UN: Global warming 95% likely to be manmade

[petros]

That is right Captain.

The UN KNOWS China and India will not do anything it doesn't want to. It also knows the west for the most part is weak and that is where the money will come from. China will laugh in their face if the UN makes monetary demands because of their emissions.

And many alarmists make excuses for them in this very forum. They know the China issue is a dead end.

Why should they? Nothing is wrong.

No doubt... Much like those idiots at Green Peace that decided to protest Gazprom in 'Western fashion'... The UN is nothing more than the brain-trust for these unwitting stormtroopers that do the IPCC's bidding

Good on the Russians to not take any BS from these morons and jailed the bastards until they are good and ready for a trial... Too bad that the weak-kneed NorAm politicians don't grow a set and do the same.

I wonder if the righteous greenies that are presently cooling their heels in a dank cell are rethinking their position.

GREENPEACE wants pipelines. They must be Corporate shills?

 

[PoliticalNick]

Too bad that the weak-kneed NorAm politicians don't grow a set and do the same

They are far to busy fleecing the people to care. They will just fleece them more to pay the UN tax. They aren't weak-kneed, they just are happy with their millions from their masters and don't care about the masses.

 

[Zipperfish]

You never asked for facts about anything. You just spew your narrow-minded theoretical bullsh*t. Your previos post are showing the fact that you are a small-minded a$$hole with delusions of grandeur. Thats a fact for ya.


Oh, there's that theoretical vs real world thing again. In the real world cooling towers are place on the roof, not inside the building dumba$$. A/C units are also designed for rooftop or in residential applications they are split with one heat exchanger outside and one inside. If you have a heat-pump it has a TX valve which reverses the flow of refrigerant to give you heating in the winter and cooling in the summer. But hey, I don't know f*ck all and you know everything, well everything you can learn in kindergarden.

I'm sorry you don't have any grasp of language or the meaning of words or any real world application of your inane suppositions.


Actually that's the problem in a nutshell. You have your theory (guess, hypothesis, supposition) and nothing anyone else says (including the top dogs from MIT) will change your mind even historical evidence and what is actually happening in the real world.

Well, I see you've dismissed all pretence putting together a rational argument and you're just foaming at the mouth now. A theory is not a guess and not a hypothesis. You don't even have a grasp of the fundamental concepts and it's obvious you don't.

Which goes to my original point that the folks who actually know science, the the vast majority of folks who are actually scientists are saying that the planet is heating up and humans have a hand in it. On the other hand, you have folks such as yourself, who don't even understand the basics, that are saying global warming is a pile of crap.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Well, I see you've dismissed all pretence putting together a rational argument and you're just foaming at the mouth now. A theory is not a guess and not a hypothesis. You don't even have a grasp of the fundamental concepts.

So I blast you by exposing your complete lack of knowledge of the real world and you somehow seem to think I lack rational argument. My my you are lost in the clouds somewhere. Get a life and get a real job for sh*ts sake.



For the last time Zipperhead, here is the dictionary definition of theory....

the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

You saying the dictionary definition is wrong doesn't make you right, it just makes you a dumba$$!
Now go ahead and make yourself look even more stupid, please!

 

[EagleSmack]

Why should they? Nothing is wrong.

I agree 100%

 

[Zipperfish]

I don't disagree with the base premise, but where I find it interesting is the anthropogenic component is a pittance compared to the natural sources that are active each and every day.... And herein lies the problem with the doomsayer crowd and IPCC - they espouse that somehow, by virtue of developing nations paying into some scheme, it will reduce in any meaningful manner, the effects that they postulate (in theory only) are warming the globe in an apocalyptic manner.

With that in mind, the 'extra CO2' does not exist as you believe it does... The hydrocarbons (today) were once free in the atmosphere before they were naturally sequestered via some kind of mechanism... Humanity has not magically synthesized carbon, CO2 or any other GHG.

At the end of the day, the fear mongering by the gores and suzukis (or IPCCs)of the world are nothing more than a shell game.

I don't think the anthropgenic input is a pittance.

Weight of atmosphere: 5 x 10^15 tonnes

1 ppmv CO2: 7.5 x 10^9 tonnes

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions in 2009: 29 x 10^9 tonnes which equates to about 4 ppm.

In actuality, the CO2 concentration is going up by about 2 ppm/year. Based on that, it isn't a stretch to say that anthropgenic emissions are pushing the CO2 concentration up.

While I agree that the CO2 trapped in fossil fuel was, in the past, a part of teh carbon cycle, it has not been for several million years. It is being re-introduced now at an enormous rate.

 

[petros]

What are the levels of the atmosphere and which levels are heating?

 

[EagleSmack]

While I agree that the CO2 trapped in fossil fuel was, in the past, a part of teh carbon cycle, it has not been for several million years. It is being re-introduced now at an enormous rate.

And the climate was unchanging?

 

[Zipperfish]

So I blast you by exposing your complete lack of knowledge of the real world and you somehow seem to think I lack rational argument. My my you are lost in the clouds somewhere. Get a life and get a real job for sh*ts sake.



For the last time Zipperhead, here is the dictionary definition of theory....

the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

You saying the dictionary definition is wrong doesn't make you right, it just makes you a dumba$$!
Now go ahead and make yourself look even more stupid, please!

Well, you're just getting nasty now, which is a pretty good indication that you don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation. In your previous post, you referred to a theory as a "guess" or a "hypothesis"--neither of which seem to be anywhere in your dictionary definition. You're just making stuff up.

