Does CO2 really drive global warming?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by James Cessna, Feb 25, 2012.

  1. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'm afraid you've been misled on that one, Rapz. There are a number of very "viable" clean alternatives that are rapidly getting cheaper and cheaper. Some of them are already on a par with fossil fuel energy production and some will be much cheaper in the fairly near future. Solar, wind, and ocean energy are quite capable of providing all the energy the world needs. There may even be some brand new energy sources coming along soon. But looking at just what we can do right now, here's a scientifically sound plan to power the world on non-carbon emiting renewables.

    A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables
    Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. Here's how
    Scientific American

    By Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi
    October 26, 2009




    I applaud your good intentions but I do think you've been misled and misinformed on the issue of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes. Wanting to keep things clean is nice but it really helps to have an intelligent and informed understanding of something that is actually going on right now and that is posing a really great threat to our environment and our world, because only if you understand what is happening and why, can you respond appropriately. Don't be duped by the propaganda the fossil fuel industry has promoted in an attempt to prevent the necessary governmental actions, like restricting carbon emissions, that would curtail their profits.
     
  2. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Be a swell guy and get your source the citations required before posting it again.
     
  3. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ha-Ha!

    Very good. Subdermal!

    You get 5 stars for this one!

    [​IMG]

    Compare the length of the “manipulated" shadow cast by the chimney and the “true” length of the squirrel’s actual shadow!
     
  4. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Please elaborate.
     
  5. Rapunzel

    Rapunzel New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Messages:
    25,154
    Likes Received:
    1,107
    Trophy Points:
    0



    I take it then you are totally off fossil fuels then, correct???
     
  6. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The global "alarmists" may want to re-consider their hard-line positions on this issue, Tipper.

    Most of the liberals in this discussion group do not care if the scientific data from the discredited East Anglia University and the British Met Office are corrupted. Their only concern is that this science must support their misguided views of global warming. Please see the following excellent reference.(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html)

    Here is the latest data from NASA GISS.

    The NASA GISS global surface temperature charts clearly show the global surface temperature of the earth has NOT appreciably increased since 1997.

    Moreover, a global temperature of 0.51 deg-C in over 50 years (since 1960) is not evidence of "global warming". This slight increase in global surface temperature falls well with the "noise" level the earth has experienced over the last 200 years.

    Try as hard as they may, the global "alarmists" in this group cannot spin it any othey way.

    Here is the chart one more time for reference. The very high peak you see in 1897-1998 is actually due to an unseasonably high El Nino warming condition off the coast of South America.

    [​IMG]

    NASA GISS Global Surface Temperature Data​
    ... The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, when the GISS global temperature record begins. By 1960, the average concentration had risen to about 315 parts per million. Today it exceeds 390 parts per million and continues to rise at an accelerating pace. However, there has been no discernible temperature increase in average annual mean global surface temperatures since 1997.
     
  7. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ha-Ha!

    These far-left Liberals would scream to high heaven if they had to give up their fossil fuels! ... Albert Gore would have to give up his private jet.

    We can't have that!

    [​IMG]
     
  8. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are correct, Rapunzel.

    By the way, these discussions were very good.

    These are scientifc facts. The global "alarmists" in our group cannot refute them.

    Anthropogenic global warming is indeed a contrived farce. What little warming we have seen since 1960 (0.51 deg-C) is due entirely to natural causes.

     
  9. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Awesome. Please provide the complete record of the ACTUAL LAB TEST(s) PROVING the thermodynamic effects of .000382 atmospheric CO2 , peformed using ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD, utilizing a CONTROL, a VARIABLE, and VERIFIABLE, REPEATABLE RESULTS, not a make-believe "computer model".

    An ACTUAL ,LIVE GAS, baro/thermo test.

    And ,please; don't embarass yourself with the asinine "science doesn't prove anything" idiocy...again...perhaps the most ignorant statement ever posted here...
     
  10. livefree

    livefree Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,205
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Another amazingly meaningless comment from you, as usual.
     
  11. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If I may reference Grokie's post:
    "Please provide the complete record of the ACTUAL LAB TEST(s) PROVING"
    that "water accounts, on average, for >95% of the radiative absorption. And, because of the variation in the absorption due to water variation, anything future increases in CO2 might do, water will already have done."

    Thank you! :twisted:
     
  12. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now, allow me to quote myself, as you apparently delude that you have met this challenge:

    Now, go ask someone who ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDS what that means, before further embarassing yourself, with such asinine posts...
     
  13. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ha-Ha!

    I would be glad to do that for you, Mannie.

    However, the problem is if I did, you would not understand it.

    And then you would ask me to expain the science data to you.

    Therefore, I refuse to wasted my time in a role as your certifiied science instructor.

    [​IMG]
     
  14. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Was that a point that just went over your head?
     
  15. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You cannot meet my challenge because the 95% figure is incorrect, and it is you who does not understand the science.
    So I ask again "prove" that water vapor accounts for 95% of the radiative absorption.
    And do not worry about me understanding it; I have taken and passed junior college level physics courses from a Big 8 (now Big 12) university.
     
  16. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, it was a reiteration of the exect question I posed, and the complete failure of the respiknse to address it.

    It isn't my head that this is going over, by any means. I just chalk it up to the fract that Leftninnies are absolutely ignorant of actual scientific procedures, tests, and establishing scientifric FACT, as opposed to just blowing smoke out of their rear ends, pretending that it's "science".

    I requested the record of a relatively SIMPLE chemical test, that NOT ONE WARMIST, ANYWHERE, can produce, as it involves ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which is a bit more involved than made up computer models....obviously...
     
  17. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There it goes again. :eyepopping:
     
  18. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again, in the midst of nonending failure, the Warmist Deluded pretend that they have "proved something", while lacking the simplest understanding of what they presume to be talking about.

    That H2O is the greatest GHG is well known to ALL warmist skeptics; what we also know is that it has yet to be proven what level of CO2 asorption causes what rate of thermo retention, or if it even DOES cause thermo retention, as opposed to thermo CONDUCTION, in a pressurized gas mixture.

    This remains unproven. Got it, yet?

    Didn't think so...
     
  19. Rapunzel

    Rapunzel New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Messages:
    25,154
    Likes Received:
    1,107
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I see you did not answer my question. So you are totally off fossil fuels now, correct???
     
  20. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ha-Ha!

    Actually, many scientists now believe the earth's gradual global heating phase has stopped, and now it is entering a global cooling phase for the next 50-75 years.

    Much like the Medieval Warm Period followed immediately later by the Little Ice Age.

    By the way, Mannie, was “anthropogenic" global warming responsible for when we entered the Medieval Warm Period, and later, when we began to warm after the Little Ice Age?

    The global "alarmists" will not answer these questions! However, with your new background in physics, this question should be very easy for you to answer!


    [​IMG]
     
  21. Never Left

    Never Left Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    30,220
    Likes Received:
    410
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No. Politics and the science of bovine scatology are what drives AGW.
     
  22. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let us see if you can catch the point this time:
    "Awesome. Please provide the complete record of the ACTUAL LAB TEST(s) PROVING the thermodynamic effects of water vapor , peformed (sic) using ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD, utilizing a CONTROL, a VARIABLE, and VERIFIABLE, REPEATABLE RESULTS, not a make-believe "computer model".

    An ACTUAL ,LIVE GAS, baro/thermo test
    ."
     
  23. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    how many? Name some and their peer-reviewed papers.

    Strawman argument.
     
  24. Radio Refugee

    Radio Refugee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2008
    Messages:
    24,800
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Argument after argument about minutia but the big gaping hole is never addressed.

    And for good reason.
     
  25. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Please elaborate.

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page