I hope that clown that claims that Global Climate change is caused by increased solar output, not man made industry comments on this post. There is over 90% certainty that man-made greenhouse gases have caused most of the warming since 1950. I was mistaken the other day when I used the word hemisphere. I should have said troposphere and stratosphere:
"As it happens, "human and natural factors that affect climate have unique signatures," says climatologist Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, part of the U.S. Department of Energy. The clearest signature is differences in the warming of different layers of the atmosphere. According to satellites and weather balloons, the lower atmosphere, or troposphere, has warmed; the upper atmosphere, or stratosphere, has cooled. That's not what a hotter sun would do. "If you increase output from the sun, you increase the amount of energy that arrives at the top of Earth's atmosphere," says Santer. "And you get heating throughout the whole column. Have we observed anything like that? The answer is a very clear no." Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas and methane from, among other surprising sources, rice fields (where bacteria thriving in the submerged paddies release this and other gases) act from the bottom up. That is, they warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere by trapping heat waves wafting off the planet's surface. The warm troposphere and cool stratosphere "is entirely consistent with our best understanding of how temperatures would change with an increase in greenhouse gases," says Santer.

Another problem for the blame-the-sun idea is that the climate balance sheet doesn't, well, balance. Solar output rises and falls over an 11-year cycle. The high point in the cycle raises surface temperatures 0.2 degree F, at most--much less than the increase that has been measured between the late 1800s and now.

More recent changes are even tougher to blame on a hotter sun. From 1955 to 2000, the world's oceans warmed .7 degree F, Tim Barnett of Scripps Institution of Oceanography and colleagues reported in 2005. That may seem small, but the immensity of the oceans means the amount of heat required to warm them even a little is enormous. In the same period, the sun has increased its energy output less than 0.1 percent, according to satellite measurements. That's not nothing, but it's not enough to explain the warmer seas. The extra solar output can no more account for that than holding a candle under a pot can account for boiling a gallon of water. Extra heat pouring out of the planet's core could warm the oceans, except for one problem: it would heat the oceans from the bottom up. In fact, the greatest warming is at the waters' surface. "And if it were natural variability, then a couple of oceans might warm but others would cool, and the net would be zero," says Barnett. "All the oceans are warming, and for that you need a net heat source. We've ruled out everything but greenhouse gases."
-Newsweek, July 2, 2007

(R) John Warner understands that global warming is a huge problem.

I wonder if the Republican wonks who troll on here (Bill-O Bruce and Johnny D'Jambajuice) are going to show up and call Warner a "traitor" and "unpatriotic".

“I hope that clown that claims that Global Climate change is caused by increased solar output, not man made industry comments on this post.”

I'm back. And I’m not the one that ran away from the other post.

In 1975, scientists were saying we were heading for another ice age. The scientists provided data the climate had been cooling for “decades”. They said the cooling affected just about ‘every nation on earth’ (not just the ones in one particular hemisphere). And as now they were teaching that garbage in the schools.

There were dire predictions of doom and gloom.

“The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality”

They predicted food production would drop to dangerous levels within 10 years.

Your 'proof' states the climate has been warming for the past 100+ years.

You and the other climate-is-changing, eco-geeks can't have it both ways.

Either the climate was getting warmer or it was getting colder between the end of WWII and 1975. It couldn't have done both at the same time.

Like I said before, we can go back and forth quoting thousands of articles that support our positions. Most of which are of dubious credibility at best. Just look at the ‘science’ of climate change in the past 35 years.

Senator Warner reminds me of King Canute of England, who tried to stop the tides from rolling in and out. Didn't work 1000 years ago, won't work now.

Warner knows how he can get headlines (the headlines that are to senators what blood is to vampires) by making some silly statement about reducing gas emissions with a wave of his senatorial hand. That's all this is--a headline. And another effort by the Beltway Pols to establish yet another money-wasting, time-wasting government bureaucracy.

The most lethal gas emissions are those emanating from the mouths of politicians. How about a cap on them?

Clown, start here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Read, comprehend, re-read as necessary. There is no longer a debate on climate change.

global warming is still caused by the sun,

Using your logic (a stretch), any science that has ever been incorrect is always incorrect.

