White House Global Warming Authority - A Novelist?

[jfuh]

As far as the global warming scam goes, there's precious little evidence on it, so why not? I mean, even if the global mean temperature was increasing, it's not like we're at the optimal temperature today, anyway. And, also, it's not like global climate has ever been static, either, so what's the dif? We'd have a LOT more to worry about if the temps were going down, right?

Global warming scam? This is the expert opinion of an engineer that is well grounded in the sciences?
How's that foot taste liar.

 

[jfuh]

I go to your source, and the FIRST GRAPH I see undermines the argument for global warming.

If global warming is caused by human factors, why the drastic drop between 1950 and 1970? Did people suddenly stop creating carbon dioxide for 20 years? Or is it infinitely more likely that its all part of a much larger global weather pattern which we can neither predict nor affect?

One very simple answer. A little known global phenomenon known as global dimming.
The sout and particulates emmited from the burning of dirty fuels results in small particulates that agrigate and block out sunlight. Thus actually causing a cooling effect that ironically cancels out global warming from CO2.
However since passage of the clean air act and various other clean air bills that took care mostly of the particulate problem.
Thus we're right back to global warming in full swing.

 

[Kelzie]

Actually, no it does not. Correlation does not equal causation. There is absolutely NO proof that the change in CO2 is the CAUSE of the temperature change. Every time the stock market goes down, I curse and swear. When it goes up, I laugh and giggle. If we charted the two out, they would look similar. Does that mean that the stock market is based on my propensity to laugh or swear? No. You have to actually prove that. Which no one has. Because there's no evidence that it does.

Carbon dioxide is without doubt the most well known greenhouse gas. It also the greenhouse gas man contributes to most, primarily through burning fossil fuels. Since the industrial revolution concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere have increased at an ever faster rate.

http://www.ghgonline.org/aboutcarbondioxide.htm

Increasingly scientists are becoming concerned that emissions of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity are causing the global temperature to rise. Rising global temperatures will cause the global climate to change. The main greenhouse gases that are causing the temperature rise are: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and a group of chlorine and flourine containing gases such as halo carbons (HFC’s) perfluorocarbons (PFC’s) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).

http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/climate.html

What Are Greenhouse Gases?
Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities. Naturally occuring greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Certain human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases:

Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere when solid waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), and wood and wood products are burned.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/Emissions.html

Energy from the sun heats the earth's surface and atmosphere, which drives the earth's weather and climate. The earth's surface radiates some of this solar energy back into space. Certain atmospheric gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and others) are called greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they help trap some of the outgoing energy, retaining heat somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse.

http://www.rggi.org/

Greenhouse Gases
Carbon Dioxide
On a worldwide basis, the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are known to be small. In comparison with the gross fluxes of carbon from natural systems they represent only a fraction (~2%) of total global emissions, but they are perceived to account for most of the observed accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere. On the basis of available emissions information, the primary anthropogenic sources of CO2 are fossil-fuel combustion (including both stationary and mobile sources), deforestation (resulting in permanent land use change), and industrial processes such as cement production.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/about/gases_e.cfm

 

[danarhea]

http://www.ghgonline.org/aboutcarbondioxide.htm



http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/climate.html



http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/Emissions.html



http://www.rggi.org/



http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/about/gases_e.cfm

Whoa.... I think you are overloading the naysayers with data. I dont think they will be able to assimilate it all without blowing a fuse.

 

[jfuh]

Huh? Some of those graphs go through 1980, some go through the 90's. No acceleration. If you've got it, prove it. And then explain why those other graphs show no acceleration. Come on, this shouldn't be so hard for something that is SO OBVIOUS like you claimed.

You're right, it is very easy to proove
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3569604.stm
Notice the sharp increas in global temp since the industrial revolution.

 

[RightinNYC]

Okay NYU. You've evidently decided to believe some crackpot being funded by oil companies with absolutely no credentials on this subject. That's fine. I'm going to leave you with some real expert's opinions
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
That would be our government. Unless they're in on it too?

You're making an absolutely untenable argument here kelzie. You're taking individual facts and somehow claiming that they prove a higher truth, which they don't.

Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.

Not denying this at all.

It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.

Nor this.

A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.

Nor this (except for the fact that as I showed before, some glaciers are GROWING, not melting).

