Global Warming SOLAR-made not MAN-made

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2
hortlund.. good thing you didn't read the whole thread...

If you have been posting alot in it, I agree.

you will find that there is no source that gives the math to prove man made global warming exists or that man made co2 is causing any warming.

Actually what I will find is more desperate "putting heads into sand"-attempts by the anti-environment crowd.

Judging from this post of yours, I can see that your (ie the anti-environment crowd) position has been pushed back even further. Its no longer "there is no proof of global warming", instead we get "there is no proof of man-made global warming".

This is really simple. We know that CO2 contributes to global warming thanks to the greenhouse effect. There is a very clear correlation between CO2 in atmosphere and temperature. Even a child understands this. We also know that we are putting huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. To put it in terms that even a retard should understand, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere thanks to man, than there would have been without man.

Clearly the result combination of the facts above are too complicated for you to understand. Which really makes any sort of discussion with you on the subject quite pointless.

Its equally simple as the hurricane-argument we had before. You remember that one right? The one where I asked you if there were any predictions to be made from the following facts
1. Surface temperature of ocean influences hurricane strength.  
2. Ocean is getting warmer thanks to global warming.

[FBBone]

Originally posted by Hortlund
If you have been posting alot in it, I agree.

 
Actually what I will find is more desperate "putting heads into sand"-attempts by the anti-environment crowd.

Judging from this post of yours, I can see that your (ie the anti-environment crowd) position has been pushed back even further. Its no longer "there is no proof of global warming", instead we get "there is no proof of man-made global warming".

This is really simple. We know that CO2 contributes to global warming thanks to the greenhouse effect. There is a very clear correlation between CO2 in atmosphere and temperature. Even a child understands this. We also know that we are putting huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. To put it in terms that even a retard should understand, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere thanks to man, than there would have been without man.

Clearly the result combination of the facts above are too complicated for you to understand. Which really makes any sort of discussion with you on the subject quite pointless.

Its equally simple as the hurricane-argument we had before. You remember that one right? The one where I asked you if there were any predictions to be made from the following facts
1. Surface temperature of ocean influences hurricane strength.  
2. Ocean is getting warmer thanks to global warming.

I love guys like this.  If you disagree with them, you are either:

1.  Stupid

2.  Retarded

3.  "Anti-environment"

Really, if you have to resort to petty name calling to further your argument, your argument itself might be flawed.  

Also, I have yet to meet someone who is "anti-environment", someone who has said; "Well, F*** the environment!".  Nobody I've met, people Hortland would call "anti-environment", wants to destroy the environment, even if we could.  Furthermore, until you return to the tribal caveman way of life, you don't have any business saying anyone is "anti-environment".

Maybe Hortland would just be happy if we all continued to deny 3rd world countries the simple and sometimes life saving amenities he likely enjoys daily.  Things like electricity, which makes possible heat, refrigeration, light......(use any of these things lately, Hortland?).  Things that the "environmentalist" elite don't want them burning coal to generate electricity for.

We'll all just keep the pressure on the African countries to keep; heating their houses (huts) by burning dung and wood (how many greenhouse gases and health problems result from this kind of open burning?), drinking untreated water, living with poor to non-existent medical care.  

Meanwhile, we'll continue with coal fired plants that are too few in number and in some cases in poor repair (leading to inefficiency).  Or perhaps force wind turbines and solar panels (both grossly inefficient for their relative size) on areas that don't want them and would favor a nuclear plant.  

We shall continue to deny that our choices, nay, DEMANDS for the rest of the world have any negative impact whatsoever on their lives, after all it's for their own good (their too stupid to realize this, you see) and we wouldn't want them to hurt themselves.

Then, and only then, can we all be "Pro-environment".

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Hortlund
It's no longer "there is no proof of global warming", instead we get "there is no proof of man-made global warming".

Anyone who said, "there is no proof of global warming" is a ice age denier.  