Does that make you a flat earth proponent?

"Using your logic (a stretch), any science that has ever been incorrect is always incorrect. Does that make you a flat earth proponent?"

That is the dumbest thing I've read all day.

The science saying the earth is flat was, and ALWAYS WILL BE incorrect. Do you doubt that?

It was bad science (just like global warming) that was proven wrong and is STILL wrong.

You global warming fools crack me up. Your grasp of science is amazing.

You do know the earth is round, right?

"Posted by: Bubba | August 2, 2007 1:43 PM"

Quoting the UN, good move.

The UN has said that raising animals for food contributes more to global warming than all the cars on earth.

If everyone becomes a vegetarian it will do more to save the planet than any other action.

PETA sent a letter al Al Gore asking him to become a vegan to help save the planet based on what the UN said in its report.

Cow farts cause global warming. Now there's science.

global warming,

All those scientists who say global warming is real and a threat. Even Dubya says it's an issue.

And your bona fides are what? Faux News talking points?

gwiscbts,
Doctors used to think that stomachaches were caused by toads living in your stomach and you could treat headaches by drilling holes in the skull to relieve pressure. Understanding of the way our world works changes greatly with technology. Today we have CAT Scans and MRIs that were not around until very recently. All you've done is thrown out a red herring. Address the troposphere and stratosphere measurments. OVER 90% certainty does not mean anyone here is saying absolutely without a doubt man-made greenhouse gases have caused most of the warming since 1950. It the scientific world 90% certainty is VERY significant however.

Just yesterday some "scientist" said there are twice as many huricanes today as there were 100 years ago. I ask this question: before there were weather satellites, how the heck could anyone know how many tropical storms there were? For instance, Tropical Storm Chantelle (named the other day) is in the middle of the Atlantic, no threat to land and had winds of about 40 mph. It will soon become extratropical, meaning it's just a storm, a low pressure system. Since it will never hit land, without satellites, who would know Chantalle existed? And it's windspeed was approximated by satellite too.
Then we have the "scientific" study that says man is using too much of the sun's energy and stealing it from other life sources in the planet.
Okie dokie, there, folks!

Since it will never hit land, without satellites, who would know Chantalle existed? And it's windspeed was approximated by satellite too.

Posted by: John D | August 2, 2007 2:45 PM

How about sea merchants, moron? Damage to property and written records help also. Use your pea brain

global warming is still caused by the sun,
Back in the day when my parents were growing up, doctors would advise burn victims to rub butter on the burn. It sounds to me like you don't get how knowledge and understanding change.

Yes, Janet, sea merchants travel all over the oceans and monitor all tropical storms they come across.

Sorry, Perpetually Clueless Janet, but before weather satellites, there is absolutely no way of knowing how many tropical storms existed in the oceans. None whatsoever.

Please save some of this global warming for next December and January here in Chicago. If there's anything we need, it's more warming in Chicago's winters. Yea.
By the way, global warming finally arrived here after a cool July. It must be, it could be, it is! IT'S SUMMER!

Posted by Clown at 2:15.

Quoting nothing. Good move.

John D maybe correct. Sea merchants and fishermen did not navigate the seas and observe and avoid rough weather until very recently. Certainly not 100 years ago (rolling my eyes)

You guys kill me.

So far, this is what I’ve learned from the global warming stooges here at the swamp.

According to Bill r. the Atlantic ocean has doubled. Janet says the sun can’t affect both hemispheres at the same time. Doug Z has informed me the earth isn’t flat anymore. And special thanks to Bubba for enlightening me on the global catastrophe cause by cow toots.

People have written some absolutely brilliant and thoughtful items on toads living in people’s stomachs and rubbing butter on burns. Truly astounding scientific observations.

Keep them coming, you guys are making this way too easy.

More people have written to say that science changes and as things evolve we learn more about the environment in which we live. Things we believed in the past no longer apply. I want to thank those people for proving my point.

Global warming, just like toads in peoples tummies will be proved to be wrong.

Sorry gang, but I agree that global warming (if it is actually happening) is caused by the sun. Ye who believe in the religion of global-warming-is-caused-by-CO2 will one day see the light. I am not going to pay (via taxes, or whatever) for someone else's cockamamie theories!