Here's the problem. While A, B, and C may be true, there is absolutely no evidence that C is true BECAUSE of B. What's actually far more likely, and actually has LONG TERM scientific data to back it up is that C has been happening in a cyclical fashion since the beginning of time, and there is absolutely no evidence that B has a significant enough effect on C to change that. Until that can be proven, "global warming" is absolutely a theory, and one without scientific data to back it up at that.

And, for the fourth time that I've asked this question, if you're going to claim that increasing CO2 directly causes an increase in temperature, then how do you explain the 20 year DOWNTURN in temperature from 1950-70? How do you explain the temperature charts which show an uptick that has lasted for the past 500 years? And how do you explain your own chart which showed that our average temperature hasn't increased in correlation with CO2 over the past 10,000 years? Because all of those graphs came from the government too. So, unless you have an explanation for why they all show something different, then I can only assume that neither you nor I have the authority to claim that we know what is happening.

 

[RightinNYC]

One very simple answer. A little known global phenomenon known as global dimming.
The sout and particulates emmited from the burning of dirty fuels results in small particulates that agrigate and block out sunlight. Thus actually causing a cooling effect that ironically cancels out global warming from CO2.
However since passage of the clean air act and various other clean air bills that took care mostly of the particulate problem.
Thus we're right back to global warming in full swing.

One problem: The phenomenon of global dimming was increasing from 1960-1990, and only after 90 did it begin it's downswing. But the temperature in that chart started decreasing in 1950, ten years before global dimming started, and started increasing again in 70, 20 years before it ended. So that sort of discounts the whole theory that global dimming was the cause for the downswing,. And don't try to tell me that you're going to try to argue that the 5 year uptick from 95-2000 is enough evidence to claim global warming.

 

[RightinNYC]

Carbon dioxide is without doubt the most well known greenhouse gas. It also the greenhouse gas man contributes to most, primarily through burning fossil fuels. Since the industrial revolution concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere have increased at an ever faster rate.

http://www.ghgonline.org/aboutcarbondioxide.htm

Not disagreeing. Doesn't prove anything.

Quote:
Increasingly scientists are becoming concerned that emissions of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity are causing the global temperature to rise. Rising global temperatures will cause the global climate to change. The main greenhouse gases that are causing the temperature rise are: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and a group of chlorine and flourine containing gases such as halo carbons (HFC’s) perfluorocarbons (PFC’s) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).

http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/climate.html

The organization that comes from is sponsored, bought, and paid for by oil, coal, and gas companies. According to your earlier logic, that makes them all crackpots, right?:lol:

Quote:
What Are Greenhouse Gases?
Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities. Naturally occuring greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Certain human activities, however, add to the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases:

Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere when solid waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), and wood and wood products are burned.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwa...Emissions.html

Not disagreeing. Doesn't prove anything, or make an argument.

Quote:
Energy from the sun heats the earth's surface and atmosphere, which drives the earth's weather and climate. The earth's surface radiates some of this solar energy back into space. Certain atmospheric gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and others) are called greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they help trap some of the outgoing energy, retaining heat somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse.

http://www.rggi.org/

Not disagreeing. There's the question of scope, that pesky little thing.

Quote:
Greenhouse Gases
Carbon Dioxide
On a worldwide basis, the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are known to be small. In comparison with the gross fluxes of carbon from natural systems they represent only a fraction (~2%) of total global emissions, but they are perceived to account for most of the observed accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere. On the basis of available emissions information, the primary anthropogenic sources of CO2 are fossil-fuel combustion (including both stationary and mobile sources), deforestation (resulting in permanent land use change), and industrial processes such as cement production.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/about/gases_e.cfm

And for the third time, not disagreeing, but it doesnt prove anything or make an argument.

I've seen quote after quote talking about the theory behind global warming, and how CO2 has increased. What I've seen NONE of is:

1) Actual empirical evidence of it.
2) Figures that show how much of an effect the increased CO2 has had.

I'd really love either one.

I've provided chart after chart after chart that has torn holes in the entire argument for man-made global warming, and have yet to see an explanation.

 

[RightinNYC]

You're right, it is very easy to proove
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3569604.stm
Notice the sharp increas in global temp since the industrial revolution.

You mean that same terrible "hockey stick" claim that was refuted by numerous scientists 7 months later?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4349133.stm:roll:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Global warming scam? This is the expert opinion of an engineer that is well grounded in the sciences?
How's that foot taste liar.

When the scam of global warming, whose advocates demand the imposition of fascist controls on all industry, business, and lifestyle, follows immediately on the heels of the scam of global cooling whose advocates demanded the imposition of fascist controls on all industry, business, and lifestyle, and when both scams are promoted by the SAME people, the word scam is the safest one to use.

A major key in knowing that it's a scam?

No one's answered this simple question:

Why is it assumed that today's climate is at the optimal temperature?

Oh, wait. You couldn't answer the question, so you skipped right to the ad homilies, since you're so clearly most holier than I am.

How about proving your skill, and answer the question? You clearly won't win on the verbal sparring front, but if you actually try to stick to the topic for once perhaps you could retire from the field with honor.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Clearly we need to do something about all this carbon dioxide in the air.

Trees turn CO2 into wood, so we should try to make sure we have as much wood as possible on hand.

We should cut down all the forests, build houses to store the wood, and plant new forests to grow more wood to take even more CO2 out of the air.

Or, we could turn the wood into paper and print tons of documents on how evil global warming is. Oh, wait. The global warming conference did that down in Brazil in the 90's, didn't they?

How about if we bottled billions of gallons of beer, then didn't drink it? It's a pretty safe bet if we hire an American brewery to do it...

 

[jfuh]

You mean that same terrible "hockey stick" claim that was refuted by numerous scientists 7 months later?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4349133.stm

I don't see how any evidence has been brought up to "refute" the data posted by the hockey stick. I point you back to the original article that was posted. Regardless of however many new variables are introduced into the model it will not alter the graph by that much.
Why is it that you will deny the contribution of green house gases from your tailpipe?

 

[jfuh]

When the scam of global warming, whose advocates demand the imposition of fascist controls on all industry, business, and lifestyle, follows immediately on the heels of the scam of global cooling whose advocates demanded the imposition of fascist controls on all industry, business, and lifestyle, and when both scams are promoted by the SAME people, the word scam is the safest one to use.

A major key in knowing that it's a scam?

No one's answered this simple question:

Why is it assumed that today's climate is at the optimal temperature?

Oh, wait. You couldn't answer the question, so you skipped right to the ad homilies, since you're so clearly most holier than I am.

How about proving your skill, and answer the question? You clearly won't win on the verbal sparring front, but if you actually try to stick to the topic for once perhaps you could retire from the field with honor.

Answer the question? Here's your answer. There is no such assumption of current temperatures being "optimal", that's only something your claiming.
With the answer you're giving now you're merely scape goating the issue.
Nice spin though.
Now not only are you claiming that global warming is a scam, you are also claming global cooling to be a scam. Why not just admit you're a liar to being something you are not. You're clearly not grounded in any science, except maybe a few popular science magazines.

 

[bnr65432]

The sad part here is that Scientests tell us that the few degree raise in temperature in the Gulf Coast will continue to cause bigger and stronger hurricaines.

If the neo-cons weren't so anti-science, maybe they would have fixed the levees instead of diverting funds to Iraq.

So many of the people that are against global warming are in the pockets of the big oil companies. I did a lengthy exchange with another anti-science neo-con in another forum. It was very enlightening. The conflict of interest is so easy to see from these nay-sayers, it's surprising that anyone buys it.

But then again, I guess it doesn't surprise me in this day and age.

Just to add to the idea here is a link to a NOVA science now segment that aired in Jan 2005 Seven months before Katrina predicting and showing how bad a Hurricane would be if it hit New Orleans

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3204/02.html

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Answer the question? Here's your answer. There is no such assumption of current temperatures being "optimal", that's only something your claiming.
With the answer you're giving now you're merely scape goating the issue.
Nice spin though.
Now not only are you claiming that global warming is a scam, you are also claming global cooling to be a scam. Why not just admit you're a liar to being something you are not. You're clearly not grounded in any science, except maybe a few popular science magazines.

Your assumption of the optimal nature of the present climate is implicit in your panic over deviations from current conditions.

So, your dodge didn't work. Explain why we should be concerned about minor variations in climate.

