Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

[mabudon]

Why oh why do we have to bow to the needs of Big Citizen anyways?? Their profits are shrinking every year, and they're OBVIOUSLY totally motivated by concern for their own future and the future of others overall and place NO importance on the need of individuals to get MASSIVELY rich to the detriment of their entire species- what's UP with Big Citizen??

 

[#juan]

worked as a mechanical engineer for many years and I've always considered myself a scientist. In my field I worked with thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, machine design, various aspects of heating, cooling, and refrigeration among others.

As far as global warming is concerned, I am drawn to things I can see.
-----------------------------------------#juan----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry Juan. I'm going to unfairly pound on that last sentence. You are drawn
to things you can see ???

Then I would suggest science is all about verifying the illusions and false trails given off
by the visible and that often it is the UNSEEN that better explains what we see.

I should have said "I'm drawn to evidence I can see". It is a lot easier to point at bare ground in the arctic that hasn't been seen in centuries, or Polar bears that now have to swim many more miles to get to their food on the iceflows.

Tell the Polar bears that drowned about the "illusions".....:wave: Have you had your coffee yet?

 

[Avro]

we have always shown our self righeous nature, that we are so head and shoulders above all that we can also change climates, hell maybe we dim the universe as well.

I don't for a second think that what we do to and on this planet are good, I do think they contribute but for us to think we can do the kind of damage they say in a short 100 years is too funny.

Did you know in the last centry it was thought..with scinetific "proof" that steam engineing was causing the climate to warm and tornado's?? Again poring all that coal smoke into the air was likely not a good thing but it had nothing to do with the climate.

We have a habit of confusing climate with weather..weather is quick. this warm winter, hot summer 2 years ago...climate is very long range..so long we have no idea what the cycle is?

Why is it impossible to think we have accelerated planetary warming?

Look what we did to the ozone in a short period of time.

The following chart shows the temperatures have risen in accordance with GHG emissions.

 

[Zzarchov]

we have always shown our self righeous nature, that we are so head and shoulders above all that we can also change climates, hell maybe we dim the universe as well.

I don't for a second think that what we do to and on this planet are good, I do think they contribute but for us to think we can do the kind of damage they say in a short 100 years is too funny.

Did you know in the last centry it was thought..with scinetific "proof" that steam engineing was causing the climate to warm and tornado's?? Again poring all that coal smoke into the air was likely not a good thing but it had nothing to do with the climate.

We have a habit of confusing climate with weather..weather is quick. this warm winter, hot summer 2 years ago...climate is very long range..so long we have no idea what the cycle is?

The funniest thing here is that you are guilty of what you claim to protest.

You think that because a few degrees is devestating to human civilization, that it must be some massive shift, thats it "Damage" to the environment.

We can cause minor shifts in the enviornment with as great a power, perhaps somewhat more than 6 billion beavers or six billion elephants or six billion of any large animal that alters its habitat.

That is to say, to US the changes seem big. To the planet they are not.

As we keep global warming, we will never be able to kill the planet. Old creatures will go extinct, some new creatures will flourish in the changing environment, but life on this planet will go on.


Its awful cocky to think that this planet is somehow "custom built" for humanity, and its predisposed to remain at the perfect level for our lifestyle no matter what happens.

Its a fluke its the way it is now, we should stop rocking the boat before it corrects itself.

 

[jimmoyer]

That is to say, to US the changes seem big. To the planet they are not.

As we keep global warming, we will never be able to kill the planet. Old creatures will go extinct, some new creatures will flourish in the changing environment, but life on this planet will go on.


Its awful cocky to think that this planet is somehow "custom built" for humanity, and its predisposed to remain at the perfect level for our lifestyle no matter what happens.

Its a fluke its the way it is now, we should stop rocking the boat before it corrects itself.
-------------------------------------------------Zzarchov------------------------------------------------


Holy bejeeeezus, Zzarchov, you apostate !!!

You're not towing the line.

You have blasphemed against the zeitgeist.

 

[temperance]

We as humans create so much garbage that is not in the cycle you know how a piece of fruit grows it gets eaten or falls off the seed transplant the rest is back to the earth and the cycle continues ,our bio garbage isn't doing that ,our synthetic oils ,nuclear waste isn't doing that

there fore we have created a problem ,we are not using what was here already instead using things that may or may not be part of the cycle then we use to much of ever thing we don't live like the rest of the species ,what species wastes like us ,who or what picks are left over diapers and nuclear waste

we need to be doing it with the lest possible affect --leaving ships to third world nations ,totally destroying th ere shores with our mess our left overs (they do recycle but at what cost ??