Actually, a while back I saw a poll that something like 60% of americans think that global warming is a myth. Oh, wait, it wasn't scientific.

Clown,

And so far you've proven that some scientists were wrong about climate change 30 years ago.

I'll gladly provide you with more reading material than you will be able to read by Christmas that supports the reality of GW.

Do you have anything other than completely baseless remarks on the subject?

30 years of global warming on a planet that is 300 million years old.

Now I realize to many of you, math is not your strong suit, nut try anyway.

Do you think that this is statistically significant?

One more

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

“Do you have anything other than completely baseless remarks on the subject?”
Posted by: Bubba | August 2, 2007 6:27 PM

My remarks on this subject have shown the ‘science’ of global climate change during the past 35 years has been a joke. The scientists that warned of a coming ice age in 1975 ‘proved’ the climate had been cooling for decades leading up to that prediction. Global warming nutbags today say the earth was warming during that exact same period. THAT CAN NOT BE TRUE

My other remarks have pointed out the stupid statements you and other geniuses had made in your defense of global warming. Your lack of knowledge of the most basic scientific facts prove you have no credibility on this subject.

Reread the brilliant defenses listed in this thread alone, and then tell me which comments I’ve made are baseless. Be specific.

Janet, dear, do you realize how large and vast the oceans are? Do you realize that most ships never encounter tropical storms in the open seas?

There is absolutely NO WAY whatsoever to know how many tropical storms existed 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 300 years ago, let alone even 50 years ago.

More than likely until about 40 years ago, Tropical Storm Chantale never would have been documented because it formed in the open Atlantic and shortly after its designation as a tropical storm it became extratropical, which means it is nothing more than a low pressure system and a cold-core storm system. You see, Janet (or is that Susie, Janet?) tropical storm systems are warm-core. Their cloud tops are warmer than regular storm systems. In fact, colder air, colder water kills tropical storm systems or as stated they become extratropical.

Again, Janet, for many storm systems, without satellite technology or even flight to fly into them with wind speed detection devices, scores of tropical storms before space technology never would have been documented.

Rebecca and Global warming is still caused by the sun,
I've pointed you to scientific evidence measuring the troposphere and stratosphere temperaturre differences. I was mistaken the other day about my comments about the hemisphere. I have taken it back. Why don't you address the evidence I have put forth. Measuring the troposphere and stratosphere is not a THEORY.

30 years of global warming on a planet that is 300 million years old.

Now I realize to many of you, math is not your strong suit, nut try anyway.

Do you think that this is statistically significant?

Posted by: Terry | August 2, 2007 8:18 PM

Terry-

Assume for a moment that human CO2 emmissions are causing increased warming of the planet.

How many thousand years would you allow that process to continue before you found it "statistically significant" enough to do anything about it? How much would you have to see the planet change to think some changes in our were in order?

Terry,

Did you even read your own attachment? Before you question sombody else's math, here are the highlights of your own article:

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion"

-Colin Wilson, planetary physicist, Oxford University

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC report"

"the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations"

-Amato Evans, climate scientist University of Wisconsin

If you had any respect for math, you would accept the report from over 2,500 scientific experts from over 130 countries that came to the conclusion that there is a 90% probability that climate change is the direct result of man-made carbon emissions. Of course the evil UN is behind it so you can simply discredit the source. You can also apply the "follow the money" conspiracy theorists but I would advise against it if you have even a cursory understanding of statistical probability.

Here's some more math for you ten percenters:

Ice core samples have proven a direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperatures. Samples such as the Vostok sample have proven this over the last 4,000 years. There are anomalies that you fools will jump on around the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period. These periods represent less than one half of one percent of the total sample and are easily explained in the IPCC report if you bother to actually read it.

Here is another primer for the flat earth crowd:

http://www.pewclimate.org/

Get back to me when you guys can present anything substantial.

"Assume for a moment that human CO2 emmissions are causing increased warming of the planet."

It would be foolish to "assume" that without scientific evidence.

So, you would make changes based on a 'guess'.

That's the problem with you global warming goons. You want to off half-cocked with NO PROOF.

Here is an interesting article from the BBC regarding the solar theory. It's not as long and requires only a sophmoric grasp of science, so maybe you guys will give it a go:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

That's the problem with you global warming goons. You want to off half-cocked with NO PROOF.

Posted by: global warming is still caused by the sun | August 3, 2007 11:48 AM

We have put forth more than enough evidence to support the theory. You haven't shown us a shred that has stood up to peer review, nor have you refuted any of the evidence we've provided.
Let me repeat this again for you my dim witted friend and you can repeat it back to yourself more slowly:
This is science, it is very difficult to say anything with 100% PROOF. There IS a consensus with 90% probability (very significant in scientific numbers) that global climate change is caused by man made activity.

"We have put forth more than enough evidence to support the theory."

Posted by: Janet | August 3, 2007 2:13 PM

Definitions of theory:

Hypothesis
Conjecture
Speculation
Assumption
Premise
Presumption
Supposition

And here’s the kicker

GUESS

Notice it doesn't say scientific fact.

So, now not only are you clearly not a science major. You’re not too good when it comes to the English language either.

Keep trying honey, you’re cracking me up.

Janet,

Please tell me you are NOT the best the left has to offer on this discussion.

I'm still waiting for global warming is still caused by the sun to provide PROOF that the sun is causing global climate change. Not ONE piece of evidence to support that assertion.

gwiscbts,
I am not the best or an expert on this discussion. If you cannot punch holes in any of the evidence we have submitted please don't waste our time by pointing out spelling and/or grammar errors.

Janet,

You poor, poor thing.

I wasn't pointing out spelling and/or grammar errors. I was pointing out you don't know what the word THEORY means.

Man-made global warming is a theory, it hasn't been proved. You are asking me to disprove something that cannot be proved by scientists, while at the same time you hold up a THEORY as absolute proof (or just enough proof so that you are right and everyone else is wrong). Can’t you see the silliness in that?

My point is, and always has been, there have been at least a half dozen times in the past 110 years or so where scientists have had theories that the earth is cooling down or warming up. You all ignore the history of global climate change fanatics that were wrong EVERY time in the past and probably just as wrong this time.

The problem is some people (like Janet) do not want anything to get in the way of what they believe is the TRUTH when it is just a theory. And some people (like Janet) would stifle any discussion that does not support her side.

But even you have to admit, the discussion there has been on the subject during this thread has been outrageous at best. The stupid analogies to toads in people’s stomachs, drilling holes in people’s heads; the completely dumbass comments about the Atlantic doubling, and the earth being flat; and then to top it off Tony suggesting we ‘assume’ global warming is caused by humans. What can I say to people that are that stupid? You can’t prove anything to someone like that.

Again, I wasn’t pointing out spelling or grammatical errors. I was pointing out that someone that admittedly doesn’t know the difference between hemisphere, troposphere, and stratosphere shouldn’t lecture me or anyone else on wasting someone’s time.

Still can't give us anything with more than 90% certainty that global climate change is caused by the sun? Nobody has asked you to prove anything. We just want you to come up with a THEORY to explain global climate change that has higher probability than 90% and hasn't already had holes a mile wide punched into it by the scientific community. If you can't do that tell us what is flawed about the studies we have linked here.

Linky,

Solomon has a well-recorded history of distorting facts to support his case. He also has a well-recorded history of including other reputable scientists as being in support of his theories when, in fact, they are not.

The National Post also has a history of refusing to correct their stories even after they get statements from the scientists they slander.

Tony,

Well if I assumed "human CO2 emmissions are causing increased warming of the planet", then I would think we need to do something.

I'm not ready to throw our economy and lifestyle down the tubes for the THEORY of Global Warming. When it becomes scientifc LAW, give me a call.

30 yrs ago, the scientists were screaming global cooling. Around the same time, we brought in the EPA wasn't all the regulations supposed to clean the air? If the air isn't cleaner, does that mean all the regulations aren't working?

Bubba,

you can trot out all your scientists and I could trot out all mine and we would still be left with two conflicting opinions and no FACTS.

When is this going to be up again??

