Man Based Global Warming....

[patsparks]

Originally Posted by docbooks

The way I look at it, maybe if I can distract you long enough, you'll forget to write that check to al gore and he won't be able to pay for the fuel for the private jet to fly his groupies to the next "save the planet" rally -- just my way of helping to keep the carbon footprint down -- and you thought I didn't care

I know you care, you use renewable fuel to heat your home.

[ufourya]

Originally Posted by Fibb222

Like it or not, CO2 is a problem, and CO2 emissions are going to be slashed over the next few decades. The ICE is as good as dead by 2020 and coal won't be able to compete with renewables. The world is moving on.

There is nothing in those emails that changes the fact that the Earth is warming drastically, and worldwide there are going to be severe limits put on GG emissions.

If you want to pretend you won some kind of battle here then go ahead. You ain't going to win the war.

I just hope you are around long enough to see the world morph into something you appear to hate. A cooperative and collaborative group of countries, that comes together and sets regulations and restrictions on harmful business-as-usual practices when it's necessary for the greater good.

Spoken like a true believer, Fibber. Like it or not, CO2 is a harmless gas that is indeed necessary for life on this planet. To cast it as a pollutant is mindlesslly, blatantly untrue. Get a grip, man, and get a clue.

You and others may wish to surrender their liberties, economic and otherwise, to the machinations of a world-wide body basing its clout on fraudulent science, I do not. You may stand by cheering while you are enslaved, I won't.

I, personally, haven't 'won' anything on this thread or its subject matter. What I have done is consistently point out the fraud and deception of the AGW crowd which is now definitively coming to light. In that sense, I've been correctly educating those steeped in ignorance and religious fervor.

It is your choice to remain an adherent of a corrupt idea. Whether that idea is allowed to determine the freedoms of men is yet to be seen. Plenty of fraudulent and evil ideas have overtaken whole societies to their detriment while the true believers clulessly applaud.

Need we rehash the the evils of Marxism? Why, yes, apparently we do. Our country has cluelessly elected a Marxist to the presidency and the future of this great republic lies precariously in the balance. Now the entire planet is at peril of having a global power enslave it through draconian control of economies. Cheer on, fools!

I'll be standing with those who resist, those who cherish freedom, those who believe truth should not be the victim of fraud, those who think for themselves. The drones will do what drones do and keep their heads bowed and do what they are told.

Cheers!

[docbooks]

Originally Posted by ufourya

Spoken like a true believer, Fibber. Like it or not, CO2 is a harmless gas that is indeed necessary for life on this planet. To cast it as a pollutant is mindlesslly, blatantly untrue. Get a grip, man, and get a clue.

You and others may wish to surrender their liberties, economic and otherwise, to the machinations of a world-wide body basing its clout on fraudulent science, I do not. You may stand by cheering while you are enslaved, I won't.

I, personally, haven't 'won' anything on this thread or its subject matter. What I have done is consistently point out the fraud and deception of the AGW crowd which is now definitively coming to light. In that sense, I've been correctly educating those steeped in ignorance and religious fervor.

It is your choice to remain an adherent of a corrupt idea. Whether that idea is allowed to determine the freedoms of men is yet to be seen. Plenty of fraudulent and evil ideas have overtaken whole societies to their detriment while the true believers clulessly applaud.

Need we rehash the the evils of Marxism? Why, yes, apparently we do. Oue country has cluelessly elected a Marxist to the presidency and the future of this great republic lies precariously in the balance. Now the entire planet is at peril of having a global power enslave it through draconian control of economies. Cheer on, fools!

I'll be standing with those who resist, those who cherish freedom, those who believe truth should not be the victim of fraud, those who think for themselves. The drones will do what drones do and keep their heads bowed and do what they are told.

Cheers!

Could not have been said better!

[ufourya]

Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the 'deniers' hated by the Hockey Team at CRU, IPCC, RealClimate et al:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

A lengthy excerpt:
The elitist attitudes exist elsewhere, too. While the skeptics’ blogs allow those who disagree to post opinions as long as they remain civil about it, RealClimate.org routinely ignores or deletes posts that might cast doubt on their tidy worldview. The same thing happens at Wikipedia, where a gatekeeper deletes newly posted content that departs from the IPCC party line.
A few of the CRU e-mails suggest that manipulation of climate data in order to reduce the signature of natural climate variations, and to exaggerate the supposed evidence for manmade climate change, is OK with these folks. Apparently, the ends justify the means.
The defense posted at RealClimate.org actually reinforces my point. {That's for you, Fibber} Do the IPCC scientists assume that this is how all climate scientists behave? If it really was how the rest of us behave, why would our eyebrows be raised up to our hairlines as we read the e-mails?
If all of this sounds incompatible with the process of scientific investigation, it shouldn’t. One of the biggest misconceptions the public has about science is that research is a straightforward process of making measurements, and then seeing whether the data support hypothesis A or B. The truth is that the interpretation of data is seldom that simple.
There are all kinds of subjective decisions that must be made along the way, and the scientist must remain vigilant that he or she is not making those decisions based upon preconceived notions. Data are almost always dirty, with errors of various kinds. Which data will be ignored? Which data will be emphasized? How will the data be processed to tease out the signal we think we see?
Hopefully, the scientist is more interested in discovering how nature really works, rather than twisting the data to support some other agenda. It took me years to develop the discipline to question every research result I got. It is really easy to be wrong in this business, and very difficult to be right.
Skepticism really is at the core of scientific progress. I’m willing to admit that I could be wrong about all my views on manmade global warming. Can the IPCC scientists admit the same thing?
Year after year, the evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting the IPCC’s politics, not to find out how nature works. The ‘data spin’ is increasingly difficult to ignore or to explain away as just sloppy science. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

[radioprius1]

Is there any actual proof that CO2 causes temperatures to rise? I mean like a mechanism of action, not just a correlation.

