Global Warming - Page 57

Professor Peabody · #**561** (**permalink**) 04-30-2008, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

(4) S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

Global warming theories are exactly that theories based on flawed computer models. If a computer model is to be believed that it can with some degree of certainty, predict the climate of the future, shouldn't it them be able to accurately run backwards predicting what we already know has happened. None have been able to.

Quote:

“The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %),”

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...-27197,00.html

It occurs to me why we are getting the bums rush with very incomplete science. The Global alarmists were trying to create a new commodities market based on selling thin air. The vehement proponents, no doubt felt they were getting in on the ground floor of Global Market where their small investments would net them trillions of dollars utilizing the natural warming and cooling cycles of the Earth as an engine of profit. The Sun's radiance increases and decreases in cycles, warming and cooling the earth. Unfortunately, for them, it all hinged on getting the world wide mechanism in place before the Sun's radiance spike subsided and allowed the Earth to cool a bit. Had they accomplished this in 1998 with Kyoto, no doubt they would be triumphantly proclaiming victory at the latest cooling trend and using that to further their thin air market. They underestimated the power of their own greed and never anticipated the fractured failing structure of what they set up due to everyone involved fighting to position themselves for the most monetary advantage. How sad.

PatriotNews · #**562** (**permalink**) 04-30-2008, 06:58 PM

Quote:

In Part I of the Dual Critique1 of the Stern Review, hereafter C2006, we
disputed its presumption that the “Earth’s climate is rapidly changing,
mainly as a result of increases in greenhouse gases caused by human activities”.
2 We pointed to the excessive reliance on computer models in preference
to observations. We questioned why what is presented as the
greatest problem facing humankind was in part based upon science for
which data disclosure has not been made, and pointed to the inadequacy
of the peer review process in guaranteeing the quality and reproducibility
of scientific contributions.
Our critics seem unable to shake themselves free of a fierce conviction,
aptly expressed by Heller (p. 107),3 that climate change is “… for real, …
anthropogenic in nature, and that lingering uncertainties on the likely
magnitude of changes over the next century have been sharply reduced”.

That human-caused climate change is real has never been in question; the
point at issue is whether the global signal of human-caused change can be
measured, and, if so, whether the resulting effect is likely to be dangerous.
After the expenditure of many tens of billions of dollars on cognate
research, the answer to these questions is that the global human signal
cannot be isolated from the variation of the natural climate system itself,
and that—speculative computer modelling aside—no good reason exists
to presume that the human impact is dangerous.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/W...20Critique.pdf

akc814ilv · #**563** (**permalink**) 04-30-2008, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotNews

No, it isn't...The globe has not exceeded the temperatures set 10 years ago, in spite of all the hyped up doom and gloom climate change models of the "global warming crowd", who apparently are changing their names to the "crazy climate change crowd", now that it is obvious the globe is not warming.

From: Anthropogenic Global Warming Hoax Heats Up

By Tim Wood
04 Apr 2008 at 02:42 PM GMT-04:00
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=41685

I have seen a TON of articles that contradict what you are saying here.

Im NOT calling you a liar by any means, I believe the study you have posted is incorrect because I have seen so many others that say otherwise.

TheChief · #**564** (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MannieD

I don't understand what point or how. I'm not sure if I didn't get my point across correctly or you misunderstood what I posted. Could you elaborate?

He means 98% arn't on my side OR yours..

TheChief · #**565** (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 01:40 AM

Quote:

DANILIN, Mikhail
The Boeing Company

Boeing is involved in satellite measurements, an important part of climate research.

Is Mikhail Danilin a scientist or not?

Quote:

Thomasson Partner Associates and Haroon Kheshgi are actually AGW skeptics. So much for the deniers claims that the IPCC report is biased.

Oww but it is!

Quote:

Lesley Gray is a meteorologist at the University of Reading.

Ok he's valid.

Quote:

HUGHES, Dan
Hughes and Associates are involved with computer modelling.

Is he a scientist?

Quote:

PROFETA, Timothy H.
I'll agree Profetta is a not a scientist.

(*)(*)(*)(*) right he ain't

Out of the 6 names you've checked for me 1 was a scientist and 2 were you claimed were but gave no information about the person only the company they worked in. And one you didn't account for. Which makes you wonder were these people fit into the 'worlds top 2000 scientists' well by the IPCC's standard:

Quote:

The comprehensiveness of the scientific content is achieved through contributions from experts in all regions of the world and all relevant disciplines including, where appropriately documented, industry, literature and traditional practices, and a two stage review process by experts and governments.

Interesting it would seem every tom, dick and harry can be a worlds top scientist by that definition!

Though this list was biased even the whole list can't be compared or used as a number ageeing with AGW because it isn't it's only a number which contributed not agreed. As you so kindly showed for me there are skeptics in the number which puts into serious doubt the idea that humans are very likely (90%) to be responsible for climate change. (I'd also doubt it simple because of the backlash it's recieved. It's like the scientific community almost choked when this went down..)

Quote:

Originally Posted by akc814ilv

You guys are missing the point with the rising temperatures.

YES it naturally goes up and down. That is true and you guys are 100% correct with that.

But look at the science that so many here have posted. It is going up UNNATURALLY high and just over the last decade or so.

It is not 'UNNATURALLY' high it is perfectly normal for a warm spell. If anything it's a tad cooler!

Makedde · #**566** (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 01:45 AM

I'm just going to wade into this debate and say that I believe there is such a thing as global warming.

Having said that, I have not started conserving energy, and nor wil I do so until I am forced to.

akc814ilv · #**567** (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde

I'm just going to wade into this debate and say that I believe there is such a thing as global warming.

Having said that, I have not started conserving energy, and nor wil I do so until I am forced to.

I try but honestly im not great at it either...

I quit smoking 3 weeks ago, does that count?? lol.

Makedde · #**568** (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akc814ilv

I try but honestly im not great at it either...

I quit smoking 3 weeks ago, does that count?? lol.

To be honest, I can be bothered conserving energy. I know many people go to great lengths to conserve, and that seems a little extreme to me.

As much I believe there is such a thing as global warming, I have to wonder - if it were so serious, the Government should be stepping in and demanding we all conserve. Unless the Government are ignorant and skeptical, of course...

C-D-P · #**569** (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheChief

It is not 'UNNATURALLY' high it is perfectly normal for a warm spell. If anything it's a tad cooler!

May first, 2008.

Jacksonville North Carolina.

45 degrees F.

It snowed in Iowa last week.

Did I mention that it is May?

Professor Peabody · #**570** (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 05:23 AM

Quote:

The spike in measured "global temperature" coincides with the shutdown of a significant portion of the world's measuring stations following the collapse of the Soviet Union, many of them cold-weather stations.

http://www.abd.org.uk/climate_change...climate_models

In the early 1970's there were approximately 15,000 temperature monitoring stations, as of the year 2000 the number was closer to 5500. How can accurate measurements be taken like that. Any wonder why Global Warming is considered it's junk science?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode