More Proof : Lying About Anthropomorphic Global Warming

[AngryFish]

You can pretend to know, wait for a scientific consensus (oxymoron), use common sense and reliable data, listen to political demagogues, take offense to any dissent masking your own ignorance, but don't forget to think for yourself.

A report is also due out which supports a contention I have made based on factual documentation of temperatures on know dates over the last thirty years and the current data recorded as representative of those dates. The numbers have been changed. Quote me on that.

Citing anthropomorphic causes for global warming while ignoring the giant ball of fire in the sky stupidly attempts to ignore the pink elephant in the room.






http://www.wsbtv.com/download/2009/1027/21437584.pdf

[DragonLensmanWV]

I guess this is proof that global warming doesn't exist and the world is in fact, cooling.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...ntarctica.html

[AngryFish]

No, just a strong indication that the warming is not man made and temperature has been in the up and down pattern with solar activity for a long time.

[Borysko]

Angry Fish, please post links to the peer-reviewed journals your great wisdom has appeared in.

[Johns]

I guess this is proof that global warming doesn't exist and the world is in fact, cooling.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...ntarctica.html

Well, the last line in the article pretty much shoots down many of the global warming theories of the last decade.

...And we're going to put our country deeper in debt based on theories and guesstimates that are totaly unfounded 10 years later?

[rinselberg]

Well, the last line in the article pretty much shoots down many of the global warming theories of the last decade.

...And we're going to put our country deeper in debt based on theories and guesstimates that are totaly unfounded 10 years later?

I can't figure out what you mean by the "last line" in the article, or how anything in the article shoots down any theories. The theories are constantly being reanalyzed and adjusted up or down a degree, but "shooting down" global warming--I think that is misreading this NASA report. I think global warming as "what's coming next" is still flying pretty high.

I think the most significant statement in the article is at the very top where it says "Satellites confirm half-century of West Antarctic warming." I think this only tends to confirm the climate warming effects of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which are attributed to human activities around the globe.

[gemstone]

Funny how people think that humans can control the weather and other geological events.

[rinselberg]

Funny how people think that humans can control the weather and other geological events.

Aren't you overlooking the fact that there are almost seven billion humans at the present moment? It's not about humans controlling the local weather from minute to minute, but about human activities affecting the global climate over a period of many years. I don't think that is hard to envisage.

[AngryFish]

“I have a question to throw out into the waters and I imagine that the
question itself may give the audience a sense of my ignorance of
science in general as well as the matters specific to the question.
I have read, in several places, that no one has come up with very
specific details of the events to unfold and I am at a loss as to
why.

The known’s of the impact are the mass and velocity of the missile
and, what I assume (this could be my mistake), we know about the
moon’s surface as we have studied it for over forty years, walked
on it and sent numerous probes to scan its surface.
With this information should we not be able to
calculate to any greater degree of certainty the magnitude of
brightness and the altitude above the mean surface the plume reaches?
I have seen between 1 and 26 miles in altitude and various, less
certain, ideas about magnitude of brightness.”

This was a question, paraphrased, posed to a group of professional astronomers; some employed by NASA others by leading observatories in the US regarding the impact of a missile on the lunar surface a few weeks ago.

I was amazed to find that no one had an answer.

The same scientists who claim to understand what took place a few millionths of a second after the big bang, throughout the eons of evolutionary change, and up to this days understanding of physical science, and claims of anthropomorphic global warming could not calculate the results of a collection of known’s associated with the nearest celestial body to us.

[AngryFish]

Rinselberg “Aren't you overlooking the fact that there are almost seven billion humans at the present moment?”

Aren’t we overlooking the fact that the solar cycles of the sun play an important role and that the warming seen on earth is also seen in planets where there is no known anthropomorphic activity?

[AngryFish]

As for Borysko;
Great comment…when you don’t have an original thought of your own or is their a question in there somewhere?

[rinselberg]

Rinselberg “Aren't you overlooking the fact that there are almost seven billion humans at the present moment?”

Aren’t we overlooking the fact that the solar cycles of the sun play an important role and that the warming seen on earth is also seen in planets where there is no known anthropomorphic activity?

I accept that the cycles of the sun could cause global climate change, but I also believe that the best science available has effectively ruled out the likelihood that it's the sun that is causing the general warming trends that are being recorded here on earth over the last half century.

