The Hoax of Global Warming

[bryand]

Wat happened to all the greenhouse gases that are causing global warming?? Inconvenient liar Algae Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize and an academy award for his BS!

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.

Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.
Reached a Plateau

The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[4 of a kind]

Wat happened to all the greenhouse gases that are causing global warming??

I would guess the same place all the promises Osama made pre-election.

 

[maxd]

Please note that Dr. Mojib Latif, whom you quote above, has gone on to refute the conclusions drawn from his earlier statement:

In an interview today, Dr. Latif told me "we dont trust our forecast beyond 2015" and "it is just as likely youll see accelerated warming" after then. Indeed, in his published research, rapid warming is all-but-inevitable over the next two decades. He told me, you cant miss the long-term warming trend in the temperature record, which is driven by the evolution of greenhouse gases. Finally, he pointed out "Our work does not allow one to make any inferences about global warming."

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

See also:

Fast on the heels of the second warmest August on record and warmest June-July-August for the oceans, NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies reports that this was the second hottest September on record. (dated October 13, 2009)

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

Some 'hoax'.

Believe what you like but trying to portray people's real concerns over an environmental crisis as deliberate falsehoods or a malicious attempt to cheat anyone into anything is irresponsible at best.

 

[jetset]

That certainly puts a different emphasis on the story......

 

[maxd]

My thing with the whole global warming issue is it may not be real to some of the disbelievers but it's very real to those of us who are seeing it happen and it's effects before our very eyes.

I live in Europe and we were absolutely fried a few years ago, the hottest individual months and the hottest summer on record. It killed 15,000 people in France alone, had an untold effect on the bird and fish life which we still haven't recovered from, and there's every reason to believe that it's going to happen again soon. The bottom line is that

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

... "Europe experienced its hottest weather in at least 500 years."

Let's say the same heatwave crisis had hit the US and it had been American deaths. That works out to 9/11 seventeen times over, if you want to look at it that way, or almost thirty times worse than Katrina. Oh yeah, big 'hoax'.

Obviously the European heatwave was no 'hoax'. It was bitter reality. Ask the families of the old folks who died of dehydration because it was too hot to go outside (tap water in many parts of Europe is pretty much undrinkable). I remember sitting behind our window shutters watching the temperature climb to 45C (113F) and higher and wondering what we would do if it happened again. More deaths? More devastation of the wildlife? A 'hoax'?!?

Now I'll admit that one heatwave does not global warming make but it is a bit of evidence that something might not quite be right. Add to that the flooding in the UK, the rising waters flooding out the South-Pacific, the melting icecaps, Katrina, etc etc and you'd think that folks just might start scratching their heads a little and wondering WTF?

Of course everyone is entitled to their skepticism. To them I say, you best just hope that it isn't your corner of the world that gets fried in the heat next summer, or your parents or grandparents who die of dehydration.

It's all very easy to say "nah, not gonna happen" until it's too late and you're the one bawling for aid or relief or rescue, or compassion. Is it really that hard to show a little respect for the suffering and worries of others, especially when you just happen to have been fortunate enough to have dodged the bullet so far?

 

[bryand]

Temperatures of the earth have increased and decreased since the beginning of time and noone can apparently predict it. There will be consequences if either happen. My point was that if greenhouse gases are causing global warming then why are we taking a break?

0.7 degree average rise in 20 years is a heatwave??? OMG The heat and drought during the early 1930's in the US midwest contributed to the dust bowl but occured way before aerosol cans and automobiles.

Also what the alarmists won't tell you about temporary increases in temperature is the number of people saved from freezing to death!

Maybe temperatures are rising and melting ice caps are causing a rise in sealevel. One thing I'm sure is that people like Al Gore are making untold millions off of the exploitation as if they have even a clue how to regulate it.

 

[RobWin]

Since I could not get a direct response from you Bryan in the "Glenn Beck.. warns of one world government" thread and your thoughts on that, maybe this little bit of info and video will be able to get a rise out of you guys about how this "One World Government" and the "Global Climate Scam" all ties together...

On October 14th 2009, Lord Christopher Monckton, a noted climate change and global warming expert, gave a presentation at Bethel College in St. Paul, MN in which he issued a dire warning regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty which is scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Remember too, this is Lord Christopher Monckton speaking here, who is and has been a noted climate change expert for quite some time now!

To be brutally honest though, I think this so called "One World Government" and "One World Currency" will have to bite over half of the planet right smack dab on the Ass before anyone will believe what I and 50,000 others have been trying to warn you guys of for years now!

Just watch and listen...this is related to your thread topic here...


Just a little bio on Lord Christopher Monckton:

Lord Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute.

The eldest son of the 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Monckton was educated at Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge and University College, Cardiff. He joined the Yorkshire Post in 1974 and then worked as a press officer at the Conservative Central Office from 1977-79.

In 1979, he became the editor of the Catholic newspaper, The Universe, and then a managing editor of The Sunday Telegraphs Magazine in 1981. In 1982 he returned to the Conservative offices again, this time as UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatchers policy advisor, where he served from 1982 to 1986.

While at 10 Downing Street, Lord Monckton gave policy advice on technical issues such as warship hydrodynamics (his work led to his appointment as the youngest Trustee of the Hales Trophy for the Blue Riband of the Atlantic), psephological modeling (predicting the result of the 1983 General Election to within one seat), embryological research, hydrogeology (leading to the award of major financial assistance to a Commonwealth country for the construction of a very successful hydroelectric scheme), public-service investment analysis(leading to savings of tens of billions of pounds), public welfare modeling (his model of the UK tax and benefit system was, at the time, more detailed than the Treasurys economic model, and led to a major simplification of the housing benefit system) and epidemiological analysis.

On leaving 10 Downing Street, Lord Monckton became assistant editor of the newly-formed (and now defunct) newspaper, Today. His final job in journalism was as a consulting editor of the Evening Standard from 1987 -1992.

Monckton has since been a director of his own specialist consultancy company, giving technical advice to corporations and governments. In 1999, he created the eternity puzzle, a geometric puzzle which involved tiling a dodecagon with 209 irregularly shaped polygons called polydrafters. A 1m prize was won after 18 months. By that time, 500,000 puzzles had been sold. A second puzzle, Eternity II, is to be launched in July 2007, with a prize of $2 million.

Monckton has been in the news in recent months due to his scepticism of global warming. In November 2006, he published in The Daily Telegraph a widely publicized article critical of the prevailing climate change opinions. After U.S. Senators Rockefeller and Snowe wrote a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of ExxonMobil asking him to stop funding scientists who reject global warming, Lord Monckton wrote a letter to the senators reminding them of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and calling on them to reverse their position or resign. In February 2007, he published an analysis and summary of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on climate change.
____
____

 

[bryand]

Since I could not get a direct response from you Bryan in the "Glenn Beck.. warns of one world government" thread and your thoughts on that

I have been a fan of Glenn Beck since he was on CNN HL. The one-world gov't seems far fetched to me at this point but one currency is possible especially if China stops buying US securities and the dollar loses most of its value. If you recall Glenn said at the beginning of the clip that the guest may well be wrong. Glenn's point was that the original interviewer did not react with surprise to what he was saying.

At this point in history just about anything could happen. I'm just not ready to say the worst is inevitable.

Sorry for not replying to your post earlier.

 

[RobWin]

I have been a fan of Glenn Beck since he was on CNN HL. The one-world gov't seems far fetched to me at this point but one currency is possible especially if China stops buying US securities and the dollar loses most of its value. If you recall Glenn said at the beginning of the clip that the guest may well be wrong. Glenn's point was that the original interviewer did not react with surprise to what he was saying.

At this point in history just about anything could happen. I'm just not ready to say the worst is inevitable.

Sorry for not replying to your post earlier.

I think the worst is already well upon us all and as Lord Christopher Monckton said, we are already in the 11th hour and the 59th minute. It will soon be too late by the time the New Year arrives. This will be signed in the wee hours in the dark just like we all woke up to the UIGEA.

Thanks....So did you watch that video above? What's your thoughts on that one?

Have any of you guys even heard about or know anything about the "United Nations Climate Change Treaty" which is scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009?

I'm sure one of the famous mass media outlets has been speaking of this one, maybe one of you guys can confirm that for me since I hardly ever watch any TV, I'm not sure myself.

Also @ MaxD, Max I'm personally not saying or stating whether this "Global Warming" is real or just hyperbole, I wouldn't know either way. I'm merely just showing how the powers that be are going to use it to help usher in the "One World Government".
____
____

 

[bryand]

Thanks....So did you watch that video above? What's your thoughts on that one?

Playing poker now....will listen later tonight.

Also @ MaxD, Max I'm personally not saying or stating whether this "Global Warming" is real or just hyperbole, I wouldn't know either way. I'm merely just showing how the powers that be are going to use it to help usher in the "One World Government".

Brown noser

Also, here is some conspiracy theory stuff regarding scientist collusion....

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[RobWin]

Playing poker now....will listen later tonight.

Dude, it's only 4 minutes long..lol

Also, here is some conspiracy theory stuff regarding scientist collusion....

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I actually heard about that about 2 months ago from one of my black underground conspiracy sites..
____
____

 

[maxd]

My point was that if greenhouse gases are causing global warming then why are we taking a break?

A slight and temporary dip in the overall rise of a complex system should hardly be a surprise, and can hardly be taken as evidence that the overall rise does not exist and is a conspiracy theory. To deny the potentially devastating effect of man's "contributions" to the global weather system simply because the rise in temperatures hasn't been perfectly linear seems ... what can I say, willfully negligent comes to mind.

0.7 degree average rise in 20 years is a heatwave???

Are you joking? To raise the temperature of the globe that much in that short a time?? Of course that's a heatwave! It's like someone turned all the burners on!

I don't have the numbers in front of me but I seem to recall seeing ice sample charts going back tens of thousands of years that showed there has never been such a spike in global temperatures (in such a short period of time) as far back as they can determine such things, which I believe is limited by the ice deposited during the last ice age ... approx 60,000-100,000 years if I recall (??).

And the thing about the drought in the 30's, you're suggesting that because heatwaves have happened naturally in the past that global warming doesn't exist and isn't a man-made problem? So if I set fire to your house I'm not really responsible because hey, your place might've burned anyway, my can of gas may or may not have had much to do with it. Sorry but given the seriousness of the issue here and the supporting evidence you could only take such a position if you really, Really, REALLY didn't want to even consider the possibility of what is happening and what may have caused it.

Also what the alarmists won't tell you about temporary increases in temperature is the number of people saved from freezing to death!

I hope you are joking, because if you aren't that's got to be the most outrageous argument _for_ global warming I've ever heard. I seriously doubt that it's "saved" 52,000 lives. Seriously though, this is like saying a nuclear holocaust could be a good thing because then vegetables might grow bigger. Unbelievable!

One thing I'm sure is that people like Al Gore are making untold millions off of the exploitation as if they have even a clue how to regulate it.

Maybe he is, how does that change anything? If it's happening it's happening whether Gore is doing the lecture circuit or not. Surely you understand that your "where there's dollars, there's profiteering" argument cuts both ways? Your friend Glen Beck, amongst many others, are making a mint off of feeding the "ain't happening" crowd what they want to hear. Not to mention the corporate billions that are at stake if, perchance, folks might want to actually do something about the threat to the planet's health and safety.

Whatever, you've obviously got your corner of the debate topics staked out and are happy with it, as do I for that matter. If things should go from bad to worse please remember to remind everyone of the position you took and why, exactly, it was that you did so. I'm sure when food and water become crisis issues they'll be interested to hear the finer details of it all.

 

[bryand]

A slight and temporary dip in the overall rise of a complex system should hardly be a surprise, and can hardly be taken as evidence that the overall rise does not exist and is a conspiracy theory. To deny the potentially devastating effect of man's "contributions" to the global weather system simply because the rise in temperatures hasn't been perfectly linear seems ... what can I say, willfully negligent comes to mind.

Let's see, in this thread you've called my post "irresponsible" and "willfully negligent" (and I assume you are learned enough to understand the term "willful"). If I didn't know better I would think you have a problem with me rather the subject matter.

Are you joking? To raise the temperature of the globe that much in that short a time?? Of course that's a heatwave! It's like someone turned all the burners on!

Maybe you don't recall the 'crisis' caused by alarmists in the 1970's regarding global cooling. We were led to believe we were heading into another ice age!

And the thing about the drought in the 30's, you're suggesting that because heatwaves have happened naturally in the past that global warming doesn't exist and isn't a man-made problem? So if I set fire to your house I'm not really responsible because hey, your place might've burned anyway, my can of gas may or may not have had much to do with it. Sorry but given the seriousness of the issue here and the supporting evidence you could only take such a position if you really, Really, REALLY didn't want to even consider the possibility of what is happening and what may have caused it.

Now that's a comparison stretch.

I hope you are joking, because if you aren't that's got to be the most outrageous argument _for_ global warming I've ever heard. I seriously doubt that it's "saved" 52,000 lives. Seriously though, this is like saying a nuclear holocaust could be a good thing because then vegetables might grow bigger. Unbelievable!

What is unbelievable is that you are suggesting I am in favor of global warming. I simply stated FACT.

Maybe he is, how does that change anything? If it's happening it's happening whether Gore is doing the lecture circuit or not. Surely you understand that your "where there's dollars, there's profiteering" argument cuts both ways? Your friend Glen Beck, amongst many others, are making a mint off of feeding the "ain't happening" crowd what they want to hear. Not to mention the corporate billions that are at stake if, perchance, folks might want to actually do something about the threat to the planet's health and safety.

Another inappropriate comparison. Maybe had I titled this thread "The Expoitation of Global Climate Change" you would have been less combative. Let's agree to disagree and if I roast in the heat and my grandmother dies of dehydration I'll be the first to say you were right

 

[maxd]

Don't have a problem with you personally, do have a problem with the idea of treating reality and physics as if they were options on the McDonalds menu.

Not being "combative" but I am trying to call into question what I consider to be dangerously irresponsible claims that global warming is something Al Gore invented to line his pockets. Besides which you've spent more time here arguing that global warming doesn't exist than you have pointing out how much money Gore or whomever may be making off of popularizing the debate.

People are suffering and being killed because of the disasters caused by these dramatic weather changes. The evidence strongly suggests that man's activities on the Earth have contributed significantly to this. Calling all of this a 'hoax' is awfully easy when it isn't happening to you directly.

