But you don't have facts. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. You don't even try to offer facts. I don't think I've ever see you provide any facts in your posts. Yet now you are lambasting others (or just me?) for not understanding the facts.
SHOW ME THE FACTS!
GAY RELUBRICANTS Where are you now? lulz
- Thread starter OzSTEEZ
- Start date
But you don't have facts. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. You don't even try to offer facts. I don't think I've ever see you provide any facts in your posts. Yet now you are lambasting others (or just me?) for not understanding the facts.
SHOW ME THE FACTS!
Amstel
The Hoarse Whisperer
did ya miss the info that other planets and moons are warming up or are you choosing to ignore it since it takes away from your fairy tale?
Amstel
The Hoarse Whisperer
it's your misapplied blame that's the issue.
It's warming on other planets. Personally I want one of the Mars Ford Expeditions and one of the Jupiter Hummers caused by us humans.
they're called cycles.
when you exhale you increase the CO2, but don't get all hot and bothered like you're actually contributing to anything. this whole 'anthropomorphic global warming' alarmism is highly overrated. The natural world has a pretty good hold reality.
Last edited:
Amstel
The Hoarse Whisperer
What's your position on this relative to the centuries after the ice age ("after" meaning, when the earth warmed up.)?
and then give me your SUV opinion on the mini ice age.
facts. Anthropomorphic. I'm sure you have something to support yourself.
Last edited:
what you fail to take into account is that the natural cycles are taken into account when calculating how much the earth is supposed to be warming. as are solar cycles and virtually every other variable we have the ability to measure. no one is denying that the earth has been warmer in the ancient past, the facts of the matter are that we know how much it's supposed to be warming yet said levels of warming far exceed those expectations.
it's not about the natural world, no one is saying that the earth itself is in danger. the issue is regarding our species' ability to adjust to the relatively rapid change especially when the most affected are the third world citizens that are the least responsible yet the least able to adjust
and it's anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic
it's not about the natural world, no one is saying that the earth itself is in danger. the issue is regarding our species' ability to adjust to the relatively rapid change especially when the most affected are the third world citizens that are the least responsible yet the least able to adjust
and it's anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic
Last edited:
Amstel
The Hoarse Whisperer
the natural cycles and events are the determining factor. I addressed this above. You not having another kid to exhale co2 isn't going to create anything measurable, and the entire world not having one more kid isn't going to create anything measurable, and not driving isn't going to create anything measurable,
This is simply false. our presence on this earth is miniscule in comparison to geologic time. Comparatively speaking, the records we have wouldn't add up to one second of one year. You can't garner any determining info out of that unless you're algore. And it's irresponsible to think you can.
Do you mean stay in the shade? or are you headed toward some current storyline of 'when the indians first encountered snow, I'm sure they also thought it was something they did too.'
Amstel
The Hoarse Whisperer
when it's billions of people driving, yes it is. but the natural cycles are not the determining factor. they are but one aspect of the whole picture
Actually no, the records we have from ice cores and other sources that stretch back millions of years are reliable. It's irresponsible to think that data which has been proven reliable beyond any reasonable doubt should be ignored simply because you have a hard on for al gore.
what the fuck are you talking about? changes in climate can greatly affect food production and the availability of clean water which hits the third world nations the hardest
yeah, don't pretend you were trolling
Last edited:
Amstel
The Hoarse Whisperer
a) it's never been 'billions of people driving.' ever.
b) Ice Core Data:
I'm not he one who's in bed with algore.
b) Ice Core Data:
Based on the analysis of entrapped air from ice cores extracted from permanent glaciers from various regions around the globe, it has been demonstrated that global warming began 18,000 years ago, accompanied by a steady rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Humans are quite likely the cause of a large portion of the 80 ppm rise in CO2 since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and from a distance, it looks possible that increasing CO2 may cause atmospheric temperatures rise. However, on closer examination it is seen that CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the primary driver of the temperature changes.
The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but temperature in the middle of the troposphere, about 5 kilometers up. If global warming is occurring from an increasing greenhouse effect due to CO2 additions by humans the temperature of the middle troposphere should be warming faster than Earth's surface (1,2). However, the opposite has been happening-- which suggests either the surface temperature records are in error or natural factors, such as changes in solar activity, may be responsible for the slight rise in surface temperatures (approximately 0.6° C, globally) that appears to have occurred over the past century.
Interestingly, from 1999 to the present the temperature of the mid troposphere has actually decreased slightly and surface temperatures have ceased warming -- even as CO2 concentrations have continued to increase (3). This should not be happening if CO2 increases to the atmosphere are the primary driver of global warming.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html
c) your concern for 3rd world countries is warm and fuzzy, but since we're not the cause, you can move on to more productive solutions.
The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but temperature in the middle of the troposphere, about 5 kilometers up. If global warming is occurring from an increasing greenhouse effect due to CO2 additions by humans the temperature of the middle troposphere should be warming faster than Earth's surface (1,2). However, the opposite has been happening-- which suggests either the surface temperature records are in error or natural factors, such as changes in solar activity, may be responsible for the slight rise in surface temperatures (approximately 0.6° C, globally) that appears to have occurred over the past century.
Interestingly, from 1999 to the present the temperature of the mid troposphere has actually decreased slightly and surface temperatures have ceased warming -- even as CO2 concentrations have continued to increase (3). This should not be happening if CO2 increases to the atmosphere are the primary driver of global warming.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html
c) your concern for 3rd world countries is warm and fuzzy, but since we're not the cause, you can move on to more productive solutions.
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
I'm not he one who's in bed with algore.
Last edited:
Amstel
The Hoarse Whisperer
Amstel
The Hoarse Whisperer
