Hopenhagen?

---

Read the comments... ...the jig is just about up.

I am not optimistic that much will be done. As the comments show, many people will believe anything to avoid changing their way of life. When one considers that the Easter Islanders (who I do not believe were any different from the rest of us) couldn't stop themselves from cutting down their last tree, and therefore all hope of trees in the future, to keep up their supply of wood, the ability of people to be incredibly stupid is clear.

Originally Posted By: Ineligible...the ability of people to be incredibly stupid is clear. That, and incredibly angry when they realize they've been duped. I'm afraid folks like you will carry the torch of the global warming scam to your grave...or the next ice-age, whichever comes first.

If you don't want to do anything about Global Warming, then thats fine with me. Just don't get in our way with senseless crap.

Just as small minded and stupid on this subject as you are on gays eh thor?

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousIf you don't want to do anything about Global Warming, then thats fine with me. Just don't get in our way with senseless crap. If it means shelling out big bucks in taxes to support a bunch of liberals getting rich off a scam they successfully pushed onto the gullible public (including, apparently, you), you better believe I'm going to get in the way. At every possible opportunity.

Do you really want to get into this? I've got some free time if you want to go for it.

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousDo you really want to get into this? I've got some free time if you want to go for it. Are you prepared? Have you done the research? Do you understand the scientific principles behind climatology? Do you understand the mechanism by which the pushers of global warming have arrived at their "conclusion"?Let's start with what causes warming of our climate. There are many factors...of which CO2 is only one. Do you know which of them has the greatest effect? Hint: It's not CO2. Do you know what the percentage of CO2 is in our atmosphere right now? Do you know what percentage of increase in order to cause a change of one degree of temperature (Celsius or Fahrenheit...you pick) is? Do you know how much CO2 we'd have to dump into the atmosphere in order to bring about this change in percentage?Once you find these out for yourself, we'll have something to discuss.

Are you prepared? - Yes. Have you done the research? - Yes. Do you understand the scientific principles behind climatology? - Yes. Do you understand the mechanism by which the pushers of global warming have arrived at their "conclusion"? - A general concern for the future of our environment and the opportunity for financial gain?Let's start with what causes warming of our climate. There are many factors...of which CO2 is only one. Do you know which of them has the greatest effect? Hint: It's not CO2. - Water vapour, of course.Do you know what the percentage of CO2 is in our atmosphere right now? - 384.38 parts per million, as of October 2009. Do you know what percentage of increase in order to cause a change of one degree of temperature (Celsius or Fahrenheit...you pick) is? - 13%.Do you know how much CO2 we'd have to dump into the atmosphere in order to bring about this change in percentage? - An estimated 396 billion tonnes of CO2, about 13 times our annual emissions. Originally Posted By: thorOnce you find these out for yourself, we'll have something to discuss. I think I've answered those questions well enough, do you?

Just to kick some shit in to the pile:
I was thinking about this on a 2 mile walk with the dog this morning.
These prick fuckers do not shovel the sidewalks or driveways, now all trodden down from sundays storm that dumped 4 inches of white shit on us, its compacted to ice. THat was yesterdays walk actually, but today, when there is no shade from big trees that had not yet dropped the leafs, and no building blocking the sun out, the snow and ice is gone from the sidewalks and roads.
THis is due to heat from the sun and concrete absorbing that and reflecting it. Lawns flower boxes and gardens are still covered in it, still about 4 inches deep and at 38 degrees f, in no hurry to disappear.
WHat effect does all the concrete we have poured over the last several decades, have on global warming?
Iv never seen it discussed, thought to look in to it when I got back home, but I forgot about it till now. Has it ever been considered?
I have no answers, but I am positive it has some effect.
Toss in black road ways, interstates, parking lots, all the roofs on each building, it has to be influencing it. A look at google maps will tell you how much shit there is that used to be fields and trees that held the snow instead of melting it.