The analogies were only stretched insofar as the arguments you presented suggested they need be to make the point. "Global warming is good because less people will get frost-bite", or whatever it was you said? That strongly suggests that the counter-arguments needed to be stated in the broadest possible terms.

But, as you say, best to agree to disagree and return to our respective corners, or whatever.

 

[skiny]

Do I believe in global warming? Yes.

Do I believe in global cooling? Yes.

Do I believe that man made CO2 is a factor? No.

In fact more people don't believe it than people who do but it's political and scientific suicide to say so.

The earth's temperature rises and falls. It always has and the only thing we can do about it is decide to wear a jacket or shorts.

Now I'm not saying be environmentally unfriendly. Sure lets keep the planet as clean as possible but I don't think cutting CO2 emmissions is going to change a thing. At less than 400 parts per billion CO2 makes up for less than half of a percent of the atmosphere.

A study in an article in the 25 November 2005 issue of the journal Science, published by AAAS the nonprofit science society chronicles the stable relationship between climate and the carbon cycle during the Pleistocene (390,000 to 650,000 years before the present). The analysis highlights the fact that today's rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, at 380 parts per million by volume, is already 27 percent higher than its highest recorded level during the last 650,000 years.

Sounds scary. It means that previously CO2 levels have peaked at about one third of a percent of the earth's atmosphere. Now they're somewhere between one third and one half of one percent. Now even that may alarm you but lets also keep in mind that man made carbon emissions don't make up that tiny percentage. Try to find an exact number how much of that percentage is our fault. From what I can find it's about 3 or 4 percent. If anyone can find a number with some hard evidence I'd like to know simply because I can't.

But if the 3 or 4 percent is accurate now we're talking about 4% of the 380 ppm being caused by us. Or roughly 15 ppm. Jesus this number is getting small. So why are the world's governments arguing over what percentage we should try to cut this number down to? I've heard 30 to 50 percent reductions. or at best 7 ppm if everyone is actually able to do it. In fact what if we cut all our emmisions? Stop producing the entire 1/10 of one percent or so that make up the world's atmosphere? I just don't see how this is going to change anything.

But putting all that aside the real question is does CO2 even cause climate change? I've overlayed the graphs from the Volstok ice core samples and the earth's temperature over the same 400,000 year time frame and from what I can see although the correlation between CO2 and temperature are obvious, CO2 seems more to react from the earth's temperature than the other way around. I can post this if anyone would like to see it.
This makes more sense to me since the earth's oceans can absorb CO2 faster when it's warm than when it's cold. It takes centuries to warm the oceans so I can see where CO2 levels would eventually rise or fall as the oceans warm or cool.

If I've somehow screwed up the math on this let me know. I don't claim to know everything. I'm just trying to figure it out too.

 

[bryand]

Damn what a great post, Skiny

So many good points:

1. Political suicide to take this position.
2. There is a correlation between average temperature and CO2 level but it is unclear what causes what.
3. Humans cause but a small fraction of overall greenhouse gases.
4. Cyclical warming and cooling is normal.
5. We should all be stewards of the earth as a matter of respect for nature.

One argument hard to debate is the position "What if Al Gore is right?" Should we believe the worst case scenario as an abundance of caution? This I don't know.

 

[skiny]

To be honest with you I don't really care what Al Gore says. He's got his own reasons for whatever the hell he's doing.

I just look at whatever facts I can find and look at them from my own perspective. I don't borrow someone else's conclusions on either side of the debate. I just personally can't see CO2 being the cause. There's no logic behind the conclusion. In fact all the data I've seen points to the opposite of this conclusion.

The question still remains, if CO2 is not causing climate change, why is everyone so set on making us believe it is?

I guess it would have been a good reason for the Canadian Liberals to have pushed through the new "Carbon tax" if they had got elected.

 

[RobWin]

I just look at whatever facts I can find and look at them from my own perspective.

So Skiny, you seem to be somewhat well read in this subject. It is a fact that the world leaders and their counterparts will in fact meet in Dec. in Copenhagen to discuss the details about the "United Nations Climate Change Treaty" which is scheduled, as of now, to also be signed there in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Are you also familiar with this? It doesn't seem that anyone else has even heard of this.. which is a damn shame IMO. You would think that at least some of the citizens of the USA would be more informed at keeping up with something as important as "Treaty" signings.
____
____

 

[bryand]

So Skiny, you seem to be somewhat well read in this subject. It is a fact that the world leaders and their counterparts will in fact meet in Dec. in Copenhagen to discuss the details about the "United Nations Climate Change Treaty" which is scheduled, as of now, to also be signed there in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Are you also familiar with this? It doesn't seem that anyone else has even heard of this.. which is a damn shame IMO. You would think that at least some of the citizens of the USA would be more informed at keeping up with something as important as "Treaty" signings.
____
____

Its the subject of my opening post!

 

[skiny]

So Skiny, you seem to be somewhat well read in this subject. It is a fact that the world leaders and their counterparts will in fact meet in Dec. in Copenhagen to discuss the details about the "United Nations Climate Change Treaty" which is scheduled, as of now, to also be signed there in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Are you also familiar with this? It doesn't seem that anyone else has even heard of this.. which is a damn shame IMO. You would think that at least some of the citizens of the USA would be more informed at keeping up with something as important as "Treaty" signings.
____
____

I'm not a citizen of the USA. Even still I'd like to sit in on this and see exactly what it is they're talking about. I'm sure there will be no debate on whether or not carbon emissions are even a factor of climate change since according to their panel of scientists this is a given.

So what's to discuss? How we can decrease the (apparently) .01% of the CO2 in the atmosphere that we're contributing? How we can charge taxes on what we do emit? Or levies on products that emit carbons in the production? Or how we can cap carbon emissions on countries. Even those that have no other real source of energy other than carbon producing ones?

I suspect it will be about as useful as the Kyoto Protocol where we'll set carbon limits and then break and ignore them.

 

[RobWin]

I'm not a citizen of the USA. Even still I'd like to sit in on this and see exactly what it is they're talking about. I'm sure there will be no debate on whether or not carbon emissions are even a factor of climate change since according to their panel of scientists this is a given.

So what's to discuss? How we can decrease the (apparently) .01% of the CO2 in the atmosphere that we're contributing? How we can charge taxes on what we do emit? Or levies on products that emit carbons in the production? Or how we can cap carbon emissions on countries. Even those that have no other real source of energy other than carbon producing ones?

I suspect it will be about as useful as the Kyoto Protocol where we'll set carbon limits and then break and ignore them.

Good question and glad you asked...This is directly all linked to this thread post here..

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/glenn-beck-warns-of-one-world-government.34651/

Check out the videos I posted there relating to the treaty and if anyone wants a copy of it as well as:

Lord Monckton addresses the CO2 and .7 degree delema...

MIT Scientists findings discussed...
____
____

 

[bryand]

First I want to find the authors of this piece of trash draft treaty and kick them squarly between the legs. It is page after page of legalease but only makes a few points.

1. Humans have caused the majority of greenhouse gases ("since 1750" )
2. Greenhouse gases are definately causing climate change.
3. We (the committee) will rule the world one day.

 

[skiny]

First I want to find the authors of this piece of trash draft treaty and kick them squarly between the legs. It is page after page of legalease but only makes a few points.

1. Humans have caused the majority of greenhouse gases ("since 1750" )
2. Greenhouse gases are definately causing climate change.
3. We (the committee) will rule the world one day.

I'm still reading through some of these IPCC papers. Some of it I don't quite follow because I'm too lazy to go back and re-read what some of these acronyms are. Some of it makes no sense because it doesn't follow what I thought was known geological science.

 

[bryand]

I'm still reading through some of these IPCC papers. Some of it I don't quite follow because I'm too lazy to go back and re-read what some of these acronyms are. Some of it makes no sense because it doesn't follow what I thought was known geological science.

Some definitions here....

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[RobWin]

Its the subject of my opening post!

Yea I saw where you stated "when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference" but was still not sure if you were aware of the "Treaty Draft" or not and what all was in it.

This is totally different from the IPCC papers.
____
____

 

[skiny]

Some definitions here....

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

The ultimate objective of the Convention is the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Accordingly, under Article 4.1(b) of the Convention, all Parties are required to undertake efforts to mitigate climate change.

How in God's name are they going to stabilize something that we contribute less than 1/10th of a percentage of?

 

[RobWin]

The ultimate objective of the Convention is the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Accordingly, under Article 4.1(b) of the Convention, all Parties are required to undertake efforts to mitigate climate change.

How in God's name are they going to stabilize something that we contribute less than 1/10th of a percentage of?

They're not... That is just all smoke and mirrors and a true farce of the underlining agenda and the cloak and dagger style of the Convention to try to win over the environmentalists and others that will help and support them to push this treaty thru.

Get on past the issue of "Climate Change" and try and see the real crux of this treaty draft and it's implications.

Skiny, do you have a copy of the actual draft?
____
____

 

[skiny]

They're not... That is just all smoke and mirrors and a true farce of the underlining agenda and the cloak and dagger style of the Convention to try to win over the environmentalists and others that will help and support them to push this treaty thru.

Get on past the issue of "Climate Change" and try and see the real crux of this treaty draft and it's implications.

Skiny, do you have a copy of the actual draft?
____
____

No. I wasn't on the mailing list.

 

[RobWin]

No. I wasn't on the mailing list.

Would you like a copy? ...
____
____

 

[skiny]

Would you like a copy? ...
____
____

Sure, I'll have a look.

 

[RobWin]

Sure, I'll have a look.

Private message me your email address and I will email it to you.
____
____

 

[skiny]

Private message me your email address and I will email it to you.
____
____

I've skimmed through the first dozen pages and this is what I see so far.

PP.14 Acknowledging that current atmospheric concentrations are principally the result of historical emissions of greenhouse gases, the most significant share of which has originated in developed countries. PP.15 Further acknowledging that developed countries have a historical responsibility for their disproportionate contribution to the causes and consequences of climate change, reflecting their disproportionate historical use of a shared global carbon space since 1850 as well as their proposed continuing disproportionate use of the remaining global carbon space.
1. [[[As assessed by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report] Warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal. [Global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased significantly because of human activities since 1750.]
2. Current atmospheric concentrations are principally the result of historical emissions of greenhouse gases, [the largest share of which has originated in] [originating from] developed countries [Parties].

Signing on the dotted line means you agree without question that the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of increased human CO2 emissions. There will be debate over what causes global warming.

The shared vision is to establish a global approach to addressing climate change through enhancing action by all countries to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases and to provide adequate support for vulnerable countries to the impacts of climate change. Actions taken shall play a significant role in ensuring that global greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere must be stabilized as far below 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent as possible, with temperature increases limited to as far below 1.5 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels as possible.

The goal is to drop the total atmospheric CO2 concentration by over 8%. We don't contribute over 8% If it's roughly 380 PPM now we want to reduce it by 30 PPM.

Option 1
[as a stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at [400] [450 or lower] [not more than 450] [450] [least 450] ppm carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 eq) [and a temperature increase limited to] [so that there is a very low or low level of risk that the global mean temperature rise will be] 2 oC or below above the pre-industrial level [with a probability greater than 50 per cent] [, which requires reversing the trend of increasing global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 at the latest]. For this purpose, the Parties [shall] [should] collectively [reduce global emissions by at least [50] [8171] [85] per cent [from 1990] levels by 2050.] [set an emission reduction objective on the basis of historical responsibility and national circumstances.] ]
Option 2
[as a stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere well below 350 ppm CO2 eq [and a temperature increase limited to below 1.5 oC above the pre-industrial level] [with a probability greater than 50 per cent of a temperature increase of less than 2 oC from pre-industrial level]. For this purpose, the Parties [shall] [should] collectively [reduce global emissions by [8171] [more than 85] [at least 95] per cent from 1990 levels by 2050.] [set an emission reduction objective on the basis of historical responsibility and national circumstances.] ]

Apparently we have reduction goals somewhere between 50% and 95% from levels we produced 20 years ago. I'm not sure I'm reading that right. We want to produce 95% less than we did 20 years ago? And even if that was possible would it make any difference? From what I can understand we're actually contributing about 15 PPM and the goal is to reduce it by 30. I wonder if we can get forest fires, volcanos, oceans and dead vegetation to sign this treaty.

If I'm wrong about any of these numbers, theirs or mine feel free to let me know.

From what I can see the CO2 levels are rising because the earth's temperature is rising. And if this is true and we sign our treaties and someday we're all driving cars that burn water with big solar panels on all our houses and building fires is illegal and humans don't emit any carbon dioxide whatsoever. (Of course we'll all have to wear masks because we breath out the evil stuff.) And the CO2 levels are still rising... Then what?

It seems to me we're setting levels of reduction on a gas that's probably not doing anything anyway way higher than even possible. When I get to the end of this thing I wonder if it will explain why.

 

[bryand]

Apparently we have reduction goals somewhere between 50% and 95% from levels we produced 20 years ago. I'm not sure I'm reading that right. We want to produce 95% less than we did 20 years ago? And even if that was possible would it make any difference? From what I can understand we're actually contributing about 15 PPM and the goal is to reduce it by 30. I wonder if we can get forest fires, volcanos, oceans and dead vegetation to sign this treaty.

And didn't I hear recently that we have to reduce the number of livestock in existence due to methane emissions?

I am stumped as to why the world's scientists and climatologists cannot agree on (a) what causes GHG and (b) whether GHG cause climate change. IF the assertion is accurate that humans cause less than 1% of GHG, the conference and treaty really are a sham.

For the record I believe it is true that global climate change (i.e. average global temperatures rise and fall) is measurable and real but has been occuring for billions of years. It is also true that significant climate change adversely affects the balance of the world's ecosystems and some/most of the population.

 

[RobWin]

I've skimmed through the first dozen pages and this is what I see so far.



Signing on the dotted line means you agree without question that the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of increased human CO2 emissions. There will be debate over what causes global warming.


The goal is to drop the total atmospheric CO2 concentration by over 8%. We don't contribute over 8% If it's roughly 380 PPM now we want to reduce it by 30 PPM.


Apparently we have reduction goals somewhere between 50% and 95% from levels we produced 20 years ago. I'm not sure I'm reading that right. We want to produce 95% less than we did 20 years ago? And even if that was possible would it make any difference? From what I can understand we're actually contributing about 15 PPM and the goal is to reduce it by 30. I wonder if we can get forest fires, volcanos, oceans and dead vegetation to sign this treaty.