"Still can't give us anything with more than 90% certainty that global climate change is caused by the sun?"
Posted by: Janet | August 3, 2007 5:22 PM

90% isn’t a certainty. 100 percent is.

Here’s something that IS 100 percent.

For the last time, the science of global climate change is flawed.

You keep saying that there is a 90 percent certainty that man-made greenhouse gases have caused most of the warming since 1950. And I have proven with 100 PERCENT certainty scientists were saying the climate was cooling between the end of WWII and 1975. It is 100 PERCENT impossible for the climate to have been warming and cooling at the same time.

(And just so you know, 1950 is included in the time between WWII and 1975)

No matter how many times you say your theory is proof of global warming, it isn't and never will be 100 PERCENT.

You guys give up?

Come on, I was just getting started.

Clearly you are not familiar with the scientific method. If you were, you would understand that theories are revised and replaced by new ones until a better explanation can be found. When are you going to provide a new theory as to the cause of global climate change? You say it's the sun and myself and others have shown empirical evidence as to why that is an insufficient explanation. You bring up a cooling theory put forth years ago. That to has been thrown out by the scientific community as not true because the methodology was flawed and new data and methods for obtaining measurements have been developed. Please back up your rhetoric with something other than, "because I say so".

“Clearly you are not familiar with the scientific method. If you were, you would understand that theories are revised and replaced by new ones until a better explanation can be found.”

Nice try, that’s what I told you. Remember this:

“More people have written to say that science changes and as things evolve we learn more about the environment in which we live. Things we believed in the past no longer apply. I want to thank those people for proving my point.”

Thanks again for proving my point. As for sources………

In the first post of this thread, you used a Newsweek article as your ‘proof’ of global warming. Newsweek and many other publications ran the stories in the 1970s (1975 for Newsweek to be exact) about the threat of global cooling. Newsweek was one of the pubs that said world food production could be severely affected within 10 years.

In 2006 Newsweek recanted the 1975 story. They said they made a big boo boo. They said they were much more certain NOW that the world was actually warming.

What kind of serious media publication waits 31 years to correct a story about global disaster?

In 1985, when food production was still going strong, didn’t they figure out THEN they may have F’d up? How about 1995? 2000?

Newsweek actually had the nerve to say this in the article recanting their 1975 story:

“…the story wasn't "wrong" in the journalistic sense of "inaccurate."

I guess that means the story was just wrong in that it presented bad science as ‘proof’. Sound familiar?

Global warming fools are proud to quote THESE sources. Newsweek is doing the same thing again, putting out garbage and presenting it as ‘the truth’ or proof today. Stupid people are falling for it all over again.

What are you clowns going to do in 2038 when Newsweek prints a correction to the July 02 2007 article quoted by YOU?

You guys aren't wrong because I say so, you're wrong because history says so.

There was not scientific consensus or agreement with that Newseek in the '70s. Just as today's humans affecting global climate change deniars. There was a small number of outliars who came up with supspect conclusions. These conclusions could not stand up to scientific scrutiny by the wider scientific community. If we accept the 90% probability that human industry is affecting global climatte change we can clean up rivers, streams, lakes and oceans as well as reduce other health risks. Create a whole new green industry thus becoming more efficient. And we can find alternative fuels that will reduce our dependence on finite resources. Why are these bad things?

PS There are only 18 laws of science and even these laws can change. So your insistence that there be a Law of Global Climate Change before you are willing to act is ridiculous. More sad than it is amuzing to me.

“Meteorologists ...they are almost UNANIMOUS in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”

“If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the *** National Academy of Sciences ***, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

Quoted from Newsweek 1975

“Wider scientific community”? How about the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, hardly a small number of outliars or deniers as you put it.

And just so you know A meteorologist is a SCIENTIST who studies the atmosphere and weather. Climatology is a field within meteorology.

Newsweek and MANY OTHER magazines and newspapers were talking about global cooling at the time.

The concern with pollution and cleaning it up has nothing to do with global warming. It started more than 30 years before there was any talk of global warming. The first Earth Day was held in 1970 or 1971. Remember the commercial about pollution that had the Indian (Native American) with the tear running down his face? That was 1971 when, according to YOUR OWN SOURCE, the earth was cooling. People first started talking about alternative fuels in the 70’s too. As I said before, your knowledge of the history of global climate change hysteria sucks.

