 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 4/600) |
|
fierofetish
|
JUN 08, 11:08 AM
|
|
To me, the weather, climate etc. is as unpredictable as, say, somebody trying to do a Rubik's cube. Or why somebody wins the lottery above 10 million others. The weather is an incalculable number of causes and effects..and one day, a certain combination will cause an extraordinary result. Totally unpredictable, just like the 'local' weather forecast. Even with thousands of planes in the sky all over the World, feeding current information to weather stations etc.., they can never predict exactly what will happen except for a very short time. They ARE getting better..but Mother Nature has many things up her sleeve to sling into the works, and then nothing comes out as predicted. One day, that person messing randomly with the Rubik's cube might, just might, get the combination right. Just as one day, the things that contribute to weather all over the World could come together, and create Global warming, or even global distruction, in the blink of an eye. Could happen tomorrow...could maybe not happen for qnother million years.The analogy of the people jumping in the water is RIDICULOUS!! You have to think a lot deeper about it, to see it thogh. I will try to explain why I find it so.
Somebody jumps in the sea.the displacement caused by their body is spread over millions of square metres of surface of the sea.And if 100 million people jump into the sea at once, then the effect would be noticable. Slightly. But where the analogy goes wrong, is here. They get back out again. and the effect is purely temporary.With carbon emissions, the amount of carbon we all create remains there.Or most of it. And when we jump into the sea, the most displacement we can cause is the total of the volume of our body. Nothing more. carbon emissions continue to grow.You would have to jump in the sea with your car, truck, air conditioning unit, garden fires, etc etc, to equate the two . No matter how many times you jump in the sea, you will always (mostly  ) get back out.If we took back IN, the carbon we cause every day, then the example stands. We donīt. So the analogy bears NO equivocation at all. It is fallacious, and actually ridiculous when you consider it the way I have explained.
And totally misleading. Like a lot of arguments from BOTH sides of the AGW argument.
The truth of the matter is this..we are burning the World's resources from both ends, and ever quicker. We are introducing more and more carbon into the air, and reducing the things that have maintained relative equilibrium over the millions of years...cutting down millions of trees, covering vast tracts of earth with concrete and tarmac and buildings. Eventually, both ends will meet in the middle, and that will be the end of all life that depends on oxygen, AND CO2. never forget that plants, trees etc depend equally upon oxygen during the night, as they do CO2 during the day, for photosynthesis.
Nick
|
|
|
|
maryjane
|
JUN 08, 11:24 AM
|
|
Global warming--In My Never Too Humble Opinion---is predominantely caused by all those Limeys drinking all that hot tea.
Ya know why they drink warm beer? Lucas Electrical also makes their refridgerators.
|
|
|
|
lurker
|
JUN 08, 11:35 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Toddster:
People forget that the root of conservative is "conserve". If there is a cheaper, faster, better, more efficient way to do something I am all for it. And More efficient processes inherently mean less pollution. |
|
this depends on whether youre thinking long-term or short, and those pesky hard-to-value quality of life issues. it has very often been "cheaper" and "more efficient" to throw trash, whether paper cups or toxic industrial waste, over our metaphorical shoulder and walk away. in the short term it's "cheaper" and "more efficient" to practice slash and burn, monoculture without crop rotation and mining gold with mercury.
|
|
|
|
edhering
|
JUN 08, 11:54 AM
|
|
Because this is a topic near and dear to my heart, I'm going to toss in a few bits and pieces, too.
First off, go read this PDF.
One of the most interesting points is made with a graph on page 7. It shows the carbon dioxide concentrations of our atmosphere and the global temperature anomaly to 600 million years ago.
About halfway through the Ordovician Age--about 450, 460 million years ago--the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was about 4,300 PPM. (Compare that to the present-day measure of about 385 PPM.) And an ice age took place.
When the ice age was effectively over, carbon dioxide had dropped to about 4,000 PPM. (A drop, by the way, greater in magnitude than all the carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere.)
I'd now like to call your attention to page 17, figure 22, "The Warming Effect of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide".
You get about 1.55 degrees celcius of warming from the first 20 PPM of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. To double that amount of warming, you must add another FOUR HUNDRED PPM.
* * *
The PDF makes the case that our sun's variability carries the responsibility for global climate changes. The sun's variability is small--about 0.07%--but that amounts to an enormous amount of energy. 0.07% of the total annual solar irradience that Earth receives is enough energy to supply the United States' current energy needs...for THREE THOUSAND YEARS.
If the sun was more variable than that, in all liklihood, life could not have evolved here. But 0.07% is more than enough to have an effect on global climate since the sun's shortest cycle is 11 years long; and we've identified 40- and 200-year cycles as well. (There may well be longer cycles, but we've only been counting sunspots for a few centuries. Give us time.)
Right now, the latest sunspot cycle is between six and eighteen months late. The longer it takes for that cycle to start, the cooler the next decade will be. And solar astronomers are pretty certain that the cycle following this one is going to feature a low sunspot count. Any way you add this up, it spells "cold".
The really grating thing about it is that when that happens, the environmentalists are going to pat themselves on the back and claim that their programs fixed it, when nothing is farther from the truth.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Toddster
|
JUN 08, 12:15 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by lurker:
this depends on whether youre thinking long-term or short, and those pesky hard-to-value quality of life issues. it has very often been "cheaper" and "more efficient" to throw trash, whether paper cups or toxic industrial waste, over our metaphorical shoulder and walk away. in the short term it's "cheaper" and "more efficient" to practice slash and burn, monoculture without crop rotation and mining gold with mercury. |
|
All very true. Some of this was a case of "we didn't know how damaging it was at the time". But that not withstanding, polluting is bad business. If you get caught the cost of repairing the damage usually far outweighs the short term benefits you hope to receive. That has not stopped some from doing it. Which is why I am in favor of Government regulations to ensure people practice "good business". As long as those regulations are limited to restricting behavior harmful to the consumer base.
But this is the crux of the Global Warming issue. Socialist are interested in CONTROL! They are misguided souls who think you can improve an economy by exercising greater control over economic activites. They are wrong and history has proved again and again that the more you try to control economic processes the more out of control they become. Yet some people never learn. Hugo Chazez has nationalized his country and will bankrupt it in the end..it is not even a debatable issue, it WILL happen. Maxine Waters and other loonie want to do the same here in America. God only knows why. I have heard some people say, "Well, the Soviets just didn't do it the right way". These sort of remarks are typically said by people who can't even spell economy let alone understand the dynamics of one. But that does not keep them from trying.
This is what AGW is, another attempt to seize control of an economic process by manipulating the one element of control that even hard core free market purists like me will conceed we need, limited governmental regulation. By inventing a crisis that is GLOBAL in nature, effects ALL INDUSTRY, and requires INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, the socialists have created a crisis that is, franklly, a piece of shear genius. It is the thin end of the wedge that allows control over the economy to be enacted, not by revolution or greed (in the obvious way) but by a basic desire to SAVE HUMANITY! Genius. Lex Luther would be proud.
Business is the thing that CREATES freedom and yet the socialists have made business the bad guy lately. Government is here to save the day from the "evil" business-man; same tired old crap that has never worked before and will never work because it is a fallacy of the worst kind.
The tell (in card player jargon) is the bills being proposed that will create a Goliath Government Organization to CONTROL business emmissions and subsequently their production. And all of this under the guise of SAVING THE WORLD!
What amazes me the most is how EASILY people are sold on something as preposterous as the idea that the world is coming to an end because of our behavior. All humanity combined can't change the size, strength, or direction of one single hurricane and yet by just sitting around with our AC on we are going to destroy the planet: and people are buying this hook line and sinker. I'm not sure whether to be horrified by being a member of the same race that could beleive this malarky or dazzled by the genius that managed to convince people that this is real.
either way, I'm in awe.[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 06-08-2008).]
|
|
|
|
maryjane
|
JUN 08, 02:15 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Toddster:
What amazes me the most is how EASILY people are sold on something as preposterous as the idea that the world is coming to an end because of our behavior. All humanity combined can't change the size, strength, or direction of one single hurricane and yet by just sitting around with our AC on we are going to destroy the planet: and people are buying this hook line and sinker. I'm not sure whether to be horrified by being a member of the same race that could beleive this malarky or dazzled by the genius that managed to convince people that this is real.
either way, I'm in awe of Al Gore.
|
|
Fixed it for you--before someone else did.
 [This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-08-2008).]
|
|
|
|
Toddster
|
JUN 08, 03:09 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by maryjane:
Fixed it for you--before someone else did.
|
|
I can't call it a "fix" but I can't argue with it. Gore has successfully managed to con the world with the skill of a top of the line Snake Oil salesman. One can't help but admire raw talent.
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
JUN 08, 03:46 PM
|
|
Hey, Ed. Thanks for joining the discussion. I'd like to expand on a few points, if you don't mind...
| quote | Originally posted by edhering:
Because this is a topic near and dear to my heart, I'm going to toss in a few bits and pieces, too.
First off, go read this PDF. |
|
Ah, yes, David Archibald. Good stuff. He have a talk at the Heartland AGW conference. Here is a link to a powerpoint version of the pdf file above, and it goes along with the audio/video on the Heartland conference page.
| quote | One of the most interesting points is made with a graph on page 7. It shows the carbon dioxide concentrations of our atmosphere and the global temperature anomaly to 600 million years ago.
About halfway through the Ordovician Age--about 450, 460 million years ago--the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was about 4,300 PPM. (Compare that to the present-day measure of about 385 PPM.) And an ice age took place.
When the ice age was effectively over, carbon dioxide had dropped to about 4,000 PPM. (A drop, by the way, greater in magnitude than all the carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere.) |
|
To summarize:
1. CO2 levels have been MUCH higher in the past. Life did just fine here on Earth.
2. Historically, CO2 rise FOLLOWS temperature increases, not the other way around.
3. CO2 levels have been high during ice ages. CO2 *cannot* create the warming scenario they've been trying to sell us.
| quote | I'd now like to call your attention to page 17, figure 22, "The Warming Effect of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide".
You get about 1.55 degrees celcius of warming from the first 20 PPM of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. To double that amount of warming, you must add another FOUR HUNDRED PPM. |
|
Put another way - the greenhouse effect from CO2 is NOT linear, but logarithmic. In other words, doubling CO2 does NOT double the amount of warming from CO2. Period. It's a scientific fact. To understand this better, you'd have to read something like this presentation.
| quote | The PDF makes the case that our sun's variability carries the responsibility for global climate changes. The sun's variability is small--about 0.07%--but that amounts to an enormous amount of energy. 0.07% of the total annual solar irradience that Earth receives is enough energy to supply the United States' current energy needs...for THREE THOUSAND YEARS.
If the sun was more variable than that, in all liklihood, life could not have evolved here. But 0.07% is more than enough to have an effect on global climate since the sun's shortest cycle is 11 years long; and we've identified 40- and 200-year cycles as well. (There may well be longer cycles, but we've only been counting sunspots for a few centuries. Give us time.) |
|
Craig Loehle's presentation at the Heartland conference mentions a 1470 year cycle that fits temperature variation quite nicely. Link to his presentation
| quote | Right now, the latest sunspot cycle is between six and eighteen months late. The longer it takes for that cycle to start, the cooler the next decade will be. And solar astronomers are pretty certain that the cycle following this one is going to feature a low sunspot count. Any way you add this up, it spells "cold".
The really grating thing about it is that when that happens, the environmentalists are going to pat themselves on the back and claim that their programs fixed it, when nothing is farther from the truth.
Ed |
|
Joeseph D'Aleo also has some good material on this. This is an *excellent* presentation on temperature, CO2 and the sun. He ties it together nicely. Follow along with audio or video from the window on the right.
|
|
|
|
fierobear
|
JUN 08, 03:50 PM
|
|
|
If some of you are having problems downloading and viewing the Powerpoint presentations, let me know. I'll extract the key graphs and charts and post them here.
|
|
|
|
randye
|
JUN 08, 05:45 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by lurker:
it's sort of interesting to read the links.
some of them say there's global warming, but that human causation is minimal.
some of them say there's global warming, and no human causation.
some of them say there's no global warming at all
lots of them really, really hate al gore.
makes me wonder what would they would say if al changed sides. |
|
The reason ALGore is so controversial in this is that he is the embodiment of the IDEOLOGY that is driving the "global warming", (recently re-named to "climate change"), hoax.
This is what happens when fraud, junk science and ideology gain a toe hold over objective data, science and research.
The "global warming" issue started out *agenda driven* and was promulgated on FRAUDLENT data. (Michael Mann and his bogus FORTRAN program with "cooked" data that produced the original "hockey stick" graph). Read the link I provided earlier: "ALL IN A GOOD CAUSE" by Orson Scott Card.
There are other good accounts of the origins of the "global warming" issue available online, but Card summarizes it well.
With AlGore championing this hoax, (many say to his own benefit), a lot of people don't bother to look past ideology and will don blinders, and readily accept the "data" presented to them, as they see it in terms of "us vs, them", left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, have vs. have-not, etc.
Ideology is the anthesis of objectivity.
If the evidence was solid and incontrovertable that man-made climate change is real, is an immediate emergency and is of the scale presented by the alarmists, I would be supportive of whoever was the current "champion" of the issue, no matter who it is, but even some small, objective research of the information available ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE says "it just ain't so.".[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-08-2008).]
|
|
|
|