Global Climate Change

[BlackRampage]

Got me thinking about what would happen if scientist (the people with the best understanding of the problem) ran the show instead. As the consensus on humans effect on the environment is that something has to be done yesteryear,

Wait. Science is based on consensus now? :ohdear:

 

Global warming eh? I my opinion it's one of the biggest and most successful scams ever pulled.

Why do I think it's a scam? This is why (pdf + long read alert) If you don't feel like reading all of it, at least have a look at page 5.

 

Anyone ever heard of the Manhattan conference? It was the only conference on global warming the mainstream media didn't cover. And the only conference about this subject Al Gore did not visit. (even though he was offered his $200,000 fee) Link: Manhattan Conference

 

 

Too me, you sound very dismissive about these theories. Given that halting the emissions of these chemicals has slowed down the depletion of ozone and lead to predictions about the recovery of the ozone layer, wouldn't you say that these theories has substantial merits?

Yeah? Guess what ozone is according to the IPCC? A greenhouse gas. I quote:

"Quantifying the greenhouse gas potency of ozone is difficult because it is not present in uniform concentrations across the globe. However, the most widely accepted scientific assessments relating to climate change (e.g. the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change Third Assessment Report suggest that the radiative forcing of tropospheric ozone is about 25% that of carbon dioxide."

 

 

Oh, you know what actually emits more carbon-dioxide (not to mention sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride , hydrogen fluoride and even water vapor) then we humans could ever hope to emit? A volcano.

Of course, it's pretty hard to tax a volcano so I guess Mr. Gore and the IPCC "forgot" to mention that little fact.

[Marxist ßastard]

Oh, you know what actually emits more carbon-dioxide... then we humans could ever hope to emit? A volcano.

All the Earth's volcanoes combined emit about 0.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year versus 35 from human activity, per a recent article published by the American Geophysical Union:

 

Which emits more carbon dioxide (CO₂): Earth’s volcanoes or human activities? Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this frequently asked question is human activities. However, most people, including some Earth scientists working in fields outside volcanology, are surprised by this answer. The climate change debate has revived and reinforced the belief, widespread among climate skeptics, that volcanoes emit more CO₂ than human activities [Gerlach, 2010; Plimer, 2009]. In fact, present-day volcanoes emit relatively modest amounts of CO₂, about as much annually as states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Marxist ßastard

[Balagor]

 

>snip<

Yeah? Guess what ozone is according to the IPCC? A greenhouse gas. I quote:

"Quantifying the greenhouse gas potency of ozone is difficult because it is not present in uniform concentrations across the globe. However, the most widely accepted scientific assessments relating to climate change (e.g. the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change Third Assessment Report suggest that the radiative forcing of tropospheric ozone is about 25% that of carbon dioxide."

 

>snip<

 

Ozone has to do with keeping out UV light......... As a greenhouse gas it has only a poor effect with its 0,1 PPM of the atmosphere.

[marharth]

Stopped reading the PDF when it said that it was a conspiracy theory.

 

Most scientists believe in global climate change because of statistics and data, not some super secret conspiracy theory where they all meet to laugh evilly and drink wine.

[Balagor]

Can´t get the pdf. My Kaspersky Antivirus refuses to load it.

[ginnyfizz]

Despite what marharth says, it IS worth reading, as it presents alternative statistics to the ones usually quoted.

[Ghogiel]

On another note, a number of the 'greenhouse gases' everyone is so worried about, aren't the worst threat. Water Vapor is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, or CO. Methane is also right up there on the list above the various oxides of carbon. We are really in no position to limit our production of water vapor..... (not that we are the leading contributor..... look to the oceans/lakes for that)

 

Just to note a couple things to do with water vapor, the amount in the atmosphere is compounded by how warm it is, basically the more green house gases are put in the air, the more heat is trapped, and the hotter it gets, the faster water evaporates. And while other green house gases can take years to leave the atmosphere, Vapor condenses into water and forms rain clouds in a matter of days. Neutralisation and a stabilisation of the amount of that particular gas should be relatively quick and painless natural process. Except it's not doing that, atmospheric water vapor has been climbing steadily at a rate appears concurrent with the increasing carbon greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, My non scientific opinion is there is a correlation between the two gasses, if you put more green house gases up, it is only compounded by heating up and getting more water vapour.

 

Maybe to an extent anyway. Maybe there is a point where the amount of water vapour hits a plateau and it's current increase stops or slows for some reason. We'll just have to see how it plays out, or rather if I live to 80 I might have a better idea. :biggrin:

 

There are a few other things that compound the issue with gases, like the ocean when heated up isn't able to sink as much carbon. Anyway as far as I can tell, we, us, people are without a doubt affecting the climate.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Ghogiel

[marharth]

Despite what marharth says, it IS worth reading, as it presents alternative statistics to the ones usually quoted.

"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... it is a

SCAM.

Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back

in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmentalextremism

type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally

slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to

keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus."

SOUNDS LEGIT.

 

If anyone takes that man serious when that is the first paragraph of his article, I don't know what anyone could do to convince you. If anyone still wants to take a conspiracy theorists opinions seriously, I will post a link that debunks what he says.

 

He is a fairly well known weatherman. Not a scientist. He has no creditability.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/john-coleman

 

Also his "Alternative Statistics" do not mean a thing when they are simply charts without any valid sources.

Edited October 27, 2011 by marharth

[Ghogiel]

and here's the paper on linking the increasing water vapour in the atmosphere to anthropogenic greenhouse emissions. In case you're bored and like graphs

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf

[Marxist ßastard]

Also his "Alternative Statistics" do not mean a thing when they are simply charts without any valid sources.

Also, they're low-resolution, over-compressed JPEGs. Journal articles don't look like that. College lab reports don't even look like that.

 

Good data demands vector graphics or high-resolution bitmaps. Show me someone who puts out illegible graphs, and I'll show you a liar.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Marxist ßastard