There is a scientific consensus that woolly mammoths existed during an ice age some 40,000 yrs ago, The Great Lakes and Hudson Bay were carved out by a huge ice sheet that covered most of present day Canada. Then the climate warmed with no help from an industrialized society.

I think the argument has always been that the data are within natural fluctuation of the natural system and can naturally, be explained naturally.

[AKH]

Laz

Would this be the source of your data?

http://www.nrsp.com/CG_PDFs/CG-04-04a-5001.pdf

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by FBBone
I love guys like this.  If you disagree with them, you are either:

1.  Stupid

2.  Retarded

3.  "Anti-environment"

Really, if you have to resort to petty name calling to further your argument, your argument itself might be flawed.  

Also, I have yet to meet someone who is "anti-environment", someone who has said; "Well, F*** the environment!".  Nobody I've met, people Hortland would call "anti-environment", wants to destroy the environment, even if we could.  Furthermore, until you return to the tribal caveman way of life, you don't have any business saying anyone is "anti-environment".

Maybe Hortland would just be happy if we all continued to deny 3rd world countries the simple and sometimes life saving amenities he likely enjoys daily.  Things like electricity, which makes possible heat, refrigeration, light......(use any of these things lately, Hortland?).  Things that the "environmentalist" elite don't want them burning coal to generate electricity for.

We'll all just keep the pressure on the African countries to keep; heating their houses (huts) by burning dung and wood (how many greenhouse gases and health problems result from this kind of open burning?), drinking untreated water, living with poor to non-existent medical care.  

Meanwhile, we'll continue with coal fired plants that are too few in number and in some cases in poor repair (leading to inefficiency).  Or perhaps force wind turbines and solar panels (both grossly inefficient for their relative size) on areas that don't want them and would favor a nuclear plant.  

We shall continue to deny that our choices, nay, DEMANDS for the rest of the world have any negative impact whatsoever on their lives, after all it's for their own good (their too stupid to realize this, you see) and we wouldn't want them to hurt themselves.

Then, and only then, can we all be "Pro-environment".

I think this post, combined with your inability to spell my name correctly puts you in the first category.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Anyone who said, "there is no proof of global warming" is a ice age denier.  

There is a scientific consensus that woolly mammoths existed during an ice age some 40,000 yrs ago, The Great Lakes and Hudson Bay were carved out by a huge ice sheet that covered most of present day Canada. Then the climate warmed with no help from an industrialized society.

I think the argument has always been that the data are within natural fluctuation of the natural system and can naturally, be explained naturally.

I would go even further and say that anyone who says "there is no proof of global warming" is a complete idiot.

Having said that, I dont know what your experience is, but Ive come across guys who have tried to deny that there is any global warming going on. That was more common a couple of years ago though, and now they have been forced to retreat to the position that lasz is currently arguing.

[lazs2]

akh..  I have read junk sciences site this one also

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

Fact is..   hortlund is correct.. the earth heats and cools... long before we ever got here... fortunately we are in a warming cycle.   Who knows how much longer it will last.

Hortlund is correct that co2 is a greenhouse gas and that we are contributing to it and that greenhouse effect keeps us all from freezing to death.

But then... he goes a little astray...  he claims that we are causing global warming with our co2 contribution

His math is "even a child knows this"   Not real precise.    

The real math is that if the greenhouse effect is causing even 50% of the warming...  a figure that is accepted and on the high end of the scale but...say it is 50%

What is our contribution?    any child knows (sorry) that 95% of the greenhouse effect is water vapor... of which...we have almost no affect.

of the other gases... co2 is the largest.   Of that, we contribute about 0.11%.

of the others.. methane cfc etc... we contribute a little more for a total of all our contribution of about 0.28% total.

This is our contribution to everything that is not natural and is greenhouse... this assumes that greenhouse gas is driving warming more than any other natural event or even contributing even 50% to the warming.

taken simply it is saying that our contribution of 0.28% to greenhouse gas has pulled us out of an ice age!

If this is not the real math then help me out.   I can find no math on any of the thousands of "sky is falling sites" that gives our real contribution.

To reduce our contribution (to greenhouse gas)  by 30% is to reduce nothing by nothing for no reason.    we can't even measure global temps by the tiny little amount that this reduction could cause at its best.  

Tiny little increases or decreases in solar activity would dwarf such a change by us...

The whole universe is heating.. it is not from man made co2.
 When the universe begins to cool it won't be because we raised gas prices by double at the pumps to give to government and their science lackies.

lazs

[FBBone]

Originally posted by Hortlund
I think this post, combined with your inability to spell my name correctly puts you in the first category.

I'd say your inability to come up with a decent response, and your previous posts on the subject, would plant you firmly by my side.

[lazs2]

hortlund...  I do not think that anyone ever said that no warming was occuring.

What people were saying was that there was nothing unusual or dangerous going on.

I still believe that.   You yourself point out that if the oceans were heating we would see increased hurricane activity.    yet... we have seen decreased activity..

Real data from sats..  not the worthless weather stations shows that there has been no warming that can be measured in the last two decades in North America.

There may be but it is just not a big deal.

The oceans haven't risen.. we aren't drowning or burning up.. every single prediction about the effect of "MMGW" that you chicken littles have made...

you have backed down on.   nothing bad is happening... if something bad does happen... why is it anyones fault?    when has nature and the weather ever co operated and been "average"?   never.

I may be wrong... I am not scientist.   I just started looking into this a few years ago.   but... I just can't find any data that supports co2... man made co2... being able to bring about any real global warming that anyone could measure.

Hell.... I haven't seen anything that says we can tell what the average temp of the globe is even.

I have not seen one predicition from your camp come true.   I follow every link anyone sends me...  I get models that don't have water vapor in em!  can you imagine?   greenhouse gas models that leave out water vapor?  why would they do such a thing?  unless... unless they simply wish to decieve.

I have watched scientists claim that the UN report was "cleaned up" to make it look worse than was said... I have seen petitions of 17000-19000 people with advanced degrees all saying just what I am getting out of the whole mess.

I see the alarmists hiding their agenda and what they want done... what a 30% reduction (of nothing) will really mean to the world and it's people.

To watch algores movie now... just a year later is to see how wrong they were then.   almost nothing in his movie is true... never was but... now we know it.

lazs

[JB88]

did you actually watch al gore's movie lasz?

[Jackal1]

The facts M`am. Nothing but the facts.
Wishing, hoping ..maybes, could bes, maybe nots, could not bes and IFs.
Doesn`t mean anything.
Nobody wants to look at the practical side of what they are saying needs to be and is going to be done. None of what has been offered up makes a fiddlers damn in hell. It ain`t gonna happen.
Once again...........Let`s just say, for instance, that a big crack down on industry pollution , etc. is actualy passed and put into effect....here/there/wherever. (That`s a fairy tale in itself, but for the sake of argument........)
There are small, starving places on the face of the earth that would gladly accept any industry, of any kind and not care what pollution, etc. was spewed forth. No regs. No stipulations. Just Come On Down...please. That`s reality.That`s exactly the places that major industry would end up in such circumstances . It`s all about the money. Pure and simple.
Another thing is , as has been said before, is most of the so called solutions, mostly to problems that don`t exist, are based on the magic theory of everything being in place to begin with to accomplish. Doesn`t work that way. There is no magic wand that enables anything to start at point C,D or E, etc. Everything has to begin with point A. Starting there, most of the solutions to fairy tale problems, that have been bitten into like a fat worm in front of a bass, would cause more of the same problem from the beginning than they would ever be able to overcome.
The only thing that will posssibly ever become from all of this , is it will cost you, me and everyone. That`s what is intended with the fairy tales to begin with.
It`s all about the money.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2
I still believe that.   You yourself point out that if the oceans were heating we would see increased hurricane activity.    yet... we have seen decreased activity..

