Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Anaxogoras]

On the subject of chlorofluorocarbons... explain again please how a complex and heavy carbon compound can get into the stratosphere?

My guess would be diffusion.  Gravity is a relatively weak force and frequently isn't strong enough to prevent the tendency of gasses and solutions to homogenize.  You can see a similar effect when you dissolve sugar in water.  Sugar is a complex carbon molecule and has a much heavier molar mass than water molecules, but the sugar will dissolve into an equal concentration in the solution.

And if you think about it, what would happen if gasses didn't diffuse but instead layered out according to their respective masses?  You would have a layer of CO2 and other heavier gases at the bottom, O2 above that, N2 above that, etc.

[narsus]

i'm not saying we don't affect the planet. i'm saying that we don't affect the planet to nearly the point that these "scientists" would scare us into believing.

I believe there are more "pressing" matters than global warming. A few come to mind:

Overfishing (Japan)
Smog (Just look at a major city)
Acid Rain (anywhere NE of detroit)
Litter (Everywhere)
Hunting a species to extinction (Whales are not doing too well)
Effective disposal of harmful chemicals (putting it in 55 gallon drums and just leaving it someplace doesn't seem like a bright idea, though some work is being done here)

Near where I live in Virginia, there are streams and creeks where nothing lives in or near them. This is from the gold rush some 100 years ago, things we do can lead to long lasting problems.

I just feel there are more noticeable and destructive things we do to the planet than global warming.

I think the problem CAP is that we as a species are growing in number, the number or industrialized nations is increasing. Eventually there will be some major issues we can no longer brush to the side.

My 2 cents

[SEraider]

I am glad this has come out.   Because there are profiteers from this fraud.  Al Gore is one of them. 

Enviromentalism is a Globalist agenda that undermines the industrial power of the US and others by taxing Carbon use.  Cap and trade to be exact.  They do not want another industrial power like the US so Global-Warming is the excuse. 

This I hope stops them in their tracks.

[MORAY37]

Moray are you claiming that this very same shift has never happened before? 

No, I'm stating the last time the pH shifted in the oceans.....99.9% of all life died, due to a cascading failure of the biomes that depended upon the ocean, then onto the terrestrial ones that were indirectly linked.  You may begin your research now.

[Chalenge]

No thank you Moray. Its obvious to me the oceans recovered nicely and this is perfectly normal. You may resume your research now.

[Chalenge]

And if you think about it, what would happen if gasses didn't diffuse but instead layered out according to their respective masses?  You would have a layer of CO2 and other heavier gases at the bottom, O2 above that, N2 above that, etc.

Yes... and just as obvious its a classic case of 'trickle down molecular diffusion' and not the other way round. The problem is none of the gases are so energetic as to climb without the inherent turbulence of the atmosphere and that does not exist at higher altitudes (stratosphere). However the ozone will diffuse downwards and without some mechanism in place to break up the molecules (thank you CFC inventors) ozone could become a real problem in time.

Note CFC wasnt listed as a problem gas until the patent expired and HCFC became available. Look to the patent holders.

[MORAY37]

No thank you Moray. Its obvious to me the oceans recovered nicely and this is perfectly normal. You may resume your research now.

Dos Gringos called.  They want their song back.   

[Chalenge]

That song is a lot older than Dos Gringos but nice try defusing the fires.  

[MORAY37]

That song is a lot older than Dos Gringos but nice try defusing the fires.  

Fires?  lol.  You think I care?  It's not your fault you didn't pay attention in science class, or never had any exposure to science at all.  That becomes increasingly obvious with every post you write.

You're probably a nice guy, and I respect our discussions.  Your blatant inaccuracies are telling though.  

[Die Hard]

Christopher Monckton, a leading expert on the climate and former advisor to Margaret Thatcher says in a new paper for SPPI entitled Unequivocal "Consensus" on "Global Warming":

"There is ... no sound or scientific basis for the notion that there is a scientific 'consensus' to the effect that anthropogenic 'global warming' has occurred, is occurring, will occur, or, even if eventually it does occur, will be significant enough to be dangerous."

The SPPI paper reveals the following facts that are usually overlooked or ignored:

* Science is not done by "consensus": the argument from consensus is an instance of the Aristotelian logical fallacy known as the "head-count" fallacy.
* The decision by the UN's climate panel to attribute more than half of the past 50 years' warming to humankind was taken by an unscientific show of hands.
* The UN's chapter attributing most of the past half century's warming to humankind was rejected by most of the UN's own official reviewers.
* The warming rate from 1975-1998, when humankind might have had some influence, was the same as the rate from 1860-1880 and from 1910-1940, when humankind's influence was negligible.
* There is no anthropogenic signal at all in the global temperature record.
* For 15 years there has been no statistically-significant "global warming".
* For 7.5 years there has been rapid but largely-unreported global cooling.
* The greatest warming rate in the past 300 years was from 1645 to 1715, before the Industrial Revolution began. That warming rate was eight times the 20th-century warming rate.
* The warming of the past 300 years is indeed unequivocal, but the mere fact of the warming tells us nothing of its cause. There is no scientific basis for attributing most of it to humankind.
* The notion that "2,500 scientists" personally agreed with the 2007 assessment report of the UN's climate panel is nonsense.
* The largest-ever survey of scientific opinion - the largest to date - found more than 31,000 scientists did not consider the human contribution to "global warming" significant enough to be dangerous.
* Much of the UN's reports are written by environmental campaigners, not scientists.

---


They're not Nigerians, but you're still being scammed.

[CAP1]

Christopher Monckton, a leading expert on the climate and former advisor to Margaret Thatcher says in a new paper for SPPI entitled Unequivocal "Consensus" on "Global Warming":

"There is ... no sound or scientific basis for the notion that there is a scientific 'consensus' to the effect that anthropogenic 'global warming' has occurred, is occurring, will occur, or, even if eventually it does occur, will be significant enough to be dangerous."

The SPPI paper reveals the following facts that are usually overlooked or ignored:

* Science is not done by "consensus": the argument from consensus is an instance of the Aristotelian logical fallacy known as the "head-count" fallacy.
* The decision by the UN's climate panel to attribute more than half of the past 50 years' warming to humankind was taken by an unscientific show of hands.
* The UN's chapter attributing most of the past half century's warming to humankind was rejected by most of the UN's own official reviewers.
* The warming rate from 1975-1998, when humankind might have had some influence, was the same as the rate from 1860-1880 and from 1910-1940, when humankind's influence was negligible.
* There is no anthropogenic signal at all in the global temperature record.
* For 15 years there has been no statistically-significant "global warming".
* For 7.5 years there has been rapid but largely-unreported global cooling.
* The greatest warming rate in the past 300 years was from 1645 to 1715, before the Industrial Revolution began. That warming rate was eight times the 20th-century warming rate.
* The warming of the past 300 years is indeed unequivocal, but the mere fact of the warming tells us nothing of its cause. There is no scientific basis for attributing most of it to humankind.
* The notion that "2,500 scientists" personally agreed with the 2007 assessment report of the UN's climate panel is nonsense.
* The largest-ever survey of scientific opinion - the largest to date - found more than 31,000 scientists did not consider the human contribution to "global warming" significant enough to be dangerous.
* Much of the UN's reports are written by environmental campaigners, not scientists.

---


They're not Nigerians, but you're still being scammed.

it's torque dammit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   


sorry......couldn't resist

[RTHolmes]

They're not Nigerians, but you're still being scammed.

my quote of the week

[Widewing]

I believe there are more "pressing" matters than global warming. A few come to mind:

Overfishing (Japan)
Smog (Just look at a major city)
Acid Rain (anywhere NE of detroit)
Litter (Everywhere)
Hunting a species to extinction (Whales are not doing too well)
Effective disposal of harmful chemicals (putting it in 55 gallon drums and just leaving it someplace doesn't seem like a bright idea, though some work is being done here)

Near where I live in Virginia, there are streams and creeks where nothing lives in or near them. This is from the gold rush some 100 years ago, things we do can lead to long lasting problems.

I just feel there are more noticeable and destructive things we do to the planet than global warming.

I think the problem CAP is that we as a species are growing in number, the number or industrialized nations is increasing. Eventually there will be some major issues we can no longer brush to the side.

My 2 cents

I agree with your thoughts.

I'm one who never bought into the man-made global warming theory. I was convinced very early-on that it was one of the worst instances of junk science I have seen in my lifetime. Besides, if Al Gore swore that the sun would rise in the morning, I still wouldn't take his word for it.

I do, however, believe that a concerted effort must be made to reduce the damage to the environment (globally). Comprehensive recycling plans (not just for plastics and paper), cleaner fuel sources, stopping deforestation, protect the oceans, lakes and streams and so on.

It's unfortunate that some lump those who want to preserve or clean up the environment in with the global warming mob.


My regards,

Widewing

[Chalenge]

Fires?  lol.  You think I care?  It's not your fault you didn't pay attention in science class, or never had any exposure to science at all.  That becomes increasingly obvious with every post you write.

You're probably a nice guy, and I respect our discussions.  Your blatant inaccuracies are telling though.  

I believe the same is true of you despite your 'degree.' 

[DREDger]

I agree with your thoughts.

I'm one who never bought into the man-made global warming theory. I was convinced very early-on that it was one of the worst instances of junk science I have seen in my lifetime. Besides, if Al Gore swore that the sun would rise in the morning, I still wouldn't take his word for it.

I do, however, believe that a concerted effort must be made to reduce the damage to the environment (globally). Comprehensive recycling plans (not just for plastics and paper), cleaner fuel sources, stopping deforestation, protect the oceans, lakes and streams and so on.

It's unfortunate that some lump those who want to preserve or clean up the environment in with the global warming mob.


My regards,

Widewing

I couldn't agree with you more.  True environmental stewardship is being lost in the shrill cacophony of the global warming alarmists.