If I'm wrong about any of these numbers, theirs or mine feel free to let me know.

From what I can see the CO2 levels are rising because the earth's temperature is rising. And if this is true and we sign our treaties and someday we're all driving cars that burn water with big solar panels on all our houses and building fires is illegal and humans don't emit any carbon dioxide whatsoever. (Of course we'll all have to wear masks because we breath out the evil stuff.) And the CO2 levels are still rising... Then what?

It seems to me we're setting levels of reduction on a gas that's probably not doing anything anyway way higher than even possible. When I get to the end of this thing I wonder if it will explain why.

Now go watch Video #4 here https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/glenn-beck-warns-of-one-world-government.34651/ and this will shed some more light on this for you.
____
____

 

[skiny]

And didn't I hear recently that we have to reduce the number of livestock in existence due to methane emissions?

Yes, Cows and sheep are burping and farting all over the planet and someone needs to get them some GasX.

I am stumped as to why the world's scientists and climatologists cannot agree on (a) what causes GHG and (b) whether GHG cause climate change. IF the assertion is accurate that humans cause less than 1% of GHG, the conference and treaty really are a sham.

It's not uncommon for scientists to disagree on things that have yet to be proven. They're called theories and until they become fact, scientists will continue to argue about them. What is uncommon is for UN to draft a paper saying we're going to accept these theories as fact and we're going to act on them accordingly and then ask everyone to sign it.

For the record I believe it is true that global climate change (i.e. average global temperatures rise and fall) is measurable and real but has been occuring for billions of years. It is also true that significant climate change adversely affects the balance of the world's ecosystems and some/most of the population.

Climate change does effect the world's ecosystems and during the medieval warming period when temperatures were higher than they are now most civilizations flourished.

I'm not convinced there is a one world government conspiracy. I need more proof than the fact that any of our governments are doing stupid things. This is not new.

 

[skiny]

Ok. I've been skeptical about the whole CO2 causing global warming since the first day I heard about it a million years ago. I've been called crazy for not believing this or accepting the "scientific proof." Since then I've done my share of reading and researching the issue and until this day I simply cannot believe there is any scientific basis behind the theory.

Now today I hear about this article in the Washington Post..

Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center - Scientists' e-mails deriding skeptics of warming become public
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 21, 2009

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

An experpt from the article - "It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

- Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute



Attach Removed (Old not found) TADA!!

 

[bryand]

Ok. I've been skeptical about the whole CO2 causing global warming since the first day I heard about it a million years ago. I've been called crazy for not believing this or accepting the "scientific proof." Since then I've done my share of reading and researching the issue and until this day I simply cannot believe there is any scientific basis behind the theory.

Now today I hear about this article in the Washington Post..

Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center - Scientists' e-mails deriding skeptics of warming become public
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 21, 2009

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

An experpt from the article - "It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

- Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute



Attach Removed (Old not found) TADA!!

Yeah, we discussed this hack job some days ago in a different thread. I think it was one of Rob's threads about one world government.

 

[skiny]

I didn't read that thread. I'll look at it later tonight.

 

[lots0]

If you don't believe in Global warming... go talk to a northern native. I think the white eyes call them 'Eskimos'.

Ask them about the permafrost melting... so much melting that they have to move villages before they sink into the muddy Earth. Villages that have been in the same place for the memory of man.

Ask the Northern Natives about watching Polar Bears drown in the sea because there is no sea ice...

Ask the northern natives about the "NEW" migrations of many different types animals to the North.

Ask the fire fighters from around the world... about the 2000% increase in wild fires in the last 10 years.

What I find find odd is that some people that live in cities and have Central Air and Heating at home, at work, in their car and only spend a few minutes a week outside, have decided Global Warming does not exist... because they don't see it... Duh..

Deny the effect Humans have had on the environment and atmosphere all you want... Denial will not make it go away.


***
Added as an after thought...

Here is a laugh... We put a man on the moon, we split atoms, we can travel faster than the speed of sound, we turn great mountains into giant holes in the ground, we turn the largest jungles on earth into pastures for our cattle, we suck rivers dry before they reach the ocean, we vacuum up entire schools of fish in the ocean with our giant fishing fleets and we have a bomb that can destroy the earth several times over... But some folks still believe we poor little Humans can not possibly have any effect on the Earth's Environment.... Is that funny??? Oh ya...

 

[skiny]

If you don't believe in Global warming... go talk to a northern native. I think the white eyes call them 'Eskimos'.

Ask them about the permafrost melting... so much melting that they have to move villages before they sink into the muddy Earth. Villages that have been in the same place for the memory of man.

Ask the Northern Natives about watching Polar Bears drown in the sea because there is no sea ice...

Ask the northern natives about the "NEW" migrations of many different types animals to the North.

Ask the fire fighters from around the world... about the 2000% increase in wild fires in the last 10 years.

What I find find odd is that some people that live in cities and have Central Air and Heating at home, at work, in their car and only spend a few minutes a week outside, have decided Global Warming does not exist... because they don't see it... Duh..

Deny the effect Humans have had on the environment and atmosphere all you want... Denial will not make it go away.

I don't recall anyone saying they don't believe in global warming. The entire point is that it is not caused by CO2. It is not caused by man made CO2 or naturally occuring CO2. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to even theorize this, much less prove it. In fact all the evidence points to the exact opposite. Global warming causes a rise in CO2.

And of course it makes sense. I've also read some alarming stories that the world's oceans are losing their ability to absorb and contain C02. (duh.)

It's common knowledge that warmer water can hold less CO2 than cold water. So as the planet warms up gradually the oceans warm up. As the oceans warm up they hold less CO2 and that escapes into the atmosphere rising the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. And as the planet cools back down the reverse happens. CO2 isn't causing anything. It's just being shuffled around in the process.

It's been happening for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years and the process is quite obvious by looking at pretty much any temperature/CO2 graph that dates back beyond the first century. If you're going to only look at a 100 year graph of the earth's history you're looking at grain of sand in a desert. You only need to go back a couple thousand years and you get higher recorded temperatures than we have now. The polar bears adapted and they are still here.

Even looking back only 1000 years ago the Vikings settled in Greenland when it was nice and warm and started farming. It didn't get that warm because they burned too much gasoline. About 400 years later the planet got too cold and they all screwed off. The planet does that.

Added as an after thought...

Here is a laugh... We put a man on the moon, we split atoms, we can travel faster than the speed of sound, we turn great mountains into giant holes in the ground, we turn the largest jungles on earth into pastures for our cattle, we suck rivers dry before they reach the ocean, we vacuum up entire schools of fish in the ocean with our giant fishing fleets and we have a bomb that can destroy the earth several times over... But some folks still believe we poor little Humans can not possibly have any effect on the Earth's Environment.... Is that funny??? Oh ya...

Well, I'm not sure about a bomb that can destroy the earth. Maybe make a bloody mess of it on the surface. Anyway... Yes it's true that man (and woman) can do all sorts of damage but in this particular case we are not. We are contributing a tiny portion of something that is already a tiny portion of the atmosphere.

Destroying the earth with 1/10th of 1 percent of the atmosphere is kind of like blowing your mountain into a hole with a fire cracker. And what makes it worse is your fire cracker works backwards.

