Man Based Global Warming....

[hyo silver]

What was that quote again? About that conspiracy?

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Shawn Clark

As it is, you can prove that the assumption of the negative feedback is refuted by comparing temp vs. ice core results.

Huh? Please explain to what you are referring and provide links if necessary. Gracias.

[Shawn Clark]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

Huh? Please explain to what you are referring and provide links if necessary. Gracias.

If the feedback to CO2 will produce cooling, then the CO2 in the ice cores should have the opposite trend relative to temperature. It does not.

[darelldd]

Originally Posted by hyo silver

What was that quote again? About that conspiracy?

Ah, I thought you'd never ask!

"So-called “global warming” is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it!" - Starbucks Coffee Cup, 2008.

[HTMLSpinnr]

I've always failed to understand, regardless of the truth in Global Warming assertions (which I too am inclined to believe), WTF is wrong w/ cleaner, more efficient living, and being socially responsible?

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Shawn Clark

If the feedback to CO2 will produce cooling, then the CO2 in the ice cores should have the opposite trend relative to temperature. It does not.

CO2 lags temperature increase by about 800 years based on the ice core data, so CO2 is not causal in temperature rise in that record.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by HTMLSpinnr

I've always failed to understand, regardless of the truth in Global Warming assertions (which I too am inclined to believe), WTF is wrong w/ cleaner, more efficient living, and being socially responsible?

Nothing per se, but there is a economic cost and trade-offs to be considered. If reductions in CO2 are achieved through efficiency gains that pay for themselves, that is fine. But in order to achieve reductions necessary to have a real impact on climate outcomes (if you believe the models), you are likely talking about a pretty drastic change in power production, distribution, and use... not just being "efficient" and "socially responsible." For instance, as it stands now, Britain's pursuit of CO2 reductions is putting them in a pretty precarious situation with respect to electricity production. I'm afraid misguided CO2 policies based on questionable global warming models / assumptions may lead to the same outcomes in the U.S.

[viking31]

Originally Posted by darelldd

Hey. I have a novel idea. Let's forget Climate Change. Instead, how about if we stop throwing crap into the air for one (or more) of the hundreds of uncontested logical/practical/health/security reasons?

Oh wait. Not novel... just ignored.

(I like to toss this in every few pages just for grins).

Great, let's reduce particulates, NOX, and other noxious gases and substances (of which our country and others - with the exception of China, Russia, and India - are achieving). But when you try to reduce pollution in the name of Climate Change, then the public and an ever increasing number of politicians, are quickly turned off by the silly notion of Climate Change when it has been documented for the last eight years the world has steadily been getting colder despite natural fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

But the crux of this thread, which you seem unable to grasp with your ridiculous utopian proposals, is regarding CO2 emitted by man. You say CO2 emitted by man is harmful. I say it's harmless.

Rick
#4 2006

[viking31]

Originally Posted by darelldd

Ah, I thought you'd never ask!

"So-called “global warming” is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it!" - Starbucks Coffee Cup, 2008.

That was a bad move by Starbucks to print that on their cups. Taking sides in any political debate (and especially with silly mischaracterizations of a serious debate) by a major corporation can only lead to one sure result: loss of customers...

Rick
#4 2006

[dbermanmd]

link: Hot Air Blog Archive NASA data shows oceans cooling since 2003?

Excerpt below -- NASA has sensors that are obtaining incorrect readings? and we are basing data on this? please explain?

"Two separate studies through NASA confirm that since 2003, the world’s oceans have been losing heat. In the peak of the recent warming trend, 1998 actually ranked 2nd to 1934 as the warmest year on record.
John Willis, an oceanographer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab, published his first report about the warming oceans. The article Correcting Ocean Cooling (see below) published on NASA’s Earth Observatory page this week discussed his and other results. willis used data from1993-2003 that showed the warm-up and followed the Global Warming Theory. In 2006, he co-piloted a follow-up study led by John Lyman at Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle that updated the time series for 2003-2005. Surprisingly, the ocean seemed to have cooled. He was surprised, and called it a ’speed bump’ on the way to global warming.
A second, independent study was conducted. Takmeng Wong and his colleagues at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Virginia came up with the same results. Wong studies net flux of solar energy at the top of our atmosphere. From the 1980s to 1990s his team noticed increased amounts net energy when comparing incoming solar energy to what Earth radiates and reflects. Since then, the solar flux has remained the same. Other studies have suggested that the sun’s output has decreased in the past few years."