Global Warming SOLAR-made not MAN-made

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2
I guess what starts most people on the road to doubt is that we know that the earth goes through heating and cooling cycles... we know that they have happened for all time and that man was never a player...

Not before 1750, that is correct. Now lets look at the development since 1750.

I know words are complicated and I know that I have explained this to you about a dozen times already....but alas, it seems you need to upgrade your intelligence before you can comprehend all those complicated words and concepts.

So lets try this.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Jackal1
..........And you are having yours repeatedly humped by the pay for sayers.
You seem to enjoy it though , so I guess all is well.

You can say that, but that rope seems to be thin enough not to notice.
Lazs's quote and respond was either a mistake or a deliberate twist. I hope it was a misake.

As for the many quoting on Gore's movie, without seeing it, we have an old saying up here. The loudest barrel is the empty one.

[Angus]

And Lazs:
"In this case.. can we really take credit for pulling the planet out of an ice age?"

There was not an iceage 250 years ago. Not 1000 years ago. Not 5000 years ago.
Read up on the timeline please. Okay, to have things roughly, we have civilization less than 10.000 years. We have homo sapiens creeping out of "apiens" for a lot longer. We have had polar Icecaps some 20 million years as far as is known.

So, alas, enter homo Lazsiens. Seems like the creature is not only melting the caps away within some 5% of the time lapsed since human civilization, but also not identifying it, and meanwhile striving not to do anything against it, and convincing himself that is't pointless anyway.

Guess God even makes mistakes.

[lazs2]

so hortlund.. there has never been a time that the co2 concentration was higher than it is now?

look at the ice age cycles and at the temperature cycles... look at the margin of error...

You have to really stretch to see anything unusual going on.  you have to have charts that are truncated or use tiny little increments that are far less than the margin of error.

to rebut any doubt about it you are left with noting but name calling.

I have asked you to prove the math wrong.. to show me how our contribution to co2 can possibly be heating the planet.  

All these cycles in the past.. these normal fluctuations just like now.. they happened without man even being around.   What caused it to heat and cool?  Is it possible that something other than co2 drives global temps?

Co2 lags not leads.   the ocean is heating the air not the air heating the ocean.. if co2 was the cause then the ocean would not be heating until we got the air one hell of a lot hotter.   A shift in the earths molten core would heat the oceans...sea floor spreading.. that sort of thing... not a half a degree in air temp.

and... how do you explain that co2 always lags temp change... not leads..lags?

How do you explain that most of co2's ability to absorb long wave radiation (heat from the sun) is done by the first 20% of co2... each doubling does logarithmic less to stop radiation until a further doubling does nothing.

but... I don't really expect you to answer any real questions... I have read enough of the alarmist sites to recognize your style in them..

What I expect from you is emotion and truncated charts and junk science and....of course..

name calling.    vague references to hitler are always good... "denier" and even references to churchill and such...  "fool" and "idiot" are good too.

I don't think anyone is bothering any more to wait for real data from you.

lazs

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
The loudest barrel is the empty one.

I agree with that and it pretty much sums up Al baby.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
so hortlund.. there has never been a time that the co2 concentration was higher than it is now?

look at the ice age cycles and at the temperature cycles... look at the margin of error...

You have to really stretch to see anything unusual going on.  you have to have charts that are truncated or use tiny little increments that are far less than the margin of error.



lazs

Laz, the pattern being show in that graph is not strictly to do with CO2 emmissions.  Our ice age cycle has been determined to be causally related to our orbit around the sun, which elongates every ten thousand years or so.  As usual, you completely miss the point he was making.  C' est l' vie.  You are lucky I was bitten by a shark and cannot type fast, or i might launch into one of my long posts.  Ignorance is bliss, at least where you are concerned.

[Jackal1]

What was the reason you stay away from these boards. Mooray? I forget.

[lazs2]

moray... my point was that nature controlled global climate for a long long time.   we have not taken over that duty.

Nature is still at work.   My point is that co2 is such a tiny little part of global climate change.... something that is a result of more than a cause of.... that it is laughable to try to stretch the math so that co2 is the great mover in the universe...

even more laughable to imagine that our tiny contribution to its tiny contribution is so important.

I think that the alarmists just jumped the gun (again) and that they failed to get everyone on board before the debate started.

Now..  people are starting to ask about the math and they have nothing.

For instance... In your opinion moray... If we all ceased to exist this afternoon... by your high priests of climate.... what would the climate on earth be like 100 years from now?   20 years from now?    how bout next year?

Would the charts look pretty much the way they have always looked?  I mean... taken as a whole with a long eons scale?  

Is man affecting the sun?  of course not.  Is man affecting the tilt of the globe or orbit around the sun?  of course not.   Is man affecting seafloor spreading?  Of course not.   Is man affecting the molten core of the planet and how it heats the oceans?  no... of course not.

So what is man affecting?   well..  greenhouse gases?   oh wait.... 99% or more of them we can't affect... so let's just ignore that and say that co2... a tiny little fraction... is the reason the planet heats and cools.

To say that man controls co2 and thus the climate of the planet is to say that without you...  sharks would never use their teeth...

lazs

[Mace2004]

Here's the most level-headed assessment of the global warming (sorry, the new focus group approved term is now "climate change") hysteria I've seen...and it comes from Bret Stephens writing in the Wall Street Journal:

I confess: I am prepared to acknowledge that the world has been and will be getting warmer thanks in some part to an increase in man-made atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. I acknowledge this in the same way I'm confident that the equatorial radius of Saturn is about 60,000 kilometers: not because I've measured it myself, but out of a deep reserve of faith in the methods of the scientific community, above all its reputation for transparency and open-mindedness.

All you globalwarmingists have to be chomping at the bit.  A right-wing, business-loving, damn-the-people-and-the-environment conservative ADMITS that there actually is global warming!  BUT WAIT!!! Before you start getting your gums all in a lather though read his whole article here.

Overall, I believe he accurately captures the source of the frustration (and in many cases anger) that the majority of us feel with regard to globalwarmingclimatechangedoo mandgloomers.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Jackal1
I agree with that and it pretty much sums up Al baby.

Al was right about one big thing though. It's warming

[lazs2]

The article touches on a lot of the reasons why the alarmists are shooting themselves in the foot.  

angus... yep.. it got warmer after being cooler... it may get a little warmer yet and then it will get cooler again...


and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it... even if we all left the planet today.

lazs

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
Al was right about one big thing though. It's warming

He might also be able to tell you what day he was born on also. Might being the key word.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Jackal1
He might also be able to tell you what day he was born on also. Might being the key word.

Well, aside from that being a cheap answer, I belive he does.
Looking deeper into several shocking statements in his documentary, he has many other things right as well.....

[Sabre]

It appears that the “scientific consensus” on man-made global warming is an illusion manufactured by Al Gore and his ilk.  Far from the scientific debate being over, as Al Gore and others would like us to believe, the actual consensus is that mankind is not causing global warming, nor is it expected that what warming there is will be catastrophic.  The second to last paragraph on the UN IPCC is particularly interesting.  It turns out that the “scientific consensus” is really the non-scientist consensus!  Who could’ve predicted that?

So, Angus and company, if you put faith in the scientific consensus view, do you now support the position that man is not causing global warming?  That is, after all, what the true scientific consensus is, according to this study.

http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category  (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.  This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here.  Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming.  In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
I belive he does.
Looking deeper into several shocking statements in his documentary, he has many other things right as well.....

Plastic dash statues can be had on ebay.