It was pretty ironic to mention the laws of science when talking about global warming considering the laws of science have been constant for awhile and do NOT change every 15-20 years, unlike the predictions of global cooling and global warming.

Answer this, Janet the scientist, what SCIENTIFIC FACT, other than global climate change, changes every other decade or so? I don’t mean the science of predicting change, but the actual conclusions derived from that ‘science.’

Every time you post your ‘Proof’, you give me more ammunition to prove how wrong you are.

Here are some facts:
CO2 is a heat trapping gas

Fact: CO2 is produced naturally

Fact: CO2 is a byproduct of human industry

Fact: Increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will trap more heat

Fact: CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen dramatically within the last century

Fact: Throughout the history of Earth, periods of increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have resulted in warmer periods

Fact: Reducing human output of CO2 will result in less CO2 in the atmosphere

Please tell the Swamp how it could be that dramatically adding a heat trapping gas to the atmosphere will result in LESS heat being trapped (your assertion)?

First of all, I’ve never mentioned CO2, so I’ve never made the assertion that more CO2 means less heat.

So far you’ve ignored the points I’ve made and now you have to resort to lying about what I’ve said. Go back and answer my points from before, this can’t be a discussion if you never answer any of my questions.

“Fact: Throughout the history of Earth, periods of increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have resulted in warmer periods”

You proved my point again. It is natural for the earth to have cycles where the overall temperatures rise and fall. It happened long before humans were on the planet. It will continue to happen whether we are here or not. After this warming cycle, the earth’s temperatures will lower again. History proves it.

Answer these questions, what percentage of CO2 is Anthropogenic? What percentage of the “Greenhouse Effect” is cause by water vapor? How much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity?

If you answer those questions honestly, you see how the current predictions of global warming are wrong. More importantly, you will see how the predictions made 10 or fewer years ago have already PROVEN to be wrong.

You disagree with the conclusions of the scientific community which states that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased dramatically, CO2 produced thru human industry is increasing the overall level of CO2 in the atmosphere which is trapping more heat which is causing global climate change. So yes, you have asserted that more CO2 in the atmosphere means less heat is trapped.
Man I can see I have to start with very basic principles with you because you just don't get it. Balance of Nature. Just think about those words and what they might mean. There is an inherent equilibrium in ecosystems. It provides for stability. Activities of humans can and do disrupt the balance of nature.

PS No one, not even myself, denies that the Earths climate swings back and forth such as a pendulum. We should be in a period of cooling if you follow that historical model but that is not the case as the evidence we've put forth has shown.

So far I’ve been able to refute every point you’ve made. You haven’t been able to answer any of the questions I’ve posed.

So again I ask you, what percentage of CO2 is Anthropogenic? What percentage of the “Greenhouse Effect” is cause by water vapor? How much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity?

“There is an inherent equilibrium in ecosystems. It provides for stability. Activities of humans can and do disrupt the balance of nature.”

What does this have to do with global warming when you’ve admitted that the earth has cooled and warmed long before the existence of humans?

And how about this question, did CO2 cause a shift upwards in the global temperature or did the shift upwards cause a rise in CO2?

You can’t answer that question or the others. You spout out global warming talking points and don’t understand what you are saying.

And please don’t talk to me about basic principals when you couldn’t tell the difference between the stratosphere, troposphere, and hemisphere.

“There is an inherent equilibrium in ecosystems. It provides for stability. Activities of humans can and do disrupt the balance of nature.”

What does this have to do with global warming when you’ve admitted that the earth has cooled and warmed long before the existence of humans?

Posted by: global warming is still caused by the sun | August 7, 2007 2:24 PM

I can see you are having trouble following:
We should be in a period of cooling. Instead in the past 100 years temperatures have risen globally and levels of CO2 have spiked dramatically. Especially since the 1950s when industrialization really hit its stride.

I admire you for sticking to your convictions when all the other global warming dunces were frightened away by logic and truth. Too bad you aren’t the sharpest tack in the box.

You can’t say we should be in a period of cooling. Scientists (and you) are unable to predict when the heating and cooling cycles will affect the earth. Again, I’ve already proven there have been periods in the last 100 years when scientists have shown global temperatures have actually fallen.

Scientists didn’t predict that global temps would be rising now and can’t tell you now WHY they are rising. All they and you have is a theory. There are other theories you and others choose to ignore. The empirical (your word) data shows temps have risen but not why. The empirical data can’t tell you how much of the change is natural and how much is manmade. By the way, empirical data means experimental or observed data, not scientific proof and it can NOT be used to predict the future.

The first global warming computer models appeared in the 1970’s. Those models and the ones after have all been based on worse case scenarios, and all of them have been wrong so far. The data used to program them is wrong so the information spit out by the computers is wrong.

Global warming computer models use information such as GDP to predict growth of populations, economies, and energy use. The UN IPCC programmed its models incorrectly. According to the UN, South Africa, and relatively poor developing countries such as Algeria, Argentina, Libya, Turkey, and North Korea will all surpass the United States economically. THAT IS RETARDED. These errors also greatly overstate the amount of CO2 that will be produced.

These mistakes, plus the fact that global warming models aren’t sophisticated enough to predict any global climate change reliably, proves the ‘science’, of global warming is a sham.

You’ll find people that tell you these models keep getting better and are reliable ENOUGH, that’s pure horse crap. The models, and more importantly, computing power is nowhere near where they need to be to reliably predict future global climate changes.

Think about how weathermen today can’t tell you what the weather will be RELIABLY next week. Next time there’s a hurricane off the coast of the US, take notice of the wide area where they say the storm MIGHT hit just days before the hurricane hits the US. You know why? SHIT CHANGES.

You say I have trouble following. The only thing I can’t follow is why you can’t answer even one of the questions I’ve raised, even though I’ve been able to respond to (and disprove) all the garbage you’ve thrown out here.

If you feel you have to start from the basics and teach me about global warming, then answer my questions about how much CO2 is natural and how much is manmade. And answer the question about water vapor and it’s role on the Greenhouse Effect. And more importantly which comes first, the rise in temperatures or CO2 levels?

Since I’m an engineer, you don’t have to dumb it down for me.

gwiscbts(Dave Brann),
Baseline CO2 level is approx. 280 ppm. Today it is about 360 ppm.

water vapor of course has a greenhouse effect but even if the atmosphere is completely saturated with water vapor there are wavelengths of infrared radiation that will not be absorbed. However, CO2 and other greenhouse gases can absorb the infrared radiation at the wavelengths missed by water vapor.

Dave Brann ?

Still can't answer the questions.... Too bad.

gwiscbts,
I'm sorry you don't think that it is significant to know that at about the mid 1800s the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 ppm and in 2005 it was just over 382 ppt. I believe it is important to know what the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was prior to industrialization. Do you have a better way to measure the impact humans have had on the CO2 levels?

Your response is CO2 is a greenhouse gas and there is more of it now?

Thanks, Einstien.

CO2 levels rise and fall naturally.

And you haven't answered any of the questions I raised still.

Please get someone else on this thread so I don't have to keep saying the same things to this DULLARD.

The Industrial Revolution and industry in general is a naturally occuring event?? Wow! I feel sorry for you.

"The Industrial Revolution and industry in general is a naturally occuring event"

That statement shows how truly intelligent you are.

Ha Ha, Good one.

And it proves you can't answer serious questions.

You know the earth was warmer and cooler before the industrial revolution, and you also know (should know) that CO2 levels rise and fall naturally also.

Why can't you answer how much CO2 is caused by man? How much of the Greenhouse Effect is caused by water vapor?

Human activity has NO effect on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (not hemisphere).

And since you seemed to have missed my point completely, here it is again:

Scientists (and you) are unable to predict when the heating and cooling cycles will affect the earth. Again, I’ve already proven there have been periods in the last 100 years when scientists have shown global temperatures have actually fallen.

Scientists didn’t predict that global temps would be rising now and can’t tell you now WHY they are rising. All they and you have is a theory. There are other theories you and others choose to ignore. The empirical (your word) data shows temps have risen but not why. The empirical data can’t tell you how much of the change is natural and how much is manmade. By the way, empirical data means experimental or observed data, not scientific proof and it can NOT be used to predict the future.

The first global warming computer models appeared in the 1970’s. Those models and the ones after have all been based on worse case scenarios, and all of them have been wrong so far. The data used to program them is wrong so the information spit out by the computers is wrong.

Global warming computer models use information such as GDP to predict growth of populations, economies, and energy use. The UN IPCC programmed its models incorrectly. According to the UN, South Africa, and relatively poor developing countries such as Algeria, Argentina, Libya, Turkey, and North Korea will all surpass the United States economically. THAT IS RETARDED. These errors also greatly overstate the amount of CO2 that will be produced.

These mistakes, plus the fact that global warming models aren’t sophisticated enough to predict any global climate change reliably, proves the ‘science’, of global warming is a sham.

You’ll find people that tell you these models keep getting better and are reliable ENOUGH, that’s pure horse crap. The models, and more importantly, computing power is nowhere near where they need to be to reliably predict future global climate changes.

Think about how weathermen today can’t tell you what the weather will be RELIABLY next week. Next time there’s a hurricane off the coast of the US, take notice of the wide area where they say the storm MIGHT hit just days before the hurricane hits the US. You know why? SHIT CHANGES.

You say I have trouble following. The only thing I can’t follow is why you can’t answer even one of the questions I’ve raised, even though I’ve been able to respond to (and disprove) all the garbage you’ve thrown out here.

If you feel you have to start from the basics and teach me about global warming, then answer my questions about how much CO2 is natural and how much is manmade. And answer the question about water vapor and it’s role on the Greenhouse Effect. And more importantly which comes first, the rise in temperatures or CO2 levels?

And just what is flawed in comparing the baseline pre-Industry CO2 contrations to levels when the industrial and manufacturing age really took off?

PS what other theories are you referring to? The theories that have been ripped apart by peer review for incomplete and innaccurate data as well as flawed methodologies?

If the increase in CO2 is caused by nature then that is why your theory is flawed.

When the earth came out of the Ice Age and started warming, what were CO2 levels then? How have the levels risen in other warming periods BEFORE the industrial revolution?

What other global warming theories have been ripped apart besides the one you’ve had ripped apart by me? Provide proof. Explain it scientifically in a way an engineer would understand. Don’t just keep repeating the same stupid refrain that CO2 levels have risen during the industrial revolution when you don’t know why those levels have risen.

The theory I believe is correct is the one that says we are in a natural warming period and CO2 levels are rising naturally.

What were the CO2 levels in 1975 when scientists said the earth was in a cooling period?

You quoted a CO2 baseline, is that baseline for when the earth is in a warming or cooling period?

How can you disprove the rise in CO2 is naturally occurring when you don’t know how CO2 levels have risen and fallen NATURALLY in the past? You can’t even tell me what percentage of CO2 is manmade or naturally occurring TODAY.

You quoted a CO2 baseline, is that baseline for when the earth is in a warming or cooling period?

Posted by: global warming is still caused by the sun | August 11, 2007 12:53 AM

Um, let's see. Some guys in white lab coats called "scientists" took ice core samples and and were able to determine the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere during the past thousands of years. They plotted on a graph their findings and the average was determined to be the baseline. There were highs, some lows but they all tended to gravitate around an average. The same way you would determine the ideal body temperature in humans.

"ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere during the past thousands of years. They plotted on a graph their findings and the average was determined to be the baseline. There were highs, some lows"

You just proved my point again. CO2 levels have risen and fallen for THOUSANDS of years NATURALLY.

Don't you hate it when the facts get in the way of your BS.

"The same way you would determine the ideal body temperature in humans."

Wrong, that is one of the most unscientific and stupid statements you've made so far.

The ideal body temperature for ALL humans is 98.6 degrees.

When people have fevers, they are sick. Doctors give them medicine so they don't die. When the body temp is too low, they are already dead.

If you had a kid and his temp was 70 degrees in the morning and 128 in the afternoon; would you take the average temperature and say he was okay?

Didn't they teach science where you went to school?