 

[jfuh]

Your assumption of the optimal nature of the present climate is implicit in your panic over deviations from current conditions.

So, your dodge didn't work. Explain why we should be concerned about minor variations in climate.

:spin: :spin: :spin:
That is not my assumption. So now you are again lying.
My stance is that present conditions has already deviated from natural cycles. The panic is on the outcome of this un-equilibrated excess of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The concern is not over minor local variations, but over major global variations.

 

[Kelzie]

Here's the problem. While A, B, and C may be true, there is absolutely no evidence that C is true BECAUSE of B. What's actually far more likely, and actually has LONG TERM scientific data to back it up is that C has been happening in a cyclical fashion since the beginning of time, and there is absolutely no evidence that B has a significant enough effect on C to change that. Until that can be proven, "global warming" is absolutely a theory, and one without scientific data to back it up at that.

And, for the fourth time that I've asked this question, if you're going to claim that increasing CO2 directly causes an increase in temperature, then how do you explain the 20 year DOWNTURN in temperature from 1950-70? How do you explain the temperature charts which show an uptick that has lasted for the past 500 years? And how do you explain your own chart which showed that our average temperature hasn't increased in correlation with CO2 over the past 10,000 years? Because all of those graphs came from the government too. So, unless you have an explanation for why they all show something different, then I can only assume that neither you nor I have the authority to claim that we know what is happening.

It would appear you believe that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. Would that be correct?

So then your problem appears that you do not believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Correct?

And the fluxuations between 1950-70 are very easy to explain. They're fluxuations. The average global temperature does it all the time. Unfortunately, the temperature does not neatly increase every year because there are constant variables playing out. This graph shows what I'm talking about.

If you'll notice, there are both positive and negative deviations from the mid 1940s to the mid 1970s. These deviation differences are due to natural cycles in the atmosphere. If you'll notice, there have been large deviations in both the positive and negative side. That's just how the atmosphere works. We're not talking about ten degrees though. It's a .2 degree difference. However the AVERAGE trend has been an increase in global temperature. It is absolutely not deniable. Not a single credible source exists that says otherwise.

Who has the authority? I use to bitch about the number of science classes CU required. Now I'm beginning to think NYU needs to require a little more.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

:spin: :spin: :spin:
That is not my assumption. So now you are again lying.
My stance is that present conditions has already deviated from natural cycles. The panic is on the outcome of this un-equilibrated excess of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The concern is not over minor local variations, but over major global variations.

So, okay...:roll:, explain why deviation from the earlier trend has you filling your panties with a bacteria and fiber mixture.

All you've done on this post is concede that yes, you're agreeing with me that the issue is that departure from today's norm is causing some people to get excited. But you're not willing to explain why you're excited.

Why are you not willing to explain why you're excited about this?

Your claims of victory are coming from a turtle that got run over by a mack truck and which is now getting knocked about the highway. Come out of your shell and see if you can figure out how to cross the road before you do the end zone dance.

 

[jfuh]

It would appear you believe that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. Would that be correct?

So then your problem appears that you do not believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Correct?

And the fluxuations between 1950-70 are very easy to explain. They're fluxuations. The average global temperature does it all the time. Unfortunately, the temperature does not neatly increase every year because there are constant variables playing out. This graph shows what I'm talking about.

If you'll notice, there are both positive and negative deviations from the mid 1940s to the mid 1970s. These deviation differences are due to natural cycles in the atmosphere. If you'll notice, there have been large deviations in both the positive and negative side. That's just how the atmosphere works. We're not talking about ten degrees though. It's a .2 degree difference. However the AVERAGE trend has been an increase in global temperature. It is absolutely not deniable. Not a single credible source exists that says otherwise.

Who has the authority? I use to bitch about the number of science classes CU required. Now I'm beginning to think NYU needs to require a little more.

Actually your graph takes into account of the phenomena known as global dimming. Clean air act that took our soot and other particulates from the atmosphere since the clean air Act in the 70's as well as various other clean air initiatives done throughout the 80's and 90's cleared up the atmosphere of reflective particulates. More radiation reaches the ground and the actual temperature increases as a result of excess carbon dioxide are actually showing. So now we are expereincing the true effect of global warming and seeing the accelerated global temperature rise.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

It would appear you believe that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. Would that be correct?

So then your problem appears that you do not believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Correct?

And the fluxuations between 1950-70 are very easy to explain. They're fluxuations. The average global temperature does it all the time. Unfortunately, the temperature does not neatly increase every year because there are constant variables playing out. This graph shows what I'm talking about.

If you'll notice, there are both positive and negative deviations from the mid 1940s to the mid 1970s. These deviation differences are due to natural cycles in the atmosphere. If you'll notice, there have been large deviations in both the positive and negative side. That's just how the atmosphere works. We're not talking about ten degrees though. It's a .2 degree difference. However the AVERAGE trend has been an increase in global temperature. It is absolutely not deniable. Not a single credible source exists that says otherwise.

Who has the authority? I use to bitch about the number of science classes CU required. Now I'm beginning to think NYU needs to require a little more.

Do you think people living in the depths of the Little Ice Age would get worried if they saw a warming climate trend? Would they be demanding that their current climate was the optimal and that everything humanly possible must be done to prevent warming?

Considering that the Mid-Holocene Altithermal climate was 8 degrees warmer than today, why is everyone so upset over today's little surges? That era lasted for something like a thousand years.

 

[jfuh]

So, okay...:roll:, explain why deviation from the earlier trend has you filling your panties with a bacteria and fiber mixture.

My panties?
Realizing how you just got caught with your pants down around your ankels about the lie of being scientifically oriented?

All you've done on this post is concede that yes, you're agreeing with me that the issue is that departure from today's norm is causing some people to get excited. But you're not willing to explain why you're excited.

:liar I've not conceeding with you on anything. Contrarily I've shown how you're spinning around the argument all together.

Why are you not willing to explain why you're excited about this?

I very much have, here let me bold out the part where this is answered for you.

That is not my assumption. So now you are again lying.
My stance is that present conditions has already deviated from natural cycles. The panic is on the outcome of this un-equilibrated excess of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The concern is not over minor local variations, but over major global variations.

Your claims of victory are coming from a turtle that got run over by a mack truck and which is now getting knocked about the highway. Come out of your shell and see if you can figure out how to cross the road before you do the end zone dance.

This personal attack matters how?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

My panties?
Realizing how you just got caught with your pants down around your ankels about the lie of being scientifically oriented?

:liar I've not conceeding with you on anything. Contrarily I've shown how you're spinning around the argument all together.


I very much have, here let me bold out the part where this is answered for you.



This personal attack matters how?

1) The question that's been before you has been why do you think excursions from today's mean bother you?

2) You've yet to answer that simple question.

3) You are not in a position to cry about ad hominem attacks.

Answer this question:

Are you ever going to actually answer the other question or are you getting an aerobic workout?

[Yeah, the bolded part doesn't answer anything, and attempts to redraw the question to frame an easier dodge. ATQ.]

 

[jfuh]

Do you think people living in the depths of the Little Ice Age would get worried if they saw a warming climate trend? Would they be demanding that their current climate was the optimal and that everything humanly possible must be done to prevent warming?

Considering that the Mid-Holocene Altithermal climate was 8 degrees warmer than today, why is everyone so upset over today's little surges? That era lasted for something like a thousand years.

Variance is back then, it was impossible for any human contribution to green house gases.
Where do you think all the greenhouse gases from your tail pipe goes? From the billions of cars and trucks go? Magically disappearing?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Variance is back then, it was impossible for any human contribution to green house gases.
Where do you think all the greenhouse gases from your tail pipe goes? From the billions of cars and trucks go? Magically disappearing?

You still haven't answered the question before you.

 

[RightinNYC]

I don't see how any evidence has been brought up to "refute" the data posted by the hockey stick. I point you back to the original article that was posted. Regardless of however many new variables are introduced into the model it will not alter the graph by that much.
Why is it that you will deny the contribution of green house gases from your tailpipe?

You're being obtuse. The evidence brought up clearly shows that the "hockey stick" is a figment of manipulated data. First, they left out a warming period and a mini ice age, which would make the stick look more like a sine graph. Second, the program they used was designed to portray things as hockey sticks. Third, the data itself is in question and not being released.

And stop throwing strawmen up, I'm not saying that we as humans don't contribute to greenhouse gases. I'm saying that there's no evidence that the impact is more than negligible.