 

[L Gilbert]

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/jan2007/unstoppable_gw1.html

I see people are still jumping on one side of the situation and clinging to it while ignoring evidence of the other side. The fad seems to be that people believe that humans are the cause of global warming. Well, for me there is sufficient doubt to keep looking for data onstead of blindly jumpong on a bandwagon of any sort. Instead of reading newspapers, gawking at youtube videos, reading blogs, etc. for scientific info, you people should be reading scientific material for scientific info. Do you go to a barber for info on plumbing?
At this point in time, there is a question as to whether CO² really is a GHG or not. But, there are a couple dozen other GHGs that aren't in question.

BTW, Timothy Ball has a PhD in Geology with a specialty in paleoclimactic history (check on it). He's no fool and although he does not have a PhD specifically in climatology, he is a climatologist. One does not need a degree in a science in order to study the science nor does one need a degree in something to become an expert at it.

 

[Sparrow]

It is unbelievable that intelligent people will only listen to one side of the story. I don't know how many times I have posted information like this. We are few who question this global warming propaganda, maybe if we keep posting this stuff they will start believing us and check out the information for themselves.

 

[Kreskin]

Here's some good reading on greenhouse gases. Straight from the US government to kids.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/change.html

 

[CDNBear]

Of course reading is always a good idea.

MYTH: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.

FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.

People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming. Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)​

Though natural amounts of CO2 have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)​

As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.​

We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.​

All that just said was, volcano's didn't do it, the sun didn't do it. So it really didn't help. I do understand and acknowledge our contribution to the problem, but humans are not alone in this at all...

Japanese scientists discover huge
undersea lava plateau

​

9 Jan 06 – The plateau is located in the Mid Ridge in the Indian Ocean about 500 miles east of Mauritius, said Professor Tamaki Ura, director of the University of Tokyo's Underwater Technology Research Center.​

"This is presumed to be not only the biggest lava plateau in the Indian Ocean but also one of the biggest in the world," Ura said. Their submersible vehicle "also spotted hydrothermal eruptions on the northern part." (In other words, it’s volcanically active!)

Measuring about 8.8 miles by 1.7 miles at a depth of about 8,860 feet, the plateau is covered with lava some 980 feet thick.​

(A fifth of a mile thick! Do you suppose that much lava, at 2,150 degrees hot, might warm the oceans a tad?)

http://www.physorg.com/news87556147.html
Thanks to both Lars-Olof Johansson and David Tatman for this info

There are still scientists claiming there is no link to cigarettes and lung cancer. It is still argued in court, and the cigarette company scientists have the proof. Yet something like 85% of lung cancer cases are smokers.

When you have the smoke and mirror shows going on in this debate (and tobacco) sometimes the laugh test is as good as anything.

And as I would do with a scientist that claimed GW is not real. But my assertion and the assertion of most scientists is, that GW warming is 1) Not the big bad human made boogieman it is claimed to be, 2) The sole creation of our actions.

I agree. I think this whole global warming thing is just a ploy to divert attention of the people away from real issues in our society.I don't believe it for one second.

I have to dissagree, I think GW is real, I think Kyoto uses it as a divertion from its social engineering program.

Tim Ball gets money from big oil so I really don't expect him to say anything else.

Wanna back that up???

Tim Ball, if nothing else, is great comic relief.

Funny, I was just think the same about you.

I doubt you will find IMPARTIAL EXPERTS.

All have an axe to grind and are funded by a special interest.

This debate has all the earmarks of a religious war, righteous believers and deniers on both
sides, puffing themselves up with an army of facts.

Hail to the Army!!!

Why is it impossible to think we have accelerated planetary warming?

It isn't, it's annoying when agenda driven hacks bend it to create global welfare programs. It's even more annoying when they use a flawed projection model to try and prove it too.

The following chart shows the temperatures have risen in accordance with GHG emissions.

Yes, lets look at your graph, which if you look closely, you will note that the solar effects have a great simularity to the observed. Excet for the last period, but I question the validity of this model. Volcanic activity has been steadily rising. Just google it and see for yourself, Yellowstone, Pacific Ocean etc.

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/jan2007/unstoppable_gw1.html

I see people are still jumping on one side of the situation and clinging to it while ignoring evidence of the other side. The fad seems to be that people believe that humans are the cause of global warming. Well, for me there is sufficient doubt to keep looking for data onstead of blindly jumpong on a bandwagon of any sort. Instead of reading newspapers, gawking at youtube videos, reading blogs, etc. for scientific info, you people should be reading scientific material for scientific info. Do you go to a barber for info on plumbing?
At this point in time, there is a question as to whether CO² really is a GHG or not. But, there are a couple dozen other GHGs that aren't in question.

BTW, Timothy Ball has a PhD in Geology with a specialty in paleoclimactic history (check on it). He's no fool and although he does not have a PhD specifically in climatology, he is a climatologist. One does not need a degree in a science in order to study the science nor does one need a degree in something to become an expert at it.

Look if you don't want my flattery, stop posting sensible claims, complete with insight and critical thinking. lmao.

 

[m_levesque]

It is unbelievable that intelligent people will only listen to one side of the story. I don't know how many times I have posted information like this. We are few who question this global warming propaganda, maybe if we keep posting this stuff they will start believing us and check out the information for themselves.

No they won't. They want to believe in the propaganda and those who are supplying the propaganda don't want us to think for ourselves on the matter.

 

[CDNBear]

Here's some good reading on greenhouse gases. Straight from the US government to kids.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/change.html

Interesting stuff, seems reasonable and informative. Unfortunetly, the UK has made Al Gores video of inconvenient hype, required indoctrination material.

That is wholy inappropriate without introducing other fields of thought.

 

[jimmoyer]

The fad seems to be that people believe that humans are the cause of global warming. Well, for me there is sufficient doubt to keep looking for data onstead of blindly jumpong on a bandwagon of any sort...
----------------------------------------------L.Gilbert-----------------------------------------------------

Why was carbon percentage higher in the Medieval days than today ?

Is that true?

If true, then what nonhuman source led to that high level of carbon ?

And if true, we should still encourage industry to go green and make some money
being pioneers of a market being demanded by the consumer.

I agree with Gilbert, the fad is to blame humans and that's okay, but it's almost messianic
to the point of making many mistakes for which business must unfairly pay for.

If you're a business owner you'd have less trust of all of this.

 

[Curiosity]

 

[Curiosity]

Sorry about the large image in my post above... don't know how to reduce it...

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." —Daniel Patrick Moynihan
More than 17,000 scientists, to date, have signed a petition sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences, refuting Gore's claims that global warming is human-induced. The petition states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." The only way poor Al can get ink is to try and hold his dwindling GW cadre together. Sorry Al, your slip to 10th place is now 100th and sliding………..

 

[MikeyDB]

Who cares?

Human nature demands we have an identifiable bad-guy.... Those evil communists...those heathen yellow hordes....those rag-headed barbarians.....

As far as I can see, unless you have someone to blame...Someone else to blame....or create a "catastrophy" global warming....nuclear proliferation....some great "cause" everyone is just perfectly happy to sit in their car in the line-up at Tim Hortons....until the consequences actually result in piles of dead bodies and enormous devastation....

It's what human beings call....informed conscience....

Toads

 

[darkbeaver]

RRRRRRRRIBIT CROAK RRRRRRRRBIIT CROAK TOADS ARE NICE RRRRRRIBIT CROAK RRRRRRRRIBIT:laughing7::laughing7::wave:

 

[#juan]

There must be a term for people who still deny that human endeavor is causing global warming. The most dramatic visible indications of global warming are the huge ice melts in the Antarctic, and Greenland as well as the fact that the last couple dozen years have been the warmest on record. There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There is also no doubt that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been rising since the Industrial Revolution.
This year, the U.S. will emit over 6,000 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Canada will emit at least 10 percent of that. Canada and the U.S. are responsible for over half trhe emissions world wide while having less than fifteen percent of the world's population. We are among the worst villians in this opera. It is time we did something about it.

That term?.....Ostriches....what else?

 

[darkbeaver]

I can think of a few applicable terms, but we don't want to incure the wrath of you know who.:wave:

 

[darkbeaver]

I can think of a few applicable terms, (simple) (stunned) (dreamers) (bone heads) (regressive doorknobs) etc, etc,:wave: