Further "human caused" global warming Hype to screw over humanity. $45,000,000,000,000 to help stop global warming please :

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jkS9vagI6QfzOI7UJ3G5YXAzGxiQD914HLSG0


Let's see, 1 to 5 % of the CO2 in the atmosphere is "human made", and only 0.0383% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere) of the atmosphere is CO2. And that's going to destroy the planet ?....:rolleyes:

We saw this coming, and worse, now the UN and other global warming disciples are going to use this as an excuse to tax the shit out of industries and everyone. No wonder socialists and leftists are so fond of the "human caused" global warming "science".

Who knows, maybe next they'll use "human caused" global warming "science" as an excuse to make a 1 world Socialist-Communist nation, apply martial law to humanity, execute "greedy" "right-wing" capitalist company members. Maybe even round up a few billion people and starve/work them to death like the Communists did in the 20th century ! That should take care of the "human CO2 problem". :jason:

Let's see, 1 to 5 % of the CO2 in the atmosphere is "human made", and only 0.0383% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere) of the atmosphere is CO2. And that's going to destroy the planet ?....:rolleyes:

Yes, Ive been repeating these stats for years now...as well as the fact of CO2 being a mild player, compared to water vapour and methane.

Dont worry...when people start paying $200/barrel they will forget all about global warming.

Vitamin C is a tiny percentage of your blood, but without it you would die. I would explain the CO2 thing to you Cazzo, but you're a scientific retard.

Regardless of whether anthropogenic global warming is a real threat, I doubt it would be worth $45 trillion dollars to combat it. If oceans rise, build some dams. No big deal.

That's always been my point regarding global warming. I don't care if it's real or not, we can't afford to do anything about it, so we'd best just adapt to any changes in average temperature we do see.

Meanwhile, half measures like "cap and trade" serve simply to impoverish us and decrease our ability to adapt to a changing planet.

Vitamin C is a tiny percentage of your blood, but without it you would die. I would explain the CO2 thing to you Cazzo, but you're a scientific retard.

Resorting to personal insults already, that was quick.
By the same token, I can add a few drops of water to my soda and it won't make a difference to the taste or how it's digested. :rolleyes:
Just out of curiosity, please provide us with a scientific proof that adding enough CO2 to the atmosphere to alter it by a small fraction of a percent will destroy society. Entertain my scientifically "retarded" mind :)

Let's see, 1 to 5 % of the CO2 in the atmosphere is "human made", Why is it that the self-described "realistic", "conservative", fact based, money talking, you-can't-fool-me guys have so little attachment to physical reality ?

How hard is it to check a number ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

It's getting so that simply agreeing with the arguments from evidence of the ordinary consensus of ordinary reputable investigators in even ordinary, well-investigated matters, puts one at odds with the majority of "conservative" people in the US.

Yes, Ive been repeating these stats for years now...as well as the fact of CO2 being a mild player, compared to water vapour and methane. CO2 drives water vapor - without CO2, there would be much less water vapor in the air. Methane is not persistent - does not accumulate.

Ice Aura, you pulled that one directly out of your ass.

I wouldn't worry about it.

Ice Aura, you pulled that one directly out of your ass. And you aren't going to waste one moment of your precious "thinking" time on actually checking out whatever it was, are you.

CO2 drives water vapor - without CO2, there would be much less water vapor in the air..
Only assuming CO2 drives temperature...circular argument.

Resorting to personal insults already, that was quick.
By the same token, I can add a few drops of water to my soda and it won't make a difference to the taste or how it's digested. :rolleyes:
Just out of curiosity, please provide us with a scientific proof that adding enough CO2 to the atmosphere to alter it by a small fraction of a percent will destroy society. Entertain my scientifically "retarded" mind :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

LOL, the main page to wikipedia.

Once again, please provide us with a scientific proof that adding enough CO2 to the atmosphere to alter it by a small fraction of a percent will destroy society. Entertain my scientifically "retarded" mind

And you aren't going to waste one moment of your precious "thinking" time on actually checking out whatever it was, are you.

You didn't give a source.

Hello all

Three words. Atmosheric continuum absorption (http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/facilities/isam/isam.html). Or if you prefer from here. (http://www.ecmwf.int/newsevents/training/rcourse_notes/DATA_ASSIMILATION/REMOTE_SENSING/Remote_sensing10.html)

Unknown processes that affect the heat gain of the atmosphere have yet to be understood. I guess there is no money or political power to be gained.

;)

LOL, the main page to wikipedia.

Once again, please provide us with a scientific proof that adding enough CO2 to the atmosphere to alter it by a small fraction of a percent will destroy society. Entertain my scientifically "retarded" mind

You do the math.

The United States Army's scientists point to solar causes for much of global warming:

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/army-vs-global.html

This is consistent with global warming effects seen on Mars and on Jupiter.

Who would have thought that the sun could cause global warming?

The United States Army's scientists point to solar causes for much of global warming:

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/army-vs-global.html

This is consistent with global warming effects seen on Mars and on Jupiter.

Debunked years ago, the Sun's variations aren't enough to account for the warming effect.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

There is a lot of debunking going on anyway (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1888835#post1888835)

http://gallery.myff.org/gallery/274022/prediction-HC-RSS.PNG

Andre's really fond of this graph, for some reason.

The upper black line is from one model in 1988. The models did not even include clouds, jet contrails, the Ninas, etc.

The other lines show a generally and rapidly increasing global temperature, even including times of significant La Nina years. But never mind.

The pattern does not match any driving force so far proposed except greenhouse gases.
Only assuming CO2 drives temperature...circular argument. It's not circular, it's cause and effect.

Water vapor does not maintain itself in the air at current temp regimes - it precipitates out, etc.

Water vapor does not maintain itself in the air at current temp regimes - it precipitates out.
Yes, but your arguement rests on the assumption that CO2 drives temperature...thus increasing water vapour concentrations.

Andre's really fond of this graph, for some reason.

The upper black line is from one model in 1988. The models did not even include clouds, jet contrails, the Ninas, etc.

Why trying to understand how science works when you admit that you have no clue. Frankly you show exactly the shortcomings of the Hansen prediction, it's based on nothing, only the erroneous notion that CO2 drives climate. So Hansen was wrong when he did not even include clouds, jet contrails, the Ninas, etc. That's exactly the point. Thanks for making it.

Everything goes in cycles, the plantes changing anyways , and, ofcourse pollution is a factor , even if its small, there are alot of factors, some spiritual people would say, its our internally polluted selves... either way... why don't we all just stop driving so much and ride some bikes , it'll help with our mcdonalds diseased nation, and maybe pick up some freaking trash while we are walking our dogs, if everyone cares enough to discuss it , then we are obviously having an impact when theres plastic EVERYWHERE you look...

Arctic SuperPowers to Meet in Greenland -Will Global Warming Trigger a WWIII? (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/05/arctic-superpow.html)

Yes, but your arguement rests on the assumption that CO2 drives temperature...thus increasing water vapour concentrations. The argument is as follows:

1)CO2 is a greenhouse gas - support: basic physics, actual measurement in labs, etc.

2) Warmer air takes and hold more water vapor, all else equal. Support is basic physics, lab experiments, field measurements, the experience of many years of weather forecasting, etc.

3) the presence of higher concentrations of greenhouse gas results in warmer air under sunlight, and greater retention of heat at night, all else equal: support is basic physics, measurements in lab and controlled field experiments, satellite observations, etc.

4) the grand conclusion: boosting CO2 will result in a greater taking and holding of water vapor by the warmer air.

5) The reverse is not directly true - boosting water vapor does not result in greater CO2 concentrations, in any simple way like that .

That is what is meant by CO2 "driving" water vapor, and not vice versa.

Similarly with the other climate variables - CO2 reacts to few of them, and slowly. Many of them react to CO2 effects, and rapidly. Retention of solar energy as heat in the atmosphere is enormously influential.

It is not an assumption, it is a deduction.

Now, how big is the sum of all these CO2 effects ? Too big a question here, but the immediate matter is water vapor. We make an observation: in our current climate regime and at current temperature levels, water vapor does not sustain its own concentration - the extra heat it takes to pick up the water vapor is greater than that supplied by that vapor, and any water vapor that precipitates out will on average stay out. How do we know this ? Because if it were not so, the oceans would have boiled dry long ago.

So any greenhouse gas effects from water vapor sustained at current concentrations are at least largely due to whatever driver keeps the water vapor in the air at its current concentrations.

According to the people who have checked and investigated, that driver is CO2.

How big is the effect ? At least a dozen or so degrees C, from the CO2, global average, according to the people who have investigated. That's the difference between a largely glaciated planet and one with huge warm oceans of liquid water exposed to the atmosphere.

Now boost that CO2 concentration by 50%, and what would you expect to happen, in general ? Nothing?
So Hansen was wrong when he did not even include clouds, jet contrails, the Ninas, etc. That's exactly the point. Thanks for making it. That was not your point. Your point was that Hansen's failure to employ a modern, sophisticated climate model in 1988 for one of his projections, and consequent somewhat greater trend slope on his temperature graph in that 1988 projection than has appeared so far, represent some kind of argument against the entire hypothesis of atmospheric temperature increases and climate effects from the retained heat consequent on CO2 boosting.

That's your point, and it's goofy.

This is absurd. Virtually ALL scientific research published by actual geologists and climatologists points to global warming as being human induced. This is not up for debate. Dissenters are an extremely minor part of the scientific community. In addition, ALL major scientific organizations (including the AAPG) support these hypotheses. Don't listen to your politicians and the right wing media, listen to your scientists. If you have heart problems, who would you trust, a cardiologist, or a janitor?

Imagine the sort of person who believes the weather channel was intentionally lying when they predicted a fine day, but it rains instead.

Or that if his car doesn't get 22mpg like the sales guy said it would, that's got nothing to do with how he's driving it, it can only be that the guy was lying to him, or didn't do any proper research - cars don't work the way "they" all keep saying they do at all. It must be a conspiracy.

lmao



there isn't even 45 trillion dollars in the entire world

I need $100 trillion to stop insane totalitarian Liberals. PM me for paypal account.

Virtually ALL scientific research published by actual geologists and climatologists points to global warming as being human induced. This is not up for debate. Dissenters are an extremely minor part of the scientific community. In addition, ALL major scientific organizations (including the AAPG) support these hypotheses. Don't listen to your politicians and the right wing media, listen to your scientists. If you have heart problems, who would you trust, a cardiologist, or a janitor?
ROFLsauce @ Al Gore's sock puppet. Ever read the Black Swan? I'd trust a janitor before I would trust an insane totalitarian retard like you. Water vapor isn't man made and neither is CO2. Do you know what a volcano is?

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/EPA-volcanoes.jpg
Less than 1% of CO2 is man made.

Founder of the Weather Channel on the Global Warming Hoax

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?

The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.

...Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years...
Oh christ no.... GLOBAL COOLING!!!!

The graphs have been warning us of this.. but we didn't listen. WE DIDN'T LISTEN!!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/xelios/globalcooling.png