Pentagon to rank global warming as destabilising force

[luckytxn 2,264]

Far as I know, that has been debunked. CO₂ levels, and many other water soluble gases, increase after a period of warming sea temperatures, not as a precursor.

Exactly. CO2 levels have stayed pretty much around .42 percent for as long as they have measured it. The mean temperatures has shown to fluctuate but can be shown to have actually dropped if the years are done in different ways. It is all in how the stats are taken and what years. There are whole websites that show all this this.

Edited February 2, 2010 by luckytxn

[one...two...tree 2,762]

First need to understand that global warming is a bunk science and always has been. Once that is established than we can talk about bunk sciences.

Now bring out the data and I can go get the data and post it disproving yours and we can go back and forth. And don't start with how all the scientists are in agreement. They are not and in fact more scientists are in disagreement over it.

Which bodies of science dispute that global warming is real? And more importantly, how do you decide for yourself which bodies of science are trustworthy and which ones are trying to sell you bunk?

[luckytxn 2,264]

Recently there was a program I saw that showed again how the ive pack in antarctica is shrinking. Tjsi has been hammered relentlessly on everyone but the actual data shows that the ice pack has actually grown.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Far as I know, that has been debunked. CO₂ levels, and many other water soluble gases, increase after a period of warming sea temperatures, not as a precursor.

As far as you know? If you don't know it, it doesn't exist?

Recently there was a program I saw that showed again how the ive pack in antarctica is shrinking. Tjsi has been hammered relentlessly on everyone but the actual data shows that the ice pack has actually grown.

Which bodies of science dispute that global warming is real? And more importantly, how do you decide for yourself which bodies of science are trustworthy and which ones are trying to sell you bunk?

[luckytxn 2,264]

Also my fave has always been about how the greenhouse gasses are the main culprit but the data shows that almost all the greenhouse gasses are put there by natural causes. (Hence my play before by showing how facetiuously to stop the natural forces)

[luckytxn 2,264]

As far as you know? If you don't know it, it doesn't exist?

Which bodies of science dispute that global warming is real? And more importantly, how do you decide for yourself which bodies of science are trustworthy and which ones are trying to sell you bunk?

Same can be said to you. Now answer your own question.

The one thing I can add to that is why does a certain main party spew this stuff? The same data they are using has been shown recently to have been pretty much falsified. (Heard of climategate?)

[Peikko 1,575]

The year on year parts per million concentration of CO2 has increased empirically.

Atmospheric CO2

Mauna Loa Observatory (Scripps / NOAA / ESRL)

Monthly & Annual Mean CO2 Concentrations (ppm)

March 1958 - Present

1959 - 315.05

1960 - 316-91

1961 - 317.64

1962 - 318.45

1972 - 327.45

1982 - 341.22

1992 - 356.27

2002 - 373.17

2003 - 375.78

2004 - 377.52

2005 - 379.76

2006 - 381.85

2007 - 383.71

2008 - 385.57

2009 - 387.35.

That's not linear increase either. These increases year on year are significant. They may seem like small numbers to the uneducated, of course.

Same can be said to you. Now answer your own question.

The one thing I can add to that is why does a certain main party spew this stuff? The same data they are using has been shown recently to have been pretty much falsified. (Heard of climategate?)

You focus on 'party lines' and you miss the point. No other country in the world is split ideologically on this problem, not one.

I didn't post every single piece of data available, but you look for yourself. There has not been an single month since 1958 where the ppm reading hasn't increased. Not one.

[luckytxn 2,264]

The climate models used in the IPCC reports have made predictions of increases in global temperature of 2ºC to 6ºC over present levels by 2100. These predictions were based on two assumptions:

The atmospheric CO2 level would go from 290ppm in about 1850 to at least 580ppm in 2100.

The increase in CO2 would have both a direct greenhouse gas effect, and trigger a positive feedback effect. The result would be a small direct increase in temperature from the CO2 , but the increased temperature would also result in an increase in water evaporation. The water vapor is the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and its increase would further increase temperature, resulting in a positive feedback until the process self-limited at a significantly higher level.

The predicted direct CO2 effect is estimated to be about 1C for the doubling of CO2 level. The present level of about 388ppm would have already caused about half of the direct rise, since the effect is nonlinear. The global temperature has apparently increased by about 0.7ºC in the last 150 years, which is slightly more than the estimated direct CO2 effect, but far short of the expected feedback imposed value. In addition, the temperature level up to about 1850 was significantly lower than typical levels during the last several thousand years. Much of the period between about 1200 to 1850 has in fact been called the “Little Ice Age”. The abnormal low temperature starting point for the change makes the distinction between natural temperature rise due to a recovery from the abnormally low temperature to the present difficult to separate from CO2 and positive feedback induced increases. The CO2 increase was small until about 1940, so the positive contribution from the CO2 is based on an even smaller maximum temperature increase (about 0.3ºC) and a shorter time. All of these facts indicate that calculations of any CO2 effects and positive feedback additions would have badly missed the actual present temperature if we did not already know it.

The proposed solution to the discrepancy by the IPCC is that sulfate gas and particulate pollution from burning fossil fuels, have caused atmospheric “Global Dimming”, which greatly inhibited the correct level of warming. While this cannot be totally refuted, it is not specifically supportable either. Since the need for a strong positive feedback is needed to support the projections for the temperature rise to 2100, the mechanism for such a rise is examined.

Working in a Chemical labs for 15 years has hsown me that PPM is not a great deal. The percentages are about the same regardless. It is also needed to be known where and how each data was retrieved and for each years and what protocols were used.

Edited February 2, 2010 by luckytxn

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Same can be said to you. Now answer your own question.

The one thing I can add to that is why does a certain main party spew this stuff? The same data they are using has been shown recently to have been pretty much falsified. (Heard of climategate?)

I accept and trust the integrity of the bodies of science whose expertise is climate. You seem to accept and trust whatever propaganda you are fed by the RWM. There's the difference. You will not find a single body of science who has contradicted that global warming is real.

[FortLaudy 10]

You focus on 'party lines' and you miss the point. No other country in the world is split ideologically on this problem, not one.

I have to agree with this, this seems to be the problem in the US in general and on VJ OT, haha. Instead of solving problems, too much energy is spent on arguing about who's right and who's wrong. Human dependence on fossil fuel have a number of drawbacks, the issue of how to intelligently solve this energy dependence on fossil fuels is what should be under discussion, then actually Doing something about it would be helpful.

[luckytxn 2,264]

The year on year parts per million concentration of CO2 has increased empirically.

Atmospheric CO2

Mauna Loa Observatory (Scripps / NOAA / ESRL)

Monthly & Annual Mean CO2 Concentrations (ppm)

March 1958 - Present

1959 - 315.05

1960 - 316-91

1961 - 317.64

1962 - 318.45

1972 - 327.45

1982 - 341.22

1992 - 356.27

2002 - 373.17

2003 - 375.78

2004 - 377.52

2005 - 379.76

2006 - 381.85

2007 - 383.71

2008 - 385.57

2009 - 387.35.

That's not linear increase either. These increases year on year are significant. They may seem like small numbers to the uneducated, of course.

You focus on 'party lines' and you miss the point. No other country in the world is split ideologically on this problem, not one.

I didn't post every single piece of data available, but you look for yourself. There has not been an single month since 1958 where the ppm reading hasn't increased. Not one.

Actually party lines are very important. Other countries are on board and most of them are in Europe that has very little hydrocarbons to burn of their own and has to import most of their fuel. It would behoove them to have the U.S. have to spend a lot to switch over to what they have to do to fuel. It is more expensive their way of having to do it and our way is cheaper and that makes their output at a cost advantage more than us so of course they want to even the playing field.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I have to agree with this, this seems to be the problem in the US in general and on VJ OT, haha. Instead of solving problems, too much energy is spent on arguing about who's right and who's wrong. Human dependence on fossil fuel have a number of drawbacks, the issue of how to intelligently solve this energy dependence on fossil fuels is what should be under discussion, then actually Doing something about it would be helpful.

The oil lobby will be along shortly to have your post edited.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have to agree with this, this seems to be the problem in the US in general and on VJ OT, haha. Instead of solving problems, too much energy is spent on arguing about who's right and who's wrong. Human dependence on fossil fuel have a number of drawbacks, the issue of how to intelligently solve this energy dependence on fossil fuels is what should be under discussion, then actually Doing something about it would be helpful.

There's a reason for that. The Right Wingers here help perpetuate the Manufactured Doubt Industry's lie that Global Warming is a hoax. These are the same people that disputed that acid rain was bad or that smoking causes lung cancer.

There are plenty of innovations happening right now, all over the world that are moving us toward renewable energy and away from fossil fuels. In the meantime, the fossil fuel industry will continue to drum up people into believing that global warming isn't real or that there is a dispute when scientifically there is no argument. It's funny to see the number of Right Wingers here (Bill, Danno and others) continually post propaganda to the contrary.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I accept and trust the integrity of the bodies of science whose expertise is climate. You seem to accept and trust whatever propaganda you are fed by the RWM. There's the difference. You will not find a single body of science who has contradicted that global warming is real.

And many climatologists are in agreement that global warming is bunk. The climatologists that you are agreeing with are in institutes that accept funding from the FEDs. They have to toe the line. That is what happened when they just got found out by the "climategate". They have been faking data it is found out for many years and supressing data that does not look advantageous to them. This is a fraud.

[FortLaudy 10]

The oil lobby will be along shortly to have your post edited.

LOL... There are such extremely intelligent people in this country, it's astounding to me that the US is still reliant on oil from the Middle East...