[ufourya]

Originally Posted by radioprius1

Is there any actual proof that CO2 causes temperatures to rise? I mean like a mechanism of action, not just a correlation.

There may or may not be some warming attributable to CO2. What is certain is that there is ZERO empirical evidence that CO2 has caused any significant, much less catastrophic, warming.

The ONLY thing upon which the AGW crowd base their dire projections of global catastrophe is computer programs that simulate (imperfectly) what will happen in the future based on a doubling of the present level of CO2. That is IT, There is absolutely ZERO emoirical evidence to support them.

Sorry, that's the truth as we presently know it.

[F8L]

Originally Posted by ufourya

Spoken like a true believer, Fibber. Like it or not, CO2 is a harmless gas that is indeed necessary for life on this planet. To cast it as a pollutant is mindlesslly, blatantly untrue. Get a grip, man, and get a clue.

Plant science is much more complex than you make it out to be and to postulate that a CO2 enriched atmosphere would be beneficial to all life is not scientifically sound. CO2 enhanced plant growth rates are dependent on temperature as well as availability of mineral nutrients. So the regions with colder temperatures may be affected differently than say those in the tropics. Furthermore, some studies show that elevated CO2 levels promote the growth of weedy species which are often time non-native and categorized as invasive. Invasive species in my state is a big problem and costs CA approx. $82 million/yr (Cal-IPC) or approx. $120 billion/yr in the United States (USDA)(Pimentel et al., Ecological Economics, 2005.). Some studies have also found that with increased growth rates, plants subjected to enhanced CO2 levels exhibit reduced nutrient quality which could mean that herbivores would be required to eat more biomass to obtain the same level of nutrients as a smaller quanitity of biomass from a plant under normal conditions. Ecosystems are very complex and to assume that any CO2 concentration level from 280p.p.m. to 1,000p.p.m. is perfectly ok is ludicrous and that is not even taking into account the other byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, temperature rise, or shifting precipiation patterns/rates. You may not see this in your line of work but I deal with pertubations like this every day.

In a nutshell, saying that CO2 is harmless at any concentration in the atmosphere and oceans is completely out of line with scientific findings and either ignorant or dishonest at the very least.

For those who actually read this sort of stuff I've included links for further study.

The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity in the United States

CA Climate & Agriculture Network - Presentations and video from the Climate & Agriculture Summit at UC Davis (yes, I attended)

MORE EFFICIENT PLANTS: A Consequence of Rising Atmospheric CO2?

Effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on plant growth: the interactive role of air temperature

Elevated atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 and plant growth


Interspecific variation in the growth response of plants to an elevated ambient CO2 concentration

Effects of elevated CO2 and temperature on plant growth and herbivore defensive chemistry

[F8L]

Originally Posted by radioprius1

Is there any actual proof that CO2 causes temperatures to rise? I mean like a mechanism of action, not just a correlation.

Do you have a good grasp on how CO2 and other greenhouse gases affect shortwave and long wave radiation (the chemistry and physics) and the various mechanisms we use to measure longwave radiation output?

[radioprius1]

Originally Posted by F8L

Do you have a good grasp on how CO2 and other greenhouse gases affect shortwave and long wave radiation (the chemistry and physics) and the various mechanisms we use to measure longwave radiation output?

I'm asking for someone to explain how CO2 traps heat resulting in global warming.

[F8L]

Originally Posted by radioprius1

I'm asking for someone to explain how CO2 traps heat resulting in global warming.

Ok, I wasn't sure if you meant the basic mechanism behind it or it.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) consists of a single carbon atom and two hydrogen atoms bonded to it, one on each side. Because greenhouse gasses are comprised of 3 or more atoms, they are loosely bonded and have a certain freedom of movement and thus are affected by longwave radiation in the form of vibrations. The carbon dioxide molecule can absorb infrared radiation and the molecule will vibrate. As molecules return to a ground state the molecule will release radiation which will likely be picked up by another molecule. This keeps the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) close to the earth instead of being radiated out into space. The more greenhouse gas molecules you have the more this effect is intensified.

Water vapor is the biggest contributor to the greenhouse affect and generally speaking, higher temperatures cause more evaporation which puts more water vapor into the atmosphere. Since the role of water vapor and it's myriad forms is still a bit confusing that is all I will say about that but there are plenty of papers on the subject.

The rest starts getting confusing when you start arguing limits to infrared radiation absorption and water vapor effects, Linzden's "iris hypothesis", feedbacks, and forcings but this give you the general idea. My best advice is to stay away from the alarmist and skeptic sites. They will only serve to confuse and polarize you.

Links to papers on the study of CO2 and its interactions with longwave radiation