|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jun 13, 2008 17:59:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jun 13, 2008 23:18:04 GMT -5
The title of the thread needs no real explanation. Spot on.
Now more people around the world need to wake up and smell the coffee.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jun 15, 2008 0:00:20 GMT -5
Wow... the crickets are certainly chirping in this thread. Where is Sauntrelle and the other AGW proponents? As I posted a while back in a thread on the myth of "sustainability" the loops on both sides of the aisle who have swallowed the AGW hogwash don't like it when they get called so clearly on their applesauce. The Coleman remarks spurred Danny Huddleston over at American Thinker to write a piece around the remarks. You can read the column here.And for more light reading at American Thinker (a great site that I recommend bookmarking) there is an article by former weatherdude Brian Sussman published on June 6 that is well worth the time spent. Global Whining vs. The Truth. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jun 16, 2008 15:22:30 GMT -5
thsnks fo the links, Big Dog. Good reads there. I have not seen Saunterelle in a few days. Might be away on vacation, might have just thrown in the towel when we bringing in facts to fight emotion - kind of like bringing a gun to a knife fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 17, 2008 14:14:07 GMT -5
Just returned from a relaxing vacation.
This goes back to our old argument over whether man's actions are contributing to climate change. The author of this article tries to use people's frustration with high gas prices to convert them to his side of the issue. However, I choose to side with the majority of scientists who have proven that man's releasing of CO2 does have a major impact.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 17, 2008 14:58:11 GMT -5
Well, if you consider a 0.28% effect caused by humans to be a major impact, then yes, you would be right saunterelle. But, the reality is, 0.28% is not significant, and is the portion caused by the release of carbon dioxide and other gases by man. Man made and natural carbon dioxide increases account for 99.44% of green house gases, only if you ignore water vapor. Anthropogenic CO2 additions account for 3.207% of all green house gases, if you ignore water vapor. Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases account for 3.298% of green house gases if you ignore water vapor. For the green house effect of the gases alone, ignoring water vapor of course, the numbers are a bit different. Man made and natural carbon dioxide increases account for 72.37% of green house effect, only if you ignore water vapor. Anthropogenic CO2 additions account for 2.33% of all green house effect, if you ignore water vapor. Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases account for 5.53% of green house effect if you ignore water vapor. Relative to carbon dioxide the other greenhouse gases together comprise about 27.63% of the greenhouse effect but only about 0.56% of total greenhouse gas concentrations, if you ignore water vapor. Put another way, as a group methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), and CFC's and other miscellaneous gases are about 50 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gases. Now, lets account for the largest portion of green house gases, water vapor. Water vapor accounts for 95% of the effect caused by all green house gases, of which, only 0.001% is man made. When you include water vapor, as you should, then carbon dioxide only accounts for 3.618% of the effect caused by green house gases, 97% of this CO2 is natural and only 3% man made. That means natural CO2 account for 3.502% of the effect caused by green house gases, and man made CO2 account for a paltry 0.117% of the effect caused by green house gases. When you add up the man made portions of the other gases, only 0.28% of the effect caused by green house gases can be attributed to man. Even if you eliminated that 0.28% entirely, it would have no appreciable effect on the outcome of global warming. Now, this is not to say that I do not favor reducing pollutants into our ecosystem. But, it does say that I am tired of the hysteria approach to our problems. Besides, a warmer planet is not a bad thing. A colder one though would be devistating. A new ice age would be the worst. Anyway, you should read more and rely on hysteria less. In every case where hysteria and questionable science went hand in hand, the predicated outcomes were entirely wrong. Everything from the coal crisis in Europe, to the Great Lakes pollution and the hole in the ozone layer. The Science |
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on Jun 17, 2008 18:02:21 GMT -5
I choose to side with the majority of scientists who have proven that man's releasing of CO2 does have a major impact. Has it been PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY or just computer models? And is this SERIOUSLY THE MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS alive on planet earth right now you agree with? And where do you get your figures to back this up? That YOU and the MAJORITY of scientists alive on earth agree, that "it's all mans fault"... Seems a bit goofy to claim, you KNOW what the MAJORITY of Scientists alive on earth right now feel about global warming. In fact I GUARANTEE you there are more SCIENTISTS alive on earth right now who have VOICED NO OPINION EITHER WAY..on this matter than your so-called majority. So in ACTUALITY the MAJORITY of scientists haven't commented..they gave a "Present" vote kinda like your guy B.Hussein...........LOLOLOL |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jun 17, 2008 19:25:11 GMT -5
Hey! Welcome back, Saunterelle! Start a new thread and tell us about you vacation.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jun 17, 2008 19:26:38 GMT -5
Just returned from a relaxing vacation. This goes back to our old argument over whether man's actions are contributing to climate change. The author of this article tries to use people's frustration with high gas prices to convert them to his side of the issue. However, I choose to side with the majority of scientists who have proven that man's releasing of CO2 does have a major impact. Welcome back from your vacation. Using the rhetorical springboard of gas prices, which are driven in no small measure by the amount of taxes that government is larding on to each drop, is fallacious how? The fact still remains that both articles, and I trust you read them both, point out some of the massive holes in the "science" that you continue to claim proves your point. That "science" is computer modelling based on assumptions and with generous helping of hysteria spooned in. Anecdotally... have you noticed that the past couple summers around here have been cooler than usual with less prolonged hot spells? And that the air is significantly cleaner day over day (when there aren't wildland fires burning anyway) that the same days were 20 and 30 years ago? Yet we still are expected to believe that calamity is imminent because Al Gore, who is getting fabulously wealthy in the carbon credit offset business / scam, tells us so. How about some real science Sauntrelle and not hysteria. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 17, 2008 23:13:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 18, 2008 14:04:22 GMT -5
It is awful quite in here. I guess the impact of 31,000 scientists can not be denied.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 18, 2008 15:04:12 GMT -5
cricket.....cricket........
|
|
