Global Warming farce?

[burkhartdesu]

Originally Posted by WhoIsDaffy

global warming will effect different regions in different ways.
some will get warmer, some will get colder.
some will simply get wetter, others will get dryer.

I believe that's called "the weather"...

[WhoIsDaffy]

Originally Posted by burkhartdesu

I believe that's called "the weather"...

... [There is only silence] .............

[Sangetsu]

Originally Posted by WhoIsDaffy

i dunno guy's for me its basic physics.

molecules such as water vapour, co2, methane etc. are called greenhouse gasses for a reason.

this is because they readily absorb IR radiation and then re-radiate it.
so if you apply heat to a body of say 02 and an identical body of co2.
the o2 will allow most of the heat to pass through it. the co2 molecules however will absorb and re-radiate the heat. thus the gas will get hotter at a rate greater than the body of gas containing o2.

please look at this video

BBC News - Newsnight - Kitchen experiment 'proves' science of global warming

its a basic school expermiment being carried out.

and it proves that co2 does increase the heat of a volume of gas.
and as everything in the earth is remaining constant the temperature will go up.

also its dangerous to say (and also shows a lack of deeper understanding)
"but the average global tempererature is staying the same"
global warming will effect different regions in different ways.
some will get warmer, some will get colder.
some will simply get wetter, others will get dryer.

and as the main producer of greenhouse gasses, how can in not be man made.?

97% of the Co2 generated each year comes from natural causes in the land and sea, so man is not the main producer of Co2, is he?

Here is a little information regarding information about Co2 and climate change by the man who is argued to be the world's leading expert:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...O2_Scandal.pdf

As for methane, it's levels have not been increasing, in fact they have been decreasing for some years now, yet the IPCC makes little mention of that fact in their reports.

[WhoIsDaffy]

have started reading this doc.

about half way.

psudo-political nonsense-science im afraid.

this is not a scientific document, or report.
this is a political piece of propoganda by the looks of it.

to quote:
"nuclear plants, which have zero emission of greenhouse
gases, are environmentally friendly, more economical"

not only a simplification but not necessarily true

will read the rest soon

===

sorry this is complete c0*k sh1te,
i would not even call it psudo-science.

my favourite quote is:
"About 2 billion years ago, the CO2 atmospheric level was 100 or perhaps
even 1,000 times higher than today"

so it was either 100 times more or 1000 times more, gosh thats quite a degree of uncertenty there.
Also it seems to bang on about a single ice core study?

global warming is happening.
I looked at some raw data from a weather station in coventry just now (for kicks)
average max temp for dec in 1977 was 7.4 c
in 2008 the result shows 12.5 c
[ linkz Bablake Weather Station ]

(note 77 apears to be 24hr, 2008 9-21hr)

there is alot of nonsense out there on the internet i'm afraid.

please click the vid link i posted in an earlier link, im sure it will lay some of your sceptisism to rest.

[Sangetsu]

Originally Posted by WhoIsDaffy

have started reading this doc.

about half way.

psudo-political nonsense-science im afraid.

this is not a scientific document, or report.
this is a political piece of propoganda by the looks of it.

to quote:
"nuclear plants, which have zero emission of greenhouse
gases, are environmentally friendly, more economical"

not only a simplification but not necessarily true

will read the rest soon

===

sorry this is complete c0*k sh1te,
i would not even call it psudo-science.

my favourite quote is:
"About 2 billion years ago, the CO2 atmospheric level was 100 or perhaps
even 1,000 times higher than today"

so it was either 100 times more or 1000 times more, gosh thats quite a degree of uncertenty there.
Also it seems to bang on about a single ice core study?

global warming is happening.
I looked at some raw data from a weather station in coventry just now (for kicks)
average max temp for dec in 1977 was 7.4 c
in 2008 the result shows 12.5 c
[ linkz Bablake Weather Station ]

(note 77 apears to be 24hr, 2008 9-21hr)

there is alot of nonsense out there on the internet i'm afraid.

please click the vid link i posted in an earlier link, im sure it will lay some of your sceptisism to rest.

Interestingly enough, the man in the article posted above was one of the reviewing scientists of the first 2 IPCC reports on climate change. His credentials were good enough for the UN, and the IPCC whose reports you believe. He has an MD and 2 PHDs, but I guess he can only be considered a "scientist" to you if he supports global warming theory?

As for a variation of "100 to 1000 times higher", the IPCC report on climate change predicts temperature increases of 1.1 degrees to 6.6 degrees in 100 years, which is a variation of more than 600%. Not very exact science, is it?

The graph which shows where Dr Michael Mann linked together the spike in Co2 from the late 19th century to the late 20th century to make his and Al Gore's famous "hockey stick' graph has been proven to be true, and one of the reasons that the British Government has disallowed the showing of Al Gore's movie in British schools. In that graph it shows Co2 levels of the late 19th century to have been climbing, even though there was no man-made cause. Michael Mann and associates moved the graph ahead by decades so it would appear that the rise was occurring after the industrial revolution. This is a fact, and one admitted to by the IPCC itself.

Pseudo-science indeed.

[Ryzorian]

The CO2 rate was up and down way back then based on Volcanic activity. Most CO2 today also comes from volcanos...one major eruption puts out far more "greenhouse" gas than man has done in the last 100 years...and we have several major eruptions a year. Mount Pinitobo actually dropped earth's mean temp by a couple of dagree's when it erupted in the 90's because of all the particulate matter in the air.

I'm sorry, but man isn't causeing earth to heat up, cool down, or have a brain freeze. It's just a cycle that both earth and the sun go through repeatedly...over and over and over again.

I do think man can pollute local enviroments to the point of utter destruction, so I certainly think we should manage our natural resources better. However, that doesn't require some paper pusher at the UN telling me what I should or shouldn't do. Each nation will either learn how to utilize what they have to thrive, or they wont and die. Evolution at it's finest, isn't that what you all strive for anyhow?

[burkhartdesu]

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

The CO2 rate was up and down way back then based on Volcanic activity. Most CO2 today also comes from volcanos...one major eruption puts out far more "greenhouse" gas than man has done in the last 100 years...and we have several major eruptions a year. Mount Pinitobo actually dropped earth's mean temp by a couple of dagree's when it erupted in the 90's because of all the particulate matter in the air.

I'm sorry, but man isn't causeing earth to heat up, cool down, or have a brain freeze. It's just a cycle that both earth and the sun go through repeatedly...over and over and over again.

I do think man can pollute local enviroments to the point of utter destruction, so I certainly think we should manage our natural resources better. However, that doesn't require some paper pusher at the UN telling me what I should or shouldn't do. Each nation will either learn how to utilize what they have to thrive, or they wont and die. Evolution at it's finest, isn't that what you all strive for anyhow?

I agree. (edit: I "concur", since it's not really a matter of opinion - but fact)



Though evolutionary based science clearly states that animals evolve with their environment. According to that understanding, there will be a biological response as the population reaches capacity. Overpopulation and famine is a real problem.


What about the insane pollution and fluoridation of public water supply? What about our agriculture, which is infiltrated with genetically modified foods? What about other problems that we may not even be aware of, because the thrust and motive force of the environmental movement has been hijacked by political interests using lies and deception?



AND WHAT ABOUT THE SUN??

There is a large, flaming, energy and heat-emitting sphere located in the center of our ‘solar’ system, which has a direct, immediate effect on the temperatures on every planet in this system. It’s so important to the ecosystem of the earth, it is so integral to the functioning of life on our planet, that primitive man once worshipped the Sun! Interestingly, modern man now worships the Earth, ignoring the giant, glowing orb of burning gasses that bakes down on the earth constantly. The Sun is not only a burning sphere of gas, but it’s an unstable one. The Sun emits solar flares, meaning huge explosions, which emit large bursts of heat. Since we understand that the sun is the source of heat in our solar system, surely we can deduce that solar flares must affect our climate here on earth.


Also, isn't it interesting that Mars is also experiencing Global Warming? I'm sure that's man made, as well.






Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

[WhoIsDaffy]

if you were to release a single molecule of CO2 into the atmosphere.

this would increase the temp (by about 1.2X10-20,000 but still)

in the same way that if a speeding train coasting along hits a fly, it will slow down.

this is called Physics.

did u even click link?

@sang.

1. a dif of 1.1-6.6 is a world of difference to 100-1000 times.
your using multiplication, so its a Huge diff.
eg if your start with 10
your saying that it is anywhere between 1000-10,000.
thats a range of 9000 from a start point of just 10.
if we start at 100 your looking at 10,000-100,000
a range of 90,000!
this is a margin of error over 100% thus any conclusion taken from this is automatically invalid

2. i dont care if he is the pope.
that is not a scientific document
it is a report written with intent.
it is propoganda

[WhoIsDaffy]

Originally Posted by burkhartdesu

The Sun emits solar flares, meaning huge explosions, which emit large bursts of heat. Since we understand that the sun is the source of heat in our solar system, surely we can deduce that solar flares must affect our climate here on earth.

hmmm dont forget the laws of physics associated with radiating heat and light.

i forget the exact details but it is something to do with the number 4 i think.

like to get the rough estimate of how much energy will actually hit a certain body.
you take the distance from source,
multiply some numbers, devide some stuff.

endresult being.
if 100,000 joules were emmited by the sun, the entire earth would get about 1/2 a joule.

[Ryzorian]

Again, the earth does far more to heat itself up than man does. Man isn't causeing global warming, isn't, nada, goose egg, zip, zero..polluting certain parts of it into oblivion yes, that is true. We should certainly act with more care in reguards to pollution. However, global warming is just something we will have to adapt too, same as global cooling, it isn't something we can prevent.