Global Warming SOLAR-made not MAN-made

[FBBone]

Oh, thank GOD!  McPodunk is here to continue espousing global warming climate change!  No doubt bringing the eternal knowledge with which  his "Papaw" has endowed him.  Well, what kind of scientist are you today, Mc Farceland?  Is it going to rain cats and snakes?

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by FBBone
Oh, thank GOD!  McPodunk is here to continue espousing global warming climate change!  No doubt bringing the eternal knowledge with which  his "Papaw" has endowed him.  Well, what kind of scientist are you today, Mc Farceland?  Is it going to rain cats and snakes?

Well hey...........at least I was prepared for this one.
Lately when I see a McFarseland post  I automaticaly just get up and get the Windex and paper towels. Yaknow you`re going to need them.

[Angus]

Well, now let me see, he was right about Lazs's thing and the Hurricane.
Guess Lazs was chuckling too early.

[lazs2]

sooo... "worst hurricane season ever" now means one hurricane that is a big one?

comeon... a little honesty here guys.

Look at the math.. It just doesn't add up.  even the most rabid and dishonest are backing off of co2 now.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

You won't get real numbers from the environmentalists or the lefty sites... try it if you don't believe me...  just "we know" and maybe tons of co2 (meaningless) and all sorts of things that don't explain a thing co2 wise.







"Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.

 

5. To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.


TABLE 4a.


Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED) Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics  % of All Greenhouse Gases
% Natural
% Man-made
 Water vapor 95.000%   94.999%
 0.001%  
 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618%   3.502%
 0.117%  
 Methane (CH4) 0.360%   0.294%
 0.066%  
 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950%   0.903%
 0.047%  
 Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072%   0.025%
 0.047%  
 Total 100.00%   99.72
 0.28%  "

now.. that is our "contribution"  0.28%... of all greenhouse gas... about half that if you weigh them by their significance but take the high figure..

Now....  take the sun and the earths rotation and sea floor spreading and such... say that they are "only" 50-75% of all warming.. you are left with our contribution as being like 0.28% of a 50% (low end) total!

not only that but... even if we went crazy and reduced this nothing by another nothing (30%) we would not even be able to measure the difference.

We would cripple mankind over an infintesimal reduction... perhaps  a tenth of a degree in a century... likely less.

lazs

[FBBone]

Originally posted by Angus
Well, now let me see, he was right about Lazs's thing and the Hurricane.
Guess Lazs was chuckling too early.

He was?  I'd argue that.  Even if he were though, a stopped clock is correct twice a day too.  Doesn't mean I'd rely on it.

[Angus]

Well, global warming, from any cause, should cause more hurricanes. Maybe wiser to count them decadewise rather than seasonwise though. But remember that the cause for hurricanes is seawater which reaches a certain temperature in a large enough area, - and since the sea is warming then yes.
Predictions go as fas as hurricanes starting to happen in the med.
It's not even rocket science.

[Sabre]

Wasn't there an article a month or two that tried to explain why all the predictions last year of a dire hurricane season because of global warming didn't come true?  I think I remember it saying that it was because of global warming that we didn't have a bad season after all.  So, first it was "Because of GW, 2006 will be a devastating hurricane season."  When it turned out to be a dud, GW was again the answer.

"A theory that explains everything explains nothing."  By the way, Dean was not the most severe Hurricane in history, either windspeed-wise or barrometric pressure-wise.  That, I believe, was back in the early 1900s.  What do you suppose they blaimed that one on?

[Tango]

The tree huggers are gonna be coming after ya.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294032,00.html

[Tiger]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294032,00.html


Expect to see Al Gore calling for the complete eradication of Moose

[Maverick]

It's OK, they can do that. They are all investing in green credits with al gore's corporations.

[Ripsnort]

Cool!  Now, if Norway has a special Moose tag, I can book a hunting trip, kill a moose, feed my family, and I've felt as though I've done my part for global warming!

[Hortlund]

I really dont understand the though-process behind the desicion to print that article.

1) Methane is more harmful to the environment than CO2.

2) All (I think all, at least all air-breathers with an internal digestive system) living creatures release methane into the atmosphere.

3) Yes?

The anti-environment crowd is really getting desperate these days it seems. This looks like yet another attempt to divert attention from the  problem of gobal warming by making another pointless braindead statement.  

I shall expect lasz in here within the hour to join the retarded choire currently headed by Ripsnort apparently.

[Sabre]

The evidence continues to mount...Especially interesting is the new study on the global impact of biofuel (Hint: It ain't gonna save us)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293998,00.html
Man-Made Global Warming Links Challenged
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
By Brit Hume
 
Done Deal?

Many media outlets — such as the recent Newsweek magazine cover story — portray man-made global warming as fact and those who deny it as conspirators. But skeptics are increasingly certain that the scare is vastly overblown.

A new study by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz contends that the Earth's climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the United Nations' recent climate study claims. Schwarz's work will be published in The Journal of Geophysical Eesearch.

The study is just one of several peer-reviewed scientific studies challenging global warming alarmism:

The Belgian Weather Institute concludes that carbon dioxide does not have a decisive role in global warming.

A study by two Chinese scientists says CO2's role in warming is "vastly exaggerated."

And new research by University of Washington mathematicians shows a correlation between high solar activity and periods of warming.

Meanwhile, what is billed as the first comprehensive analysis of global biofuel impact has concluded that their use may release between two and nine times more carbon gases than fossil fuels.

The study published in the journal Science says the clearing of forest land to grow biofuel crops will produce immediate carbon gas releases and also destroy habitats, wildlife and jobs. It says that while biofuels look good from a Western perspective, they will be harmful on a global scale. The study contends it will take about 40 percent of American and European agricultural land to grow enough biofuel crops to replace only 10 percent of fossil fuel use.

[Maverick]

Your thread actually came out first but the other one already has responses posted about the same thing.

http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=213211

[Angus]

FYI, Biofuel relies on complete energy recycling rather than extracting old fossile fuels from hundreds of millions of years ago.
And as for the moose etc. hahaha. happy day.
It's not a moose concern, it's not a polar bear concern, it is the concern of our terra firma not turning into a Venus-toaster with record speed  


And he would like it, I  guess....(for the religious ones)...: