is a fact that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have caused the earth to warm.

 

[KittenKoder]

KK, I have ignored nothing.

I posted the info from the Stanford Solar scientists that says there has not been enough of an increase in solar radiation to account for the increase in temperatures.

I have also never mentioned Al Gore(what is it with rightees and Al Gore?). I have never even seen his movie.

It is a fact that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have caused the earth to warm.

LOL ... first, DiveCon, now he's accusing me of being a wingnut, I recommend you real wingnuts neg him for that.

Secondly, solar science is not the group who should or could make an accurate assessment, at least not on their own. Radiation plays a huge role as well, also the only scientists who focus on solar activity that support your argument are all still funded by ... Gore, which you seem to forget he was the one that doctored up the first document which mentions the words "global warming". He also owns stock in most of the recycling plants and many of the companies that now produce "green" products (which have almost no impact anyway). Again, follow the money more often, before you can trust a scientific source you must know what they have to gain or lose.

 

[Chris]

KK, I have ignored nothing.

I posted the info from the Stanford Solar scientists that says there has not been enough of an increase in solar radiation to account for the increase in temperatures.

I have also never mentioned Al Gore(what is it with rightees and Al Gore?). I have never even seen his movie.

It is a fact that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have caused the earth to warm.

LOL ... first, DiveCon, now he's accusing me of being a wingnut, I recommend you real wingnuts neg him for that.

Secondly, solar science is not the group who should or could make an accurate assessment, at least not on their own. Radiation plays a huge role as well, also the only scientists who focus on solar activity that support your argument are all still funded by ... Gore, which you seem to forget he was the one that doctored up the first document which mentions the words "global warming". He also owns stock in most of the recycling plants and many of the companies that now produce "green" products (which have almost no impact anyway). Again, follow the money more often, before you can trust a scientific source you must know what they have to gain or lose.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[KittenKoder]

KK, I have ignored nothing.

I posted the info from the Stanford Solar scientists that says there has not been enough of an increase in solar radiation to account for the increase in temperatures.

I have also never mentioned Al Gore(what is it with rightees and Al Gore?). I have never even seen his movie.

It is a fact that CO2 causes the earth to retain heat, and we have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Therefore, we have caused the earth to warm.

LOL ... first, DiveCon, now he's accusing me of being a wingnut, I recommend you real wingnuts neg him for that.

Secondly, solar science is not the group who should or could make an accurate assessment, at least not on their own. Radiation plays a huge role as well, also the only scientists who focus on solar activity that support your argument are all still funded by ... Gore, which you seem to forget he was the one that doctored up the first document which mentions the words "global warming". He also owns stock in most of the recycling plants and many of the companies that now produce "green" products (which have almost no impact anyway). Again, follow the money more often, before you can trust a scientific source you must know what they have to gain or lose.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Because even if it was possible to accurately measure the amount we are responsible for, it is even more irresponsible to ignore all other causes, reasons, and possibilities thus dooming the entire human species. But if you like the idea of us becoming extinct in a painful manner, have at it. Just don't come crying to the rest of us when you realize you already wasted all the funding on pointless studies and "green" crap that is just as bad or worse for the environment. When you start actually caring about the human species perhaps you will see the light before it's too late, which will be hard through all the "green" smog created by your idiotics.

 

[Chris]

Actually it is pretty easy to figure our contribution to atmospheric CO2.

Antarctic ice core samples have established that for the last 600,000 years, CO2 remained within a range of 22 ppm. Now we have increased that amount by 40% in a scant 200 years, and that level is increasing at an accelerated rate as China and India industrialize.

 

[Old Rocks]

180 ppm, and we have continental glaciers. 280 ppm, and we have an interglacial such as we have experianced for over 10,000 years. We are now at about 387 ppm. What will we get? A good deal of sea level rise within this century. Quite possibly a couple of meters or more. Some interesting storm patterns and strengths. Droughts and floods in places that do not normally have them. Minor things really. Mostly just the production of food and areas where tens of millions of people live that will be affected. Nothing to worry about.

Kitten, nobody is ignoring other possibilities. In fact, the wingnuts are desperately searching for such possibilities. But there is only a finite number of things that affect the planet's heat budget, and the only one that has experianced a large change is that of the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. And we are the cause of that change.