 

[lots0]

I don't recall anyone saying they don't believe in global warming.

Hmmm the title of this thread is the "HOAX" of Global Warming. Sounds to me like some folks don't believe it is happening.

As far as CO2 being released into the atmosphere, it is estimated that the frozen tundra of the poles holds anywhere from 75 times to 250 times the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And this CO2 is being released as the permafrost melts.

This release of all this CO2 from the permafrost is causing a snowballing effect, more CO2 causes the temperature to rise, melting more Permafrost and releasing more Co2 that raises the temperature even more and the cycle continues... This is what the climate scientists are truly afraid of... The release of all this CO2 will alter the Earth beyond it's ability to support life as we know it... And Co2 is currently being released in enormous quantities as the permafrost melts and the melting rate of the Permafrost is increasing (at dramatic unprecedented rates)... not decreasing.

No matter what you believe is causing Global Warming, it is happening and it is not good for the Human race. Personally, I think we created a problem that we can't fix... I'm just glad I won't live to see the full effects of global Warming...

Maybe Glen Beck does have the solution... Stick your head in the sand and pretend it aint happening... You can't fix it... so why worry about it...

 

[bryand]

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[skiny]

Hmmm the title of this thread is the "HOAX" of Global Warming. Sounds to me like some folks don't believe it is happening.

As far as CO2 being released into the atmosphere, it is estimated that the frozen tundra of the poles holds anywhere from 75 times to 250 times the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. And this CO2 is being released as the permafrost melts.

This release of all this CO2 from the permafrost is causing a snowballing effect, more CO2 causes the temperature to rise, melting more Permafrost and releasing more Co2 that raises the temperature even more and the cycle continues... This is what the climate scientists are truly afraid of... The release of all this CO2 will alter the Earth beyond it's ability to support life as we know it... And Co2 is currently being released in enormous quantities as the permafrost melts and the melting rate of the Permafrost is increasing (at dramatic unprecedented rates)... not decreasing.

No matter what you believe is causing Global Warming, it is happening and it is not good for the Human race. Personally, I think we created a problem that we can't fix... I'm just glad I won't live to see the full effects of global Warming...

Maybe Glen Beck does have the solution... Stick your head in the sand and pretend it aint happening... You can't fix it... so why worry about it...

Here's a question for you.

What happened to the CO2 in the permafrost in the 10th and 11th century?


The major problem with this so called snowball effect is the assertion that CO2 is causing global warming in the first place. The proof given by some climate scientists comes from ice core samples from drillings that began in the 70s and ended 11 years ago at Vostok. Data was extracted from these samples that clearly show a correlation between CO2 and the earths temperature. Of this there is no doubt.

The problem starts when assumptions are made that one is causing the other without evidence. The problem continues when statements are made to the contrary of what evidence we do have. Al Gore stands in front of two graphs and states. When the CO2 rises the temperature rises. In spite of the fact that the graphs clearly show the temperature rising first.

In many cases climate science is very much like creation science. [That should piss a few people off.] And I say many cases because there are many climate scientists behaving like real scientists but many more who [like creation scientists] say This is what we believe and now we have to prove it. If they find proof to the contrary they have three choices. Toss the evidence away, alter the evidence to fit theyre theories or expose the proof and be tossed out of the church as heretics.

Real science does not start with an answer. It starts with a question. What causes the earths temperature to rise?

Fact Rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels are linked.
Assumption CO2 causes the rise in temperature.
Fact Rising temperatures generally precede rising CO2 levels.
Assumption CO2 is able to travel backwards in time and effect the earths temperature.

It would be quite funny if it wasnt so serious, the fact that out of all the possible causes for global warming the only one the governments are willing to latch on to not only is the least likely - since we produce a miniscule amount of the driving force claimed to be the cause - but is also the only profitable one.

The graph I posted earlier in this thread shows a massive 11 degree drop in average temperatures over a 500 year span starting at 1000 AD and then a 5 degree jump over a very short 50 year period following it. In the last 100 years (double the time span of the spike in the 16th century) weve seen roughly a 4 degree jump which actually has started to drop back down in the last 10 years.

Now if CO2 is causing global warming and its actually proven with real science I will happily accept it. Here are some of the questions Im still looking for answers to.

Everything the earth is doing now it has done a hundred thousand times already. Why are we the cause now?

There are periods in the earths history where temperatures rose much faster than they have over the last century and peaked much higher. Why is this slower rise in temperature alarming when its happened twice as fast in the last 1000 years before the start of the industrial revolution?

If CO2 causes the earths temperature to increase, what causes the earths temperature to decrease? Its widely accepted that warmer oceans cannot absorb CO2 as easily as colder oceans. So once the CO2 levels are released into the atmosphere and they cause the earths temperature to rise, what causes the CO2 levels to decrease and cause the earths temperature to cool now that the ocean's temperature has hampered it's ability to absorb it?

Why are the IPCCs climate scientists only looking at CO2 as a cause of global warming when other causes actually make more sense? The earth gets a majority of its energy either directly or indirectly from the sun but this is being ignored as a factor controlling its temperature? The planet follows an elliptical orbit around the earth taking about 365 days per trip but the orbit isnt fixed. There are very long periods (thousands of years) when the earth is closer to the sun and very long periods when its further away. This wouldnt cause average global temperatures to fluctuate?

 

[lots0]

What happened to the CO2 in the permafrost in the 10th and 11th century?

The permafrost has been frozen for the last One Million+ Years.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

So the melting of the Permafrost... is a rather HUGE event that has not been seen in Human history before.

Assumption CO2 causes the rise in temperature.

I hate to inform you that it is a Scientific fact proven over and over again in labs all over the world that more Co2 in the atmosphere raises the temperature. This is a measurable and provable phenomenon using scientific methods.
Quit getting your Science information from Glen Beck, he's a moron.

BTW - the current Co2 levels are the highest we have ever been able to document going back hundreds of thousands of years, Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) . The rise in Co2 is so fast this time...thats what is scary. Not just the rise in Co2, but how fast the rise in Co2 is happening.

In the past increases of Co2 happened over tens of thousands of years... this time the rise in Co2 is happening within a few decades... not enough time for plants and animals to adapt, like they were able to in the past...

If CO2 causes the earths temperature to increase, what causes the earths temperature to decrease?

One of the largest factors(there are numerous factors) is the stopping of the great natural heat pump in the Seas that pumps warm water from the Equator to the Poles. This great heat pump will stop when the salt content of the ocean is decreased to a certain point by fresh water from melting ice. Again... A measurable and provable scientific phenomenon.

One last thing, most REAL climate scientists consider calling this climate event "Global Warming" a misnomer. What it really is, is a Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) . Far too many mis-informed people have latched onto the "Global Warming" title as literal and are missing the big picture.

 

[skiny]

The permafrost has been frozen for the last One Million+ Years.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

So the melting of the Permafrost... is a rather HUGE event that has not been seen in Human history before.

I'm not saying the permafrost has ever thawed or is thawing now or isn't thawing now. I never even said it wasn't a big deal. What I asked was if global warming is causing it to melt, why hasn't it ever melted in the past if the earth's average temperature has been as hot or hotter than it is now for much longer periods of time?

