Man Based Global Warming....

Qutie right. I wouldn't enjoy it either. I prefer worthwhile opposition.

 

ound:

 

Don't bother trying to debate him. It's like having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. What's the sport in it?

 

Mercury’s atmosphere is very thin. The atmosphere of Mercury is mainly made out of sodium. Mercury’s atmosphere is so thin because the gases that were there before all got boiled by the sun. The thin air does not trap heat very well. So, Mercury is actually not as hot as Venus. Part of Mercury’s surface can rise to 800°F and part of Mercury can go down to -300°F. This can happen because in the day time the Sun heats up Mercury’s surface quickly and at night time Mercury loses most of its heat. With no air and no clouds, Mercury’s weather is always the same, extremely hot in the day and extremely cold in the night.

Venus's atmosphere is about 96.5 percent CO2 (965,000 parts per million) and VERY dense. We know from the probes sent to the surface that plenty of sunlight gets through to heat the planet.

That goes a long way toward explaining it. If you are inferring that the CO2 levels are the main drivers of warming on both Venus and Earth, you should know that Earh's atmosphere is comprised of .038 percent CO2 (380 parts per million - and please keep in mind that man's contribution is only a fraction of this). In addition, the atmosphere of Venus is 95 times denser than Earth's. Then, consider the distance from the sun as you did with Mars and you can see why CO2 is a major factor for Venus' climate, but statistically insignificant for Earth's. Unless, of course you take a political view rather than a scientific one.

 

I've got two words for you. I'm sure your superior intellect can guess what they are.

 

This is really rich.

Heads, we win; tails, you lose. Models predict warming - man's fault. Models predict cooling - later on, if it warms again, it'll still be man's fault.

Meanwhile, what does this say about the previous model predictions, hmmmm?

World's climate could cool first, warm later - environment - 04 September 2009 - New Scientist

Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.

Saaaay, don't we have just a few months (UN head) or four years (I forget who) or eight years (bonnie prince Charlie) to save the world from warming?

And yet the TRUE BELIEVERS march forward convinced we MUST ACT NOW! Tax everyone! CUT CO2!

Laughable.

 

Biological history is littered with extinct species, all in effect due to "natural selection."

Think that through, maroon.

 

Biological history presently culminates in a species which displays consciousness, even self-aware consciousness.

Think this through, my genius friend:

"...Consciousness makes evolutionary sense only if one does not start far enough back; if, that is to say, one fails to assume a consistent and sincere materialist position, beginning with a world without consciousness, and then considers whether there could be putative biological drivers for organisms to become conscious. This is the only valid starting point for those who look to evolution to explain consciousness, given that the history of matter has overwhelmingly been without conscious life, indeed without history. Once the viewpoint of consistent materialism is assumed, it ceases to be self-evident that it is a good thing to experience what is there, that it will make an organism better able so to position itself in the causal net as to increase the probability of replication of its genomic material. On the contrary, even setting aside the confusional states it is prone to, and the sleep it requires, consciousness seems like the worst possible evolutionary move."

Raymond Tallis ~ by your standards just another maroon, no doubt.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Tallis"]Raymond Tallis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

And then we can debate plate tectonics, the Big Bang, quantum mechanics, relativity, the atomic theory,... yep, we're done here. Thanks for playing.

 

'nuff said

 

Really?

Once the viewpoint of consistent materialism is assumed,...consciousness seems like the worst possible evolutionary move."

Poses more questions rather than answering them.

 

Since posters here are so fond of linking to journalists rather than scientists:

Key Berger Excerpts: For a long time now, science reporters have been confidently told the science is settled. That the planet is warming and humans are unquestionably the primary cause. We've been told to trust the computer models -- the models which show a markedly upward trend in temperatures as carbon dioxide concentrations increase. And I've trusted the scientists telling me this. [...]

It seems pretty clear that the models forecast a steady upward trend in global temperatures as long as carbon dioxide levels rise. (Which they have). Yet according to satellite and surface temperature measurements the global average temperature has essentially remained flat for the last 12 years. This strikes me as somewhat curious. When An Inconvenient Truth came out I believed the movie to be scientifically accurate. Carbon dioxide levels were rising and so were temperatures. And hurricane activity, especially after the disastrous 2005 season, was out of control. But a funny thing happened on the way to the end of the world: hurricane activity on the global scale is near historical lows. And the Earth seems to have, at least temporarily, stopped warming. [...]

If we can't have confidence in the short-term prognosis for climate change, how can we have full confidence in the long-term prognosis? [...]
Do not misunderstand me. I am not a climate change skeptic. I do not deny that the planet warmed 0.6°C in the 20th century. I do not deny that humans played some part in that significant warming. But I am confused. Four years ago this all seemed like a fait accompli. Humans were unquestionably warming the climate and changing the planet forever through their emissions of carbon dioxide. The problem is that some climate scientists and environmentalists have been so determined to see something done about carbon dioxide emissions -- now -- that they have glossed over the uncertainties. Uncertainties like: maybe there isn't a linear relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature, and maybe the planet will cool for a couple of decades even as carbon dioxide emissions accelerate. For the last few years some scientists and environmentalists have been telling us a lot about what "will" happen in the future if carbon dioxide emissions continue unabated. It perhaps would have been a lot better if they talked about what "may" happen.

Full Text of Berger's Article here:

 

All it takes is pulling your head out of your nether regions, and distinguishing weather from climate.

 

SageBrush, That quote from ufourya sounds a lot the tobacco lobby's with respect to cancer and smoking.

 

I think it's about time we all ignore ufourya's rants and let him babble away to himself.

 

First of all, SC, SB snd HS, clearly, the quote is not mine, but a science journalist's. My name is not Berger. It would be novel if some of you occasionally actually read and understood something before offering pointless comment.

Secondly, although I think most science journalists don't know their anus from their cranium, I'll defend this one concerning the distinction between weather and climate. He's talking mainly about a time span of years.

From the National Academies Press:

WEATHER AND CLIMATE: BACKGROUND CONCEPTS

Climate Variability

Weather refers to the day-to-day state of the atmosphere, characterized by meteorological factors such as temperature, humidity, precipitation, and winds. In contrast, climate refers to average meteorological conditions over a specified time period (usually at least a month), which may include information about the frequency and intensity of extreme events and other statistical characteristics of the weather. Climate varies naturally over a wide range of spatial and temporal scales.

 

The facts are starting to emerge. The sun - can you imagine it? - is the major driver of the planet's warning? It is going into a period of minimum activity and the termperatures are going to fall. Enjoy the warmth while you can.

Opinion - Mens Solen sover - what, you can't read Danish?

Indeed, global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth, on the contrary. ... writes Henrik Svensmark....

and...

NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.

September 10, 2009

The average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. August was also below the long-term average. The analysis is based on records dating back to 1895.

Oh, my, the AGW rats are deserting the sinking ship. As global temperatures cool in the face of rising CO2, and scientific frauds can no longer be defended in the face of overwhelming evidence, the fraudsters will have to regroup.

What will the new cause become? It has to be man's fault, of course. If it's not his fault, how can he be blamed for the imagined cataclysms and taxed or regulated into submission?

Fear not, the politicians and wacko-emviros will come up with something - and fast! Meanwhile, AGW will be ignored in the media just as if it was never an issue, erased as neatly as a Soviet official who miffed Stalin. What? We were never of the opinion that CO2 had anything to do with climate. What planet are you from?

Just wait and see.

Having been falsely accused of ranting, I thought you'd enjoy a small (albeit truthful) one.

 

It's called global warming, not US-only warming.

"The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2009 was the fifth warmest on record..."

"For the year to date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.3°C (57.9°F) tied with 2004 for the sixth-warmest January-through-July period on record...."

State of the Climate

 

I can't believe that you igmored HiHo's dictum to allow me to rant and babble here unmolested.

You couldn't resist even though I labeled the tongue-in-cheek post as a rant (and please note the little smiley-face). I expected a little more discipline among the AGW troops.

Sigh...

 

New peer-reviewed paper from the journal Science suggests the sun's influence is amplified (and not by co2) to account for most of the warming we experience.

Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing -- Meehl et al. 325 (5944): 1114 -- Science

Gee, I wonder if there will be headlines in all the media outlets declaring a possible alternative to the moronic CO2 theory? NOT

A conclusion drawn by one of the authors of The Resilient Earth:

Previously, the direct impact of increased irradiance on global avarage temperature has been estimated at around 0.25°C last century—a three fold amplifying effect would raise that to 0.75°C. This leaves practically no warming effect for CO2 to account for and renders the whole anthropogenic global warming argument moot. In other words, if the atmospheric solar amplifier theory is correct anthropogenic global warming is wrong, a useless theory describing a nonexistent phenomenon. It seems like poetic justice that a modeling experiment may point the way to discrediting global warming once and for all.


Why is this important? Well, consider that the Obama administration and the EPA want to impose the 'cap and trade' anti-CO2 legislation that squeeked by in the House and is now in the Senate. We're in danger of spending A LOT in the completely WRONG area to 'solve' our energy problems:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040.shtml

I can't believe this balanced atricle actually came from CBS news. Note that the information had to be pried from the government via the Freedom of Information Act. (and NOT by CBS).

Excerpt:

"...Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15 percent increase a year. A $100 billion additional tax would represent a 7 or 8 percent increase a year.

One odd point: The document written by Jaffee includes this line: "It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX." The Treasury Department redacted the rest of the sentence with a thick black line.

The Freedom of Information Act, of course, contains no this-might-embarrass-the-president exemption. You'd hope the presidential administration that boasts of being the "most open and transparent in history" would be more forthcoming than this. "

But there is no need to worry because the President has PROMISED that there will be no increase in TAXES for those making less than $250,000 annually. As an aside, can you name even ONE program run by the government that costs exactlyas much or less than initially estimated? Didn't think so.

If this mostrosity and the even bigger monstrosity of government health care for all are imposed, your children and grandchildren will be indentured servants of the federal government. They will be required to pay over 80% - EIGHTY PERCENT - of what they earn to the state in return for reduced services and a concommitant loss of freedom. Hey, I'm an old man; it won't bother me, but the rest of you had better WAKE UP and smell the reality!