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousAre you prepared? - Yes. Have you done the research? - Yes. Do you understand the scientific principles behind climatology? - Yes. Do you understand the mechanism by which the pushers of global warming have arrived at their "conclusion"? - A general concern for the future of our environment and the opportunity for financial gain?Let's start with what causes warming of our climate. There are many factors...of which CO2 is only one. Do you know which of them has the greatest effect? Hint: It's not CO2. - Water vapour, of course.Do you know what the percentage of CO2 is in our atmosphere right now? - 384.38 parts per million, as of October 2009. Do you know what percentage of increase in order to cause a change of one degree of temperature (Celsius or Fahrenheit...you pick) is? - 13%.Do you know how much CO2 we'd have to dump into the atmosphere in order to bring about this change in percentage? - An estimated 396 billion tonnes of CO2, about 13 times our annual emissions. Originally Posted By: thorOnce you find these out for yourself, we'll have something to discuss. I think I've answered those questions well enough, do you? Some of them yes...some of them no.First, ppm is not a percentage. The correct answer is about 0.04 percent. Now how about the average percentage of water vapor? As you can probably surmise, water vapor is not just a little more important concerning global warming...it is MUCH more important. What is also important is that, upon more careful observation of the historical statistics...more careful than Gore has a desire for...we can see that the rise in temperature PRECEEDS the rise in CO2 levels. When you don't look at it carefully (at an intentionally large and misleading scale, as presented by Gore), it appears to coincide. So while CO2 may have a very small effect, it is other factors that cause temperature changes, both up and down, with CO2 FOLLOWING the trend...NOT CAUSING IT! To top this off, scientists have shown (see my previous thread concerning this) that the "global warming 'bots" intentionally fed their little computer scenario the wrong data in order to get the results they wanted. The result showed an incorrect increase in temperature WHEN IN REALITY THE TEMPERATURE IS GOING DOWN!!!Bottom line: Gobal warming is a scam designed to fleece the taxpayers of the more industrial nations (the richer ones) and funnel the money into the hands of those who have invested heavily in Green technology. Gore, by the way, is at the top of the list of investors...with Pelosi not far behind. You could almost name who's who in the liberal zoo to find those who have invested their monies along the same lines. It's all public knowledge...all there to be found by those who have a willingness to accept uncomfortable truths. So, your answer of "financial gain" was correct..."concern for the environment" is not. If it were, Gore and company would personally be doing a lot more to help out...but his carbon footprint is rediculously large (along with that of his "Green" cronies).

Sorry its taken me a while to continue this, study takes time. Originally Posted By: thorFirst, ppm is not a percentage. The correct answer is about 0.04 percent.384.44ppm = 0.04% (0.038444%)My apologies for using terms you may not be familiar with. Originally Posted By: thorNow how about the average percentage of water vapor? As you can probably surmise, water vapor is not just a little more important concerning global warming...it is MUCH more important. What is also important is that, upon more careful observation of the historical statistics...more careful than Gore has a desire for...we can see that the rise in temperature PRECEEDS the rise in CO2 levels. When you don't look at it carefully (at an intentionally large and misleading scale, as presented by Gore), it appears to coincide. So while CO2 may have a very small effect, it is other factors that cause temperature changes, both up and down, with CO2 FOLLOWING the trend...NOT CAUSING IT! Well, you're half right. Temperature rise does precede CO2 rise by about a thousand years. But if you actually did some research instead of spouting off arguments you've seen/heard from your favourite people, you'd know that this is well known and accounted for.The dominant signal in the temperature record (HERE) is a 100,000 year cycle where long ice ages are broken by short warm periods called interglacials. This cycle coincides with a change in Earth's orbit as it evolves from a more circular orbit to a more elliptical orbit. When springtime insulation (incoming sunlight) increases in the southern hemisphere, this causes temperature to rise in the south. The warming is amplified as retreating Antarctic ice means less sunlight is reflected back into space.As the southern oceans warm, they give up more CO2 to the atmosphere as the solubility of CO2 in water falls with rising temperature. The CO2 mixes through the atmosphere, amplifying and spreading the warming to the tropics and northern hemisphere. This is why warming in the southern hemisphere precedes warming in the northern hemisphere (Caillon 2003). This is confirmed by marine cores that show tropical temperatures lag southern warming by ~1000 years (Stott 2007). CO2 warming also explains how the relatively weak forcing from orbital cycles can bring the planet out of an ice age.So where does that leave Al Gore? What he says in An Inconvenient Truth is this: "The relationship is very complicated but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others and it is this - when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer because it traps more heat from the sun inside." This statement, while an oversimplification, is essentially correct. A more accurate and informative statement would've been "A change in Earth's orbit warmed the southern oceans which released more CO2 into the atmosphere. The extra CO2 trapped more heat from the sun and amplified the warming. It also mixed through the atmosphere, spreading the warming to the tropics and northern hemisphere"  Originally Posted By: thorTo top this off, scientists have shown (see my previous thread concerning this) that the "global warming 'bots" intentionally fed their little computer scenario the wrong data in order to get the results they wanted. The result showed an incorrect increase in temperature WHEN IN REALITY THE TEMPERATURE IS GOING DOWN!!!I do remember you saying something about this before but I honestly can't seem to find it again. Could you please repost what you said or link me to the post? I would like to check out this point.And you think the temperature is going down? On what scale? Annual temperatures fluctuate but the general trend is an increase in temperature. Link Originally Posted By: thorBottom line: Gobal warming is a scam designed to fleece the taxpayers of the more industrial nations (the richer ones) and funnel the money into the hands of those who have invested heavily in Green technology. Gore, by the way, is at the top of the list of investors...with Pelosi not far behind. You could almost name who's who in the liberal zoo to find those who have invested their monies along the same lines. It's all public knowledge...all there to be found by those who have a willingness to accept uncomfortable truths. So, your answer of "financial gain" was correct..."concern for the environment" is not. If it were, Gore and company would personally be doing a lot more to help out...but his carbon footprint is rediculously large (along with that of his "Green" cronies). I'm really starting to get tired of your "I'm right until you can prove me wrong" attitude. Provide the evidence to support all of these claims. And no, I won't go looking for them myself, its not my responsibility to prove you wrong until you provide any evidence that you are right.And Gore is an ass, we know this already. Just as saying Darwin was a racist or that Newton was an alchemist, attacking the person does not equate to an argument against the science.

There are a number of ways in which a small change gets greatly amplified. A small warming not only releases carbon dioxide from the oceans as they warm, but also from arctic permafrost. It causes more methane to be generated as organic wastes decompose more rapidly. It causes an increase in water vapour in the air, and the reduction in area under ice and snow reduces reflection from the earth. The result is that a little extra greenhouse gas causes a much bigger overall change than it would on its own, and there is the possibility of a runaway effect.

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousThis statement, while an oversimplification, is essentially correct. A more accurate and informative statement would've been "A change in Earth's orbit warmed the southern oceans which released more CO2 into the atmosphere. The extra CO2 trapped more heat from the sun and amplified the warming. It also mixed through the atmosphere, spreading the warming to the tropics and northern hemisphere" Now let me ask you this. What happens to the quantities of water vapor in the air when the temperatures go up? (Hint: this is why temperature trends develope in the first place.) CO2 has a miniscule effect on the temperature...one that mankind has yet to cause any great effect with. The temperature changes are of a natural cycle and nothing more. Quote:And you think the temperature is going down? On what scale? Annual temperatures fluctuate but the general trend is an increase in temperature.Annual temps have have been going down for the past four years. Not much in the grand scale of things, but that's why the 'Green bots' had to fead their computer incorrect info...and info that statistically exaggerated the net change in temperature due to rise in CO2 by a factor of at least four. There are much more important issues concerning mankinds footprint on the face of this earth. I would say the cutting down of forests is of much greater alarm than global warming...for just one example. But few of these other real issues can be used to milk the taxpayers by a few elite alarmists so they can get rich at the taxpayers expense. And many folks have just swallowed it because it's what they like to hear (I suppose, since there's no real logic behind it).BTW, I've been familiar with the meaning of "parts per million" since before you were born. I was just picking nits.

Originally Posted By: IneligibleThere are a number of ways in which a small change gets greatly amplified. A small warming not only releases carbon dioxide from the oceans as they warm, but also from arctic permafrost. It causes more methane to be generated as organic wastes decompose more rapidly. It causes an increase in water vapour in the air, and the reduction in area under ice and snow reduces reflection from the earth. The result is that a little extra greenhouse gas causes a much bigger overall change than it would on its own, and there is the possibility of a runaway effect. Your forgetting that the major greenhouse gas is water vapor...not CO2. I don't deny CO2 has an effect...it's just magnitudes smaller than water vapor. What is abundantly clear to me is that we don't understand it all. What you state is a theory and nothing more. When the air warms it holds more water vapor which causes more warming...so it already is a runaway situation. The real question is what stops it...but CO2 is certainly not resposible for starting it.

I'm not forgetting that - it's just not relevant. Yes, the major greenhouse gas is water vapour, whose overall concentration is affected by temperature but little else. That water vapour is the major greenhouse gas does not mean that everything else is "miniscule", or that it is "magnitudes smaller". Carbon dioxide, though less abundant than water vapour in the troposphere, is much more abundant than water vapour in the stratosphere. Estimates of its contribution to global warming are around 10-20% - hardly "magnitudes smaller". (Methane and ozone and nitrogen oxides are also significant.)If your salary stays the same but your income from bank interest is $1000 less, you are still $1000 poorer even though your main source of income was unaffected.And the concentration of carbon dioxide has changed a great deal. We have concentrations now that have never been seen in the ice-core record.The cutting down of forests is certainly a problem, and one of the causes of global warming - we produce more carbon dioxide than the planet's plant life can consume, and the more forests are cut down the worse that becomes. Quote:Annual temps have have been going down for the past four years. Not much in the grand scale of thingsIndeed not much (and not even four years), and over two years ago I cited here the paper Doug M. Smith, Stephen Cusack, Andrew W. Colman, Chris K. Folland, Glen R. Harris, James M. Murphy, "Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model", Science 10 August 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5839, pp. 796 - 799. Abstract: "Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability. We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade, both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record." So far their predictions have been pretty good. Quote:BTW, I've been familiar with the meaning of "parts per million" since before you were born. I was just picking nits.I can tell when a student is bullshitting.

Originally Posted By: IneligibleThe cutting down of forests is certainly a problem, and one of the causes of global warming - we produce more carbon dioxide than the planet's plant life can consume, and the more forests are cut down the worse that becomes.As usual, you can't get your mind out of your own argument long enough to see the bigger picture, much less consider the words of another. The main problem with cutting down the trees has nothing to do with global warming...it's about the decimation of a natural resource far beyond its ability to replenish itself in the near future; which includes many other real ramifications...not your pseudo "global warming". Quote:I can tell when a student is bullshitting. Great. Now if you could just learn to distiguish between who is and who is not your student.

My point was the the two are linked. I appreciate the point that there are many other reasons for wanting to keep forests, apart from carbon dioxide uptake.If we can't continue to be students all our lives and try to learn from anyone who has something to teach, we stay stuck where we were while everyone else moves on.