I hate to inform you that it is a Scientific fact proven over and over again in labs all over the world that more Co2 in the atmosphere raises the temperature. This is a measurable and provable phenomenon using scientific methods.
Quit getting your Science information from Glen Beck, he's a moron..

Yes it is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It does have a minor effect on the earth's temperature, dwarfed by water vapor with a few other gases thrown in like ozone and methane. What hasn't been proven to my knowledge is that the miniscule amount of CO2 we contribute is having any real effect. I see statements that this is a fact followed by finger pointing at the effects of global warming like the permafrost melting. Show me the proof that man made CO2 is a contibuting factor. By the way, I get my information from an extremely wide range of sources on both sides of the debate. I have no interest in Glen Beck.

BTW - the current Co2 levels are the highest we have ever been able to document going back hundreds of thousands of years, Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) . The rise in Co2 is so fast this time...thats what is scary. Not just the rise in Co2, but how fast the rise in Co2 is happening.


In the past increases of Co2 happened over tens of thousands of years... this time the rise in Co2 is happening within a few decades... not enough time for plants and animals to adapt, like they were able to in the past...

Find me a graph from any source that documents this. I don't mean one that starts ten years ago. That only shows the current increase. I've looked at temperature and CO2 graphs going back hundreds of thousands of years and they all show the same sporadic CO2 and temperature fluctuations as far back as I can go. If I could find a reliable one that goes back anywhere from 500 to 5000 years it might more obviously show spikes and dips in the CO2 levels than the ones I have found. I'd be happy to look at anything you find.

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

One of the largest factors(there are numerous factors) is the stopping of the great natural heat pump in the Seas that pumps warm water from the Equator to the Poles. This great heat pump will stop when the salt content of the ocean is decreased to a certain point by fresh water from melting ice. Again... A measurable and provable scientific phenomenon.

And again, the earth has gotten much hotter over a shorter period of time and for longer periods of time. What stopped it from happening then? Or did it happen and the world didnt end?

One last thing, most REAL climate scientists consider calling this climate event "Global Warming" a misnomer. What it really is, is a Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) . Far too many mis-informed people have latched onto the "Global Warming" title as literal and are missing the big picture.

In the 70s we were heading into an ice age. In the 90s and part of the new millennium it was global warming. Now the temperature is no longer rising in fact it's decreased over the last 10 years so then it was climate change. Seems to me at this point were just sitting around waiting to see what it does and naming it accordingly. Ive never heard of the term Global Disruption of Climate. Sounds like climate change didnt sound serious enough. Or maybe now that the earths average temperature seems to be stagnant we cant even use the word change anymore. What does that even mean? Were disrupting the climate? I would personally like to start calling it disgruntling the climate. That way no matter what the climate does we can just charge everyone a tax for pissing it off.

 

[lots0]

And again, the earth has gotten much hotter over a shorter period of time and for longer periods of time. What stopped it from happening then? Or did it happen and the world didnt end?

Sure the world ended... For the Dinosaurs.
Seriously, the changes you are talking about happened long before humans were adding any measurable Co2 to the atmosphere. Remember Human history only goes back a very very short time in earths history, 150,000 years at most and the industrial age when we started adding Co2 to the atmosphere in LARGE quantities is only a few hundred years old. The radical changes in climate you mention took place hundreds of thousands/millions of years ago, long before humans were adding gigatones of Co2 to the atmosphere.

What hasn't been proven to my knowledge is that the miniscule amount of CO2 we contribute is having any real effect.

First of all 27 gigatones a year is not a minuscule amount of Co2, and that amount is from 2004, you can bet that the amount has increased each and every year. Source:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year, which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities. Source:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Humans now produce 99% more of the Co2 in our atmosphere than Volcanoes (the single major source in the pre-human industrial age for Co2 in the Atmosphere). So if we humans produce 99% more Co2 than the Volcanoes that were the largest source of Co2 pre human and that pre human Volcanic Co2 caused all those temperature changes/swings in your chart, what are we doing when we increase the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere by 99%??? Something to think about.

Does it really matter who or what is producing the Co2?
The fact is that Co2 is increasing at UNPRECEDENTED rates in our atmosphere and the increase in Co2 is changing weather patterns world wide.


Anyone wanna take odds that this upcoming spring and summer will set more records in the number of acres burned in wild fires around the world?


Added:
heres the chart you asked for, it only goes back 400 thousand years but it does highlight the alarming current rise in Co2.

Source:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[skiny]

Sure the world ended... For the Dinosaurs.
Seriously, the changes you are talking about happened long before humans were adding any measurable Co2 to the atmosphere. Remember Human history only goes back a very very short time in earths history, 150,000 years at most and the industrial age when we started adding Co2 to the atmosphere in LARGE quantities is only a few hundred years old. The radical changes in climate you mention took place hundreds of thousands/millions of years ago, long before humans were adding gigatones of Co2 to the atmosphere.

Im not talking about changes before humans started burning sticks to keep warm. Im talking about less than 1000 years ago when man was sailing the oceans and building cathedrals. Around 900 AD the earths average temperature peaked at about 6 degrees. And you think a 4 degree jump in 100 years is quick try a 5 degree jump in 50 years between 1400 and 1500 AD. Just before the little ice age in around 1700 AD. And speaking of the little ice age, glaciers have been receding since then. For the last 3 centuries.

First of all 27 gigatones a year is not a minuscule amount of Co2, and that amount is from 2004, you can bet that the amount has increased each and every year. Source:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year, which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities. Source:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Humans now produce 99% more of the Co2 in our atmosphere than Volcanoes (the single major source in the pre-human industrial age for Co2 in the Atmosphere). So if we humans produce 99% more Co2 than the Volcanoes that were the largest source of Co2 pre human and that pre human Volcanic Co2 caused all those temperature changes/swings in your chart, what are we doing when we increase the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere by 99%??? Something to think about.

What is miniscule and what is not depends on what youre comparing it to. At the estimated 380 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere that puts it at about .4% and humans only contribute a small percentage of that percentage. Even if your numbers are correct and I wont dispute them youre comparing man made contributions of CO2 to one other source. You have to compare the contribution we make to the combination of all the sources. Instead of telling me how we compare to volcanoes which to my knowledge dont actually erupt all that often, why dont you come back and tell me how much of the total CO2 in the atmosphere is man made. My best estimate from what Ive read is about 15 ppm. If you can find a better number with a reliable source let me know because Ive looked.

I have no idea where you got the fact that volcanoes were the single major source of CO2 in the atmosphere before man. This is a statement directly from the US environmental agency

The primary natural processes that release CO2 into the atmosphere (sources) and that remove CO2 from the atmosphere (sinks) are:
Animal and plant respiration, by which oxygen and nutrients are converted into CO2 and energy, and plant photosynthesis by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and stored as carbon in plant biomass;
Ocean-atmosphere exchange, in which the oceans absorb and release CO2 at the sea surface; and
Volcanic eruptions, which release carbon from rocks deep in the Earths crust (this source is very small).

Does it really matter who or what is producing the Co2?
The fact is that Co2 is increasing at UNPRECEDENTED rates in our atmosphere and the increase in Co2 is changing weather patterns world wide.


Anyone wanna take odds that this upcoming spring and summer will set more records in the number of acres burned in wild fires around the world?.

Yes it matters who or what is producing the CO2. And yes it matters if the CO2 is driving the changes in our climate. And yes it matters if the tiny amount we contribute is causing it.