I have also read about some warming episodes that are observed on other planets or moons in the solar system, but based on what I have read on line, I do not think that what is happening on some other planets or moons is the same as what is happening here on earth.

I think all the evidence still points to rising carbon dioxide levels as the "culprit" here on earth, and that strongly suggests the anthropogenic or man-driven explanation that is favored by many, including many NASA scientists as well as the UN International Panel on Climate Change.

[rinselberg]

“I have a question to throw out into the waters and I imagine that the
question itself may give the audience a sense of my ignorance of
science in general as well as the matters specific to the question.
I have read, in several places, that no one has come up with very
specific details of the events to unfold and I am at a loss as to
why.

The known’s of the impact are the mass and velocity of the missile
and, what I assume (this could be my mistake), we know about the
moon’s surface as we have studied it for over forty years, walked
on it and sent numerous probes to scan its surface.
With this information should we not be able to
calculate to any greater degree of certainty the magnitude of
brightness and the altitude above the mean surface the plume reaches?
I have seen between 1 and 26 miles in altitude and various, less
certain, ideas about magnitude of brightness.”

This was a question, paraphrased, posed to a group of professional astronomers; some employed by NASA others by leading observatories in the US regarding the impact of a missile on the lunar surface a few weeks ago.

I was amazed to find that no one had an answer.

The same scientists who claim to understand what took place a few millionths of a second after the big bang, throughout the eons of evolutionary change, and up to this days understanding of physical science, and claims of anthropomorphic global warming could not calculate the results of a collection of known’s associated with the nearest celestial body to us.

If they already knew everything that is to be known about the moon, they wouldn't have sent that missile to hit it.

[AngryFish]

"I have also read about some warming episodes that are observed on other planets or moons in the solar system, but based on what I have read on line, I do not think that what is happening on some other planets or moons is the same as what is happening here on earth."

What do you see as the differing explanation?

[AngryFish]

The question to be answered, allegedly, was is their water in the permanent darkness of craters, not "What is the surface made of?"

[AngryFish]

Scientific debate aside;



Do you ever consider there may be a connection behind the global carbon tax and the need to establish a connection between man and warming? If No tax was talked about, considered, ever mentioned, let alone openly discussed and planned, I would be less objective and allow for this notion of “consensus.” The excuse of an anthropomorphic global warming to levy tax every human being because they exists is a frightening prospect to me. Not to mention the thought of limiting population. I would be very afraid of empowering any government with the mandate of population control.

[rinselberg]

"I have also read about some warming episodes that are observed on other planets or moons in the solar system, but based on what I have read on line, I do not think that what is happening on some other planets or moons is the same as what is happening here on earth."

What do you see as the differing explanation?

I think that wherever there is warming on another planet or a moon of another planet (as has been reported in some cases) there is some local explanation for it. For example, volcanic activity on a moon of Saturn. Or changes in local magnetic fields could be coming into play. As far as I know, no one has gone so far as to say that all the planets and moons in the solar system are observed to be in warming trends.

[AngryFish]

CO2 is good, not bad. We all benefit from more of it in the atmosphere, especially farmers and foresters. Why?
Plant growth stops at 200 PPM in the atmosphere.
Plant growth is optimized at 1000 PPM; commercial greenhouse owners invest good money in CO2 generators to raise greenhouse concentrations toward the optimum to increase the productivity of their fixed growing area.
In particular, increased levels of CO2 enable plant growth in drought conditions.
150 years ago CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was 285 PPM, now it's 385 PPM. It's like free airborne fertilizer in the atmosphere.
Increased levels of CO2 have significantly increased crop and forest yields over the last century. If environmentalists truly wanted a greener planet they would want more, not less, CO2 in the atmosphere.
Warmer temperatures are generally good, not bad. Most of us benefit from warmer temperatures, especially farmers and foresters. Why?
Warmer temperatures increase growing seasons and produce more consistently successful crops from year to year.
Warmer temperatures reduce heating fuel consumption in the winter. This is a very big deal today because world oil production peaked three years ago and will begin a permanent decline in two years. That is why the cost for all fuels is going through the roof. Fuel costs will only decline during economic down turns, like we are experiencing now.
Warmer temperatures two thousand years ago enabled the rise of the Roman Empire. The subsequent cooling period resulted in the fall of the Roman Empire and the social and economic decline into the Dark Ages. The next warm period one thousand year ago ushered in the Renaissance. Today's warm period enabled the rise of the United States. The Dalton (type) Minimum the sun is now entering will dramatically affect us all by virtue if it's impact on crop yields in the northern and southern hemispheres.
The cooling we are now experiencing, together with declining availability of carbon based fuels, will dramatically affect our lives and our economy. Taxing the use of carbon based fuels will make matters much worse. Taxing carbon is like leaning into a right hook. It's a quick way to end the fight.
Warming is caused principally by the sun, not by elevated levels of CO2.
Energy from the sun drives our climate, not CO2. Energy from the sun is modulated by the oceans and the atmosphere to produce our weather. Changes in climate are driven by long-term changes in the sun's radiative output and magnetic field strength. Google: Fairbridge Solar Inertial Motion (SIM) for a sense of how this works physically.
The principal green house gas is water vapor. It provides 95 percent of our greenhouse warming effect. Without it the earth would be a ball of ice. As a greenhouse gas, CO2 is a distance fourth behind methane and nitrous oxide, which produce most of the remaining 5 percent of greenhouse warming. CO2's concentration in the atmosphere is four one-hundredths of one percent (.04 %). That's roughly equivalent to the thickness of the floor wax on your community's high school basket ball gymnasium, compared to the distance from the floor to the ceiling. The quantity and warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is negligible.
The two trends described above have done more to "GREEN" the planet over the last several decades than anything humans have done to motivate that change. Both trends are now headed south, naturally. Solar activity is declining and will continue for the next few decades, cooling the earth about 2 degrees (C) in this quiescence period. The sun has just emerged from several decades of very high activity, which has warmed the earth by about one half degree(C). CO2 levels will naturally decline as carbon fuels production, particularly oil, begin their long decline. World oil production has been flat for three years. We are all going to meet our Kyoto targets whether we plan to or not. The environmentalists should be pleased. The rest of us won't.

Full Text and oposing views

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithab...global_war.php

[rinselberg]

Scientific debate aside;



Do you ever consider there may be a connection behind the global carbon tax and the need to establish a connection between man and warming? If No tax was talked about, considered, ever mentioned, let alone openly discussed and planned, I would be less objective and allow for this notion of “consensus.” The excuse of an anthropomorphic global warming to levy tax every human being because they exists is a frightening prospect to me. Not to mention the thought of limiting population. I would be very afraid of empowering any government with the mandate of population control.

That's a conspiracy theory and even though I cannot rule out 100 percent this conspiracy, I think the science behind anthropogenic global warming is robust enough that the scales of likelihood are weighing down more heavily on the side of science, and less on the side of conspiracy.

I wouldn't look to mandatory population control as a solution.

I don't know about carbon taxes or cap and trade schemes and that kind of thing: The economics of global climate change are just as hard or harder to unravel as the physical or science aspects.

[AngryFish]

While I agree that it is a conspiracy I don’t view it as unlikely.



I base this on contextual quotes from current and formal US and world leaders. I am not one see this as partisan, politically. But I do tend to believe people when they say they will act a certain way and then do.



But you are right, this is a different mess and just as hard to sort out.

[AngryFish]

I just ran across a site that talked about extra-solar reasons for local planet temp change. Apparently some theorize that planetary wobbles are the cause for ice age, non- ice age and transitional temp swings.

[For-Life]

I love how the opposition to global warming constantly changes.

First the major opposition group held that there was no global warming. Then it was just a thing to do with cycles. Then it exists but is not man made. Then it is caused by sun spots.

Which is it?

[AngryFish]

The groups you list still exist independent of one another.

[For-Life]

The groups you list still exist independent of one another.

I don't know. I have seen a lot of the same people evolve through that opinion in just the last several years.

[Johns]

I love how the opposition to global warming constantly changes.

First the major opposition group held that there was no global warming. Then it was just a thing to do with cycles. Then it exists but is not man made. Then it is caused by sun spots.

Which is it?

Oh, you mean like how the Global Warming Summits are now Global Climate Change Summits?

It's a shame how often Al Gore's Global Warming speeches have been canceled due to snow.:hammer: