How much weather is being caused by climate change? Maybe 1 part in 1,000.

[WCH]

How much weather is being caused by climate change? Maybe 1 part in 1,000. « Roy Spencer, PhD

In another silly pseudo-science rambling, the President’s science advisor, John Holdren, has recently stated, “Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change.”
Drought in California. Record snows in the East. It’s tempting for many to blame it all on our use of fossil fuels.

What Causes Weather?
Let’s start with the basics. Weather is caused by energy imbalances, primarily (1) between the solar heated surface of the Earth and the atmosphere above it, and (2) between different geographic regions (e.g. the tropics vs. high latitudes; the warm oceans versus cold continents in winter).

snip

 

[flogger]

How much weather is being caused by climate change? Maybe 1 part in 1,000. « Roy Spencer, PhD

In another silly pseudo-science rambling, the President’s science advisor, John Holdren, has recently stated, “Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change.”
Drought in California. Record snows in the East. It’s tempting for many to blame it all on our use of fossil fuels.

What Causes Weather?
Let’s start with the basics. Weather is caused by energy imbalances, primarily (1) between the solar heated surface of the Earth and the atmosphere above it, and (2) between different geographic regions (e.g. the tropics vs. high latitudes; the warm oceans versus cold continents in winter).

snip

We are probably about as significant an influence on our weather as the 'butterfly effect'.

 

[WCH]

We are probably about as significant an influence on our weather as the 'butterfly effect'.

IMO 1/1000 is significant but, is it worth wrecking the economy and stifling growth on someone's theory. We could cause more harm than good.

 

[mak2]

We should know pollution has no permanent effect or not do it.

We are probably about as significant an influence on our weather as the 'butterfly effect'.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

John Holdren, has recently stated, “Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change.”

The first time I read that I literally gasped. What a complete moron.

 

[Muhammed]

We should know pollution has no permanent effect or not do it.

And calling CO2 pollution is idiotic.

 

[mak2]

Is it? Are you sure mans production of CO2 and other pollutants does not in any way contibute to climate change that will effect the earth for generations to come? I mean really sure?

And calling CO2 pollution is idiotic.

 

[longview]

Is it? Are you sure mans production of CO2 and other pollutants does not in any way contibute to climate change that will effect the earth for generations to come? I mean really sure?

I think we can say with some level of confidence, that the increase in CO2 some of which is Anthropogenic,
could cause a slight rise in global temperatures.
Since we do not have a way to measure the energy imbalance, the actual response is guesswork,
with predictions ranging from less than 1 C to over 12 C for a doubling of CO2.
Empirical evidence from the increase of CO2 and Temperatures over the last 133 years,
Suggests a response of 1.6 C for doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
FYI, we Humans are likely incapable of completing the remaining 58% of the
first doubling of CO2, as we have likely passed peak oil in terms of cost of extraction.
Long before Organic oil hits say $200 a barrel, it will be cheaper to make our own hydrocarbon fuels
from water and atmospheric CO2.
Audi has already started the first plant to do this.
Green Car Congress: Audi opens power-to-gas facility in Werlte/Emsland; e-gas from water, green electricity and CO2
There is also the question weather a slightly warmer planet is better or worse?

 

[Rainman05]

Why don't you people learn the difference between WEATHER and CLIMATE CHANGE.

Here's a kids video for you all.

 

[Threegoofs]

How much weather is being caused by climate change? Maybe 1 part in 1,000. « Roy Spencer, PhD

In another silly pseudo-science rambling, the President’s science advisor, John Holdren, has recent

For perspective here, the guy who wrote the article, Spencer, is a creationist nut who thinks Jesus will not allow the climate to change.
Cornwall Alliance :: Articles :: Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

John Holdren is a science advisor to the White House. Usually they are not known for pseudo-science rambling. I'd love to see if anyone can find another example on a different topic of 'pseudo science' from a science advisor....

 

[trollarc]

We should know pollution has no permanent effect or not do it.

Breathing out causes could emissions. Farting is methane emissions. This post indicates you do neither. Thanks, fusion-ran Bender.

 

[WCH]

For perspective here, the guy who wrote the article, Spencer, is a creationist nut who thinks Jesus will not allow the climate to change.
Cornwall Alliance :: Articles :: Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming

John Holdren is a science advisor to the White House. Usually they are not known for pseudo-science rambling. I'd love to see if anyone can find another example on a different topic of 'pseudo science' from a science advisor....

Here's some more perspective for you:

Holdren is an warped SOB with bizarre visions of grandeur. This guy 'should' scare the hell out of anyone with any sense yet, he's employed by the White house.

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

And you guys wonder why we think Obama is evil.

 

[mak2]

I was just on another forum, a very very conservative one. A long thread aobut Obama being the anti-christ is very amusing. I thought it would be tounge in cheek, but it isnt, they are really arguing Obama is the antiChrist. One post pointed to another bit of evidence of his pure evilness...his socialist policies and his intent to tear down this country.