Added:
heres the chart you asked for, it only goes back 400 thousand years but it does highlight the alarming current rise in Co2.

Source:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

By the way. For the first 40 years of the industrial revolution when we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere the average earth's temperature steadily decreased until we started raising the alarms of an impending ice age and only began to rise for the next 20 years after that. For the last decade the temperatures have been either declining or remaining stagnant.

 

[lots0]

What is miniscule and what is not depends on what youre comparing it to. At the estimated 380 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere that puts it at about .4% and humans only contribute a small percentage of that percentage. Even if your numbers are correct and I wont dispute them youre comparing man made contributions of CO2 to one other source. You have to compare the contribution we make to the combination of all the sources. Instead of telling me how we compare to volcanoes which to my knowledge dont actually erupt all that often, why dont you come back and tell me how much of the total CO2 in the atmosphere is man made. My best estimate from what Ive read is about 15 ppm. If you can find a better number with a reliable source let me know because Ive looked.

Volcanoes don't erupt all that often??? There is a Volcano erupting every minute of every day for AT LEAST the last 1250 years. Most Geologists believe that through out Earths entire 4.5 billion year history Volcanoes are always erupting or venting gases somewhere on earth.

Since you don't bother to source your material it is rather hard to respond to some of your far fetched claims. Do try to source your material if possible.

Here is one source that says your claim that Volcanic gases are only a very small contributing factor is way wrong.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Around 900 AD the earths average temperature peaked at about 6 degrees.

First of all the that was not a "peak' temperature in the history of the earth, maybe in Human recorded history. But as we know the history of the Earth is 4.5 Billion Years, not just a couple of thousand years of recoded human history, in all those Billions of years the temperature of the Earths surface has varied greatly.

The climate event your talking about... Was a climate event brought about by Volcanic eruptions.

You really do NEED to understand the relationship between the earths atmosphere/weather and Volcanic gases and how the Volcanic releases of gas effects earths median temperature.

Here is a list of past major Volcanic eruptions, just compare your dates to the eruptions. You can see the eruptions parallel between both the heating and the cooling events.
Link Removed

The Year Without a Summer

The eruption of Indonesia's Mount Tambora on 5 April 1815 was one of the largest eruptions in history. Tambora spewed sulphur-rich gases that rose to a height of 28 miles and created a giant sun filter in the northern hemisphere that caused the spring and summer of 1816 to be extremely cold across Europe and North America. Snowfalls and frost occurred in June, July and August and all but the hardiest grains were destroyed. Destruction of the corn crop caused farmers to slaughter their livestock.

source:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

According to news papers of the time, there were some folks calling the volcanic caused global weather event "the end of the World" (They had morons like Glen Beck in the 1815's)... People can sure act stupid sometimes...

A little closer to home... Anyone remember when Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980? I do. I also remember we had snow in July that year in the Rocky Mountains. (AHH the onset of an ice age... not!)

Volcanoes do not just vent Co2 (that will raise the temperature), they also vent out gases like Sulfur and small dust particles that will literally block out the sun and cause a temporary decrease in the earths median temperature.

So you see talking about these occasional short term variations in the earths temperature, like the event in 900 AD, when you are taking about a complete climate disruption, is like comparing apple and oranges. The focus should be on the long term patterns... and those are really fucking scary.

Here is a little 'light' reading for those that want to learn the facts about global warming.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[skiny]

Volcanoes don't erupt all that often??? There is a Volcano erupting every minute of every day for AT LEAST the last 1250 years. Most Geologists believe that through out Earths entire 4.5 billion year history Volcanoes are always erupting or venting gases somewhere on earth.

I stand corrected. I should have stated a specific scale and did not mean the lower class eruptions while people are standing on the edge of it taking pictures of the smoke.

Since you don't bother to source your material it is rather hard to respond to some of your far fetched claims. Do try to source your material if possible.

Here is one source that says your claim that Volcanic gases are only a very small contributing factor is way wrong.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

This was not my claim. This was taken directly from the US environmental agencys website. Human contribution and volcanic contributions of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere are not the major contributing factors. You still have not answered my question. What percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere right now is man made?

First of all the that was not a "peak' temperature in the history of the earth, maybe in Human recorded history. But as we know the history of the Earth is 4.5 Billion Years, not just a couple of thousand years of recoded human history, in all those Billions of years the temperature of the Earths surface has varied greatly.

The climate event your talking about... Was a climate event brought about by Volcanic eruptions.

Again, I was talking about a specific event and obviously didnt mean that the medieval warming period was the highest temperature the earth has seen in 4 and a half billion years. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the temperature was as warm then as it is now and you seem to be ignoring the fact that between the 14th and 15th centuries the temperature rose faster and higher than in recent history. You seem to ignore a lot of things. And to my knowledge the true cause of the medieval warming period is unclear. I dont know where you got the idea that it was caused by a volcano.

You really do NEED to understand the relationship between the earths atmosphere/weather and Volcanic gases and how the Volcanic releases of gas effects earths median temperature.

Here is a list of past major Volcanic eruptions, just compare your dates to the eruptions. You can see the eruptions parallel between both the heating and the cooling events.
Link Removed

source:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

According to news papers of the time, there were some folks calling the volcanic caused global weather event "the end of the World" (They had morons like Glen Beck in the 1815's)... People can sure act stupid sometimes...

A little closer to home... Anyone remember when Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980? I do. I also remember we had snow in July that year in the Rocky Mountains. (AHH the onset of an ice age... not!)

Volcanoes do not just vent Co2 (that will raise the temperature), they also vent out gases like Sulfur and small dust particles that will literally block out the sun and cause a temporary decrease in the earths median temperature.

Ok, this is all fine and Im not even going to bother looking up any of your data because I have no real interest in volcanoes. I have no control over volcanoes I dont live near one and I dont plan on visiting one any time in the near future.

This was supposed to be a friendly debate on whether or not man made CO2 is causing climate change. Not a pissy fight about volcanoes.

So you see talking about these occasional short term variations in the earths temperature, like the event in 900 AD, when you are taking about a complete climate disruption, is like comparing apple and oranges. The focus should be on the long term patterns... and those are really fucking scary.

How come a 100 year 6 degree spike in the 8th century and a 300 year mini ice age around the Victorian Era are considered occasional short term variations in the earths temperature and should be ignored while focusing on long term patterns like the last 50 or 100 years? The only difference between now and any other time in the earths history is apparently the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and again I ask you how much has the CO2 increased in the last 100 years and what percentage of that is man made?

 

[footdr]

Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations: The heating or cooling of the Earth's surface can cause changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. For example, when global temperatures become warmer, carbon dioxide is released from the oceans. When changes in the Earth's orbit trigger a warm (or interglacial) period, increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide may amplify the warming by enhancing the greenhouse effect. When temperatures become cooler, CO2 enters the ocean and contributes to additional cooling. During at least the last 650,000 years, CO2 levels have tended to track the glacial cycles (IPCC, 2007). That is, during warm interglacial periods, CO2 levels have been high and during cool glacial periods, CO2 levels have been low.
We are currently in an interglacial period, as the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

You decide, but I contend that decreasing use of fossil fuels will have little effect on decreasing the earths temperature over the next 1000+years, if ever.