Our Biggest Security Threat Is Global Warming-Induced Extreme Weather

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Charles being into semantics again... say it ain't so!

i never was good at that game.

[Zero Sum 305]

Always good to have noobs come in now and again and lecture us.

Stated like the internet expert you are.

[Ste 6]

Stated like the internet expert you are.

The number of posts on a forum is directly proportional to a person's intelligence, you know.

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

Is CO2 the only heat trapping gas? Of course not. CO2 from fossil fuel emissions however is something this earth never had before the industrial revolution and the amount that goes into the atmosphere stays there, building up. Would it be safe to assume you know something of the Carbon Cycle? So then you should understand that if you add more CO2 to that cycle, that cycle would theoretically increase, however, there is a tipping point, just like your home's AC unit can handle up to a certain volume of air that cycles through before it reaches its maximum capacity. After that, your AC is unable to keep cooling your home. Try leaving your windows and doors open while running your AC and see if you can cool your house down.

Which heat trapping gas is the largest? Do you mean terms of volume in the atmosphere? Water vapor. However, water vapor is unlike CO2 in that it doesn't stay in the atmosphere for very long (precipitation). What scientists have found out is that atmospheric CO2 creates more feedback of heat from water vapor, heating the planet more. And we know what kinds of ecological consequences happens when the temperature goes up.

Has the earth always in history undergone naturally ice ages and back? Yes. I guess you didn't read what I said earlier. Climate Change has happened before on this planet, but that change occurs over tens or hundreds of THOUSANDS of years, while our recent rise in the earth's temperature has been happening at an exponentially faster pace - within 100 years. If you believe in evolution, imagine what the survival rate would have been for earth's inhabitants during the last Climate Change if it only took place over a couple of centuries?

Is Eugenics still practiced and believed in by some Scientists? Who knows? It's not a scientific theory. What a silly tangent.

Did Scientists insist for a long time the earth was flat? There is a huge difference between alchemy and chemistry and I would venture to guess you do know the difference. Yet strangely, you wouldn't suggest that because alchemy has been debunked that chemistry must not be reliable. The modern scientific methods is world's apart from what was deemed as science 600 years ago. Another silly tangent that has nothing to do with Global Warming.

Edited August 5, 2011 by DFH

[luckytxn 2,264]

Is CO2 the only heat trapping gas? Of course not. CO2 from fossil fuel emissions however is something this earth never had before the industrial revolution and the amount that goes into the atmosphere stays there, building up. Would it be safe to assume you know something of the Carbon Cycle? So then you should understand that if you add more CO2 to that cycle, that cycle would theoretically increase, however, there is a tipping point, just like your home's AC unit can handle up to a certain volume of air that cycles through before it reaches its maximum capacity. After that, your AC is unable to keep cooling your home. Try leaving your windows and doors open while running your AC and see if you can cool your house down.

Which heat trapping gas is the largest? Do you mean terms of volume in the atmosphere? Water vapor. However, water vapor is unlike CO2 in that it doesn't stay in the atmosphere for very long (precipitation). What scientists have found out is that atmospheric CO2 creates more feedback of heat from water vapor, heating the planet more. And we know what kinds of ecological consequences happens when the temperature goes up.

Has the earth always in history undergone naturally ice ages and back? Yes. I guess you didn't read what I said earlier. Climate Change has happened before on this planet, but that change occurs over tens or hundreds of THOUSANDS of years, while our recent rise in the earth's temperature has been happening at an exponentially faster pace - within 100 years. If you believe in evolution, imagine what the survival rate would have been for earth's inhabitants during the last Climate Change if it only took place over a couple of centuries?

Is Eugenics still practiced and believed in by some Scientists? Who knows? It's not a scientific theory. What a silly tangent.

Did Scientists insist for a long time the earth was flat? There is a huge difference between alchemy and chemistry and I would venture to guess you do know the difference. Yet strangely, you wouldn't suggest that because alchemy has been debunked that chemistry must not be reliable. The modern scientific methods is world's apart from what was deemed as science 600 years ago. Another silly tangent that has nothing to do with Global Warming.

So because of this it has to be a science. This here is a hypotheses. Now we need some research to turn it into a theory. He was making a leap by saying that he thought there was an accelerated rate of temperature change that was abnormal. He thinks that this may be because we started using more fossil fuels during the time span. He never made the leap that there may have been some other factor.