Here's some more perspective for you:

Holdren is an warped SOB with bizarre visions of grandeur. This guy 'should' scare the hell out of anyone with any sense yet, he's employed by the White house.

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

And you guys wonder why we think Obama is evil.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Breathing out causes could emissions. Farting is methane emissions. This post indicates you do neither. Thanks, fusion-ran Bender.

:lol: Okay. :roll:

Too bad breathing out (exhaling) mainly results in nitrogen and CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is utilized by plants to released oxygen (O[SUB]2[/SUB]) and vice versa.

 

[WCH]

I was just on another forum, a very very conservative one. A long thread about Obama being the anti-christ is very amusing. I thought it would be tongue in cheek, but it isn't, they are really arguing Obama is the antiChrist. One post pointed to another bit of evidence of his pure evilness...his socialist policies and his intent to tear down this country.

You've never heard such before?

 

[mak2]

Actually I have, but I kinda thought they were about half kidding, but not in this thread. Do you think Obama is the anti Christ and his so called socialist tendencies could be considered evidence?

You've never heard such before?

 

[WCH]

:lol: Okay. :roll:

Too bad breathing out (exhaling) mainly results in nitrogen and CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is utilized by plants to released oxygen (O[SUB]2[/SUB]) and vice versa.

We just need to plant many more trees that utilize the most CO2. Oh, but then we might have too much O2 and burn our lungs.

Screwing with Mother Nature could get dangerous.

 

[Threegoofs]

Here's some more perspective for you:

Holdren is an warped SOB with bizarre visions of grandeur. This guy 'should' scare the hell out of anyone with any sense yet, he's employed by the White house.

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

And you guys wonder why we think Obama is evil.

Actually, I wonder why you'd take a book review written by these nuts at face value.

I'm guessing you didn't read the (published in 1977!) book yourself. But you're happy to believe any BS that fits in with your warped perspective.

 

[WCH]

Actually I have, but I kinda thought they were about half kidding, but not in this thread. Do you think Obama is the anti Christ and his so called socialist tendencies could be considered evidence?

Obama's past is a bit an enigma with his Communist upbringing, the people who have helped him get to where he is and those who surround him now but, I don't think he's the anti-Christ. He definitely not helping this country with his policies.

If you don't mind, send me a PM letting me know what site you were reading?

 

[zgoldsmith23]

We just need to plant many more trees that utilize the most CO2. Oh, but then we might have too much O2 and burn our lungs.

Screwing with Mother Nature could get dangerous.

Does that not include adding more CO[SUB]2[/SUB]?

 

[WCH]

Actually, I wonder why you'd take a book review written by these nuts at face value.

I'm guessing you didn't read the (published in 1977!) book yourself. But you're happy to believe any BS that fits in with your warped perspective.

There are excerpts in the article from Holdrens book.

I gave you what you asked for....

 

[trollarc]

:lol: Okay. :roll:

Too bad breathing out (exhaling) mainly results in nitrogen and CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is utilized by plants to released oxygen (O[SUB]2[/SUB]) and vice versa.

You didn't make his statement. .
Please cite the study proving your conclusion.
I can tell there is no study- Humans don't generate nitrogen, we recirculate it from the air, the bloodstream is constantly balancing with the atmosphere.
My point is be careful with jumping to the extreme of we should know everything before we do anything. That isn't how people work, nor should it be. The pursuit of knowledge is the transformation of the unknown to the known.

 

[WCH]

Does that not include adding more CO[SUB]2[/SUB]?

That's the way it works but, if I'm not mistaken, there are only so much of any of those elements available on this planet.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

You didn't make his statement. .
Please cite the study proving your conclusion.
I can tell there is no study- Humans don't generate nitrogen, we recirculate it from the air, the bloodstream is constantly balancing with the atmosphere.
My point is be careful with jumping to the extreme of we should know everything before we do anything. That isn't how people work, nor should it be. The pursuit of knowledge is the transformation of the unknown to the known.

My experiment? Inhale. Now exhale. Tada. Did I say humans generated nitrogen? Nope. I said exhalation results in this nitrogen, not that it is created in the body.

While I agree we don't need to know it all, it helps to be informed on the matter before jumping to conclusions and not just selecting a piece that supports your side.

That's the way it works but, if I'm not mistaken, there are only so much of any of those elements available on this planet.

To an extent. Things such as meteors, etc. enter Earth and add matter to Earth.

 

[Threegoofs]

There are excerpts in the article from Holdrens book.

I gave you what you asked for....

Maybe you're confused on the meaning of 'could". Because the title says the only solution is forced abortions, and the bullet point says abortions "could" be necessary. And I bet the actual content of the book qualifies that a bit more. But no matter. It wouldnt fit your narrative.