Here is the definition of a scientific theory according to the US National Academy of Sciences. Note the bold text:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the
everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some
aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific
theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them
substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does
not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not
made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the
surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over
geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful
properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions
about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed

Let me know when you get fed up with being wrong.

It's not surprsing you buy into global cooling given that you believe a room will cool down if you leave the fridge door open. Becasue in the real world, fridges cool things down, right. Never mind these fancy theory science guys telling you about teh Second Law of Thermodynamics and a bunch of bafflegab like that, right? :lol:

 

[petros]

I was out at the lake yesterday casting for pike. The smell of the environment making oil and methane was overwhelming. Smellier than the refinery in the city.

 

[Zipperfish]

And the climate was unchanging?

If you force the CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 400 ppm, you're going to increase the heat near the surface. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation and then re-emits it in a random direction. So there are an extra 120 ppm of CO2 that is absorbing infrared radiation at a certain frequency and about 50% of that is being re-radiated back towards the surface.

 

[petros]

We don't live in a jar and CO2 varies from season to season, year to year.

 

[darkbeaver]

It's not that I can't accept any other theories, it's just that no denier has ever done a decent job of explaining to me if the CO2 isn't heating up the surface, then why isn't it? I mean the physics is pretty well accepted that doubling CO2 should raise the surface temp about i deg C. You'd be hard-pressed to even find skeptics who don't accept that.

The other thing is teh skeptcis can't explain where all the extra CO2 is coming from if not from fossil fuel combustion.

You've probably heard that heat comes first and then the CO2.

 

[Zipperfish]

You've probably heard that heat comes first and then the CO2.

Then what is happening to all the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere? Doesn't add up.

 

[petros]

If you force the CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 400 ppm, you're going to increase the heat near the surface. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation and then re-emits it in a random direction. So there are an extra 120 ppm of CO2 that is absorbing infrared radiation at a certain frequency and about 50% of that is being re-radiated back towards the surface.

The new ice is reflecting 497,000,000,000 MORE Watts back into space. It's only going to get cooler next year. Combined with the present energy dump, expect a cold cold winter.

 

[EagleSmack]

We don't live in a jar and CO2 varies from season to season, year to year.

I wonder why he won't dare challenge you Petros? (I'm really not wondering... I know why)

Hey Zip... are you not seeing his posts?

If you force the CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 400 ppm, you're going to increase the heat near the surface. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation and then re-emits it in a random direction. So there are an extra 120 ppm of CO2 that is absorbing infrared radiation at a certain frequency and about 50% of that is being re-radiated back towards the surface.

And the climate was unchanging?

 

[petros]

I wonder why he won't dare challenge you Petros? (I'm really not wondering... I know why)

Hey Zip... are you not seeing his posts?

Seeing and ignoring.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Well, you're just getting nasty now, which is a pretty good indication that you don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation. In your previous post, you referred to a theory as a "guess" or a "hypothesis"--neither of which seem to be anywhere in your dictionary definition. You're just making stuff up.

Here it is again. Let me highlight the words you seem to not notice.

the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

Now if you are too stupid to see hypothesis and do not comprehend that notion and postulate are synonymous with guess you are beyond hope. Go put your head back into a textbook and leave the real world to those of us that know what it is.

Here is the definition of a scientific theory according to the US National Academy of Sciences.

Of course, I forgot, the US academy of sciences writes the dictionary.:roll: No need to rely on the dictionary definitions when you can make up your own to suit your purpose. Now who is making sh*t up?

Let me know when you get fed up with being wrong.

This from a moron who thinks HVAC techs put cooling towers and A/C units inside a building. :roll:

It's not surprsing you buy into global cooling given that you believe a room will cool down if you leave the fridge door open. Becasue in the real world, fridges cool things down, right. Never mind these fancy theory science guys telling you about teh Second Law of Thermodynamics and a bunch of bafflegab like that, right?

I buy into it because that is what the data shows. Are you that close-minded or just plain retarded? The average temperature has been dropping and ice-caps are growing but your theory says it is getting hotter so screw the data damn it it's getting hotter. :roll:

Just like you believe all fridges are in completely sealed rooms with no other variable to influence heat transfer in any way. I suppose you don't believe that some of the newer fridges and A/C systems and the refrigerant they use haven't got the efficiency down to such a negligible difference you get more heat from the compressor pump than from the condenser itself.

 

[Zipperfish]

Here it is again. Let me highlight the words you seem to not notice.

If you think there's no difference between a theory, a hypothesis and a guess in science there's really not much I can do to help.

Of course, I forgot, the US academy of sciences writes the dictionary.:roll: No need to rely on the dictionary definitions when you can make
up your own to suit your purpose. Now who is making sh*t up?

How, exactly, is directly quoting the definition of a scientific theory according to one of the premier scientific orgqanzaitions on the planet making stuff up? You seem quite deluded. I can see why you have the troll avatar.

You've really got nothing, Nick, except making the same fallacious statements repeatedly and upping the level of vitriol. Getting downright nasty doesn't really increase your odds of being correct. It reeks of desperation frankly.

 

[darkbeaver]

Then what is happening to all the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere? Doesn't add up.

I don't think it's important. My doubts about the whole debate arise from the facts ignored concerning the primary inputs of electrical current to the planet that have been ignored throughout, rendering the entire debate an exercise in futility thus far. IMO