First has there been an acceleration of warming? The studies I posted that were debunked in the other thread that was supposed to show this was proven to be false. One of them had manipulated data and omitted data. It was a major supposed proof of temperature acceleration and used by GW community as an eureka moment but was shown to not be the case by other scientists. Interesting enough a scientist (Physics) noticed a correlation between the sometimes temperature fluctuations and looked into it and found a correlation with observed abnormal solar activity. The studies did not withstand peer review.

There are other theories that would and can explain GW if there is truly such a thing. All these questions need to be addressed if the GW community wants to be taken seriously. So far though it has been PROVEN that the U.N. agency at the forefront and the NASA agency has been fraudulent. The theory is interesting and should be studied I think but there must be no more fraudulent activity. All studies must be peer reviewed and all the consequences that goes with that. No more manipulation of data. No more omitting of data. NO MORE FRAUD OF ANY KIND if any want this theory to be taken seriously. Lets start over with a clean slate and now go and PROVE this theory if it is possible. It will take a lot of studies and the whole scientific community must come to a consensus. (Right now most scientists actually are skeptics)

If it is proven then let us seek remedies and not just say the bad old U.S. and Europe have to make the sacrifices needed but we must put pressure on China, India, Russia and other more minor countries to also do what is needed. Placing a carbon tax is probably the worst thing for us to do. As an example if a American company shuts down a plant here and then opens one in a country that does not care we penalize that company. Enough do this then the pressure on the recipient country will be massive to then get into compliance as those plants are all of a sudden not cost effective there and move back here to the states. This is just one example of many that we can use. To place us here on a uneven playing field for an unproven theory is disastrous for us.

[Ste 6]

So because of this it has to be a science. This here is a hypotheses. Now we need some research to turn it into a theory. He was making a leap by saying that he thought there was an accelerated rate of temperature change that was abnormal. He thinks that this may be because we started using more fossil fuels during the time span. He never made the leap that there may have been some other factor.

First has there been an acceleration of warming? The studies I posted that were debunked in the other thread that was supposed to show this was proven to be false. One of them had manipulated data and omitted data. It was a major supposed proof of temperature acceleration and used by GW community as an eureka moment but was shown to not be the case by other scientists. Interesting enough a scientist (Physics) noticed a correlation between the sometimes temperature fluctuations and looked into it and found a correlation with observed abnormal solar activity. The studies did not withstand peer review.

There are other theories that would and can explain GW if there is truly such a thing. All these questions need to be addressed if the GW community wants to be taken seriously. So far though it has been PROVEN that the U.N. agency at the forefront and the NASA agency has been fraudulent. The theory is interesting and should be studied I think but there must be no more fraudulent activity. All studies must be peer reviewed and all the consequences that goes with that. No more manipulation of data. No more omitting of data. NO MORE FRAUD OF ANY KIND if any want this theory to be taken seriously. Lets start over with a clean slate and now go and PROVE this theory if it is possible. It will take a lot of studies and the whole scientific community must come to a consensus. (Right now most scientists actually are skeptics)

If it is proven then let us seek remedies and not just say the bad old U.S. and Europe have to make the sacrifices needed but we must put pressure on China, India, Russia and other more minor countries to also do what is needed. Placing a carbon tax is probably the worst thing for us to do. As an example if a American company shuts down a plant here and then opens one in a country that does not care we penalize that company. Enough do this then the pressure on the recipient country will be massive to then get into compliance as those plants are all of a sudden not cost effective there and move back here to the states. This is just one example of many that we can use. To place us here on a uneven playing field for an unproven theory is disastrous for us.

Did you read the article I posted? You said that no studies supporting man-made climate change had passed peer review. That's clearly a false statement. Saying that most scientists are skeptics.. Yes and no. All scientists are skeptics, it's part of being a scientist. However, it does not mean what you think it means. I would say that your statement, with the implied meaning that most scientists do not believe in man-made climate change, is also false. Plus it matters what kind of scientists you're talking about. In the article I posted, the ones disputing the theory did have some peer-reviewed articles, just not in the subject of climate.

[Ste 6]

...

And one other point.

Claiming that the theory has been debunked based on some stories you wrote about in some other thread isn't going to wash with people, I don't think. If you look at the fact that almost every country's government is taking action already, and that there's very few countries where "denial" stories come from, that's enough to debunk your debunking claims.

[Zero Sum 305]

You can't debunk a debunker when the debunker hasn't even got the main ideas of the actual science he uses to debunk other science.

(He does it to himself!)