No, what I am pointing out is that when the ocean gets warmer, we should see stronger hurricanes, not more hurricanes.

This just shows that you clearly lack the ability to understand what you are talking about.

[Angus]

Ahh the facts, yes, indeed
Lasz: You are twisting. You claim Hortlund linked the man-made global warming with anything a child knows. But what he said is this:
"This is really simple. We know that CO2 contributes to global warming thanks to the greenhouse effect. There is a very clear correlation between CO2 in atmosphere and temperature. Even a child understands this."
So please stay on track.
And here:
"hortlund... I do not think that anyone ever said that no warming was occuring."
Maybe you should browse your own posts.
And here:
"Real data from sats.. not the worthless weather stations shows that there has been no warming that can be measured in the last two decades in North America."
Ahhh, now you accept the humble sattelites as a source. Now firstly, N-America is not Global and secondly, sattelites show a global warming trend, notably nearer to the arctic areas. And thirdly you just stated this:
"I do not think that anyone ever said that no warming was occuring"
As I mentioned before.
Like an overpowered car stuck in a poddle.

I could go on forever, but this is enough for the receiving end's mind I think.

And Jackal, -  I agree with you on one thing, - It's all about the money. Your post above, however, I would put very much otherwise.

I'd love to see you two guys taking Churchill's decisions in the beginning of WW2. Or even Neville Chamberlain's.
First, - you'd refuse there is a threat. There is no Hitler.
Then you'd say it's no need to confront him. He is not global.
Then you'd say it is a natural cause of things. (this is the step where you are now)
Then..what? Oh, Resisting is futile because there is no proof that anything you do will do anything.

Just wait a few steps.

[lazs2]

angus... you need to pay attention... even a child does know that there is a correlation between greenhouse gases and temp.   of which... co2 plays a tiny part.   Of that...  man plays an even smaller part...  

here is where the "children" get off track.. that is in saying that co2 is a major driver of global temp... this is not true and the math does not bear it out.  

the oceans are heating faster than  the air.. the exact opposite of what should be happening in a co2 doomsday scenario..  it takes a huge increase in air temp to increase the ocean temp... not what we are seeing at all.   The earths core heats the oceans.. probly by a shift in rotation.

http://www.nov55.com/cli.html

We are not poised on some 1% knife edge of global warming doomsday.

also.. it is the first 20% of co2 that absorbs most of the earths radiation of heat... a doubling does not double the effect.. each new doubling had a much less effect.

In short.. let's face it... we don't really understand all there is about global climate change but one thing is certain... the co2 math just doesn't add up...

No matter what has caused global climate change over the milleniums.. it has not been co2 and is not now.


As for denial of warming...  what are you missing?  I said that the planet heats and cools in cycles and that we are in a perfectly natural heating event... it is so small tho that two decades of data over north America are unable to detect it.   far from the exaggerated claims of the alarmists.

but.. I agree with jackal.. when people see what the alarmists want to charge us for their theory... when it comes time to pay the bill... we will ignore them for the most part and it will just go away...  3rd world countries will ignore the alarmists even more than those who live in sweden and iceland and england.

also...  who is being stupid and childish here?  who is comparing this to hitler?

lazs

[lazs2]

angus... probly too much information here and too many numbers and footnotes and reading but it does address the ocean thing...

http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html

jb...  I will be as honest as I can... I really really tried to watch algores performance....  I have cable and caught bits and pieces of his act and snake oil show... it was difficult because much of what he said was pure emotion and obvious heart string tugging... compete with dieing children... I am sure it worked up a tear and rightious indignation in you but it gagged me.

Also... almost everything he said has since been proven to be either an exaggeration or an outright lie

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=d0235a70-33f1-45b3-803b-829b1b3542ef

but...  I imagine that I have seen about 70% of his performance based on reading about the scams and recalling seeing them...  doubt I missed anything important.

Have you seen "the great global warming hoax"   that was on BBC?   Much easier to watch... less pandering.... more humor.   more facts.

lazs