[CanadianJeff]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

Maybe what's really happening is either the ozone is absorbing or filtering the C02 into space at which point it won't do a darn thing or we really don't understand just how much C02 we would really need to heat up the whole planet.

We just don't know enough about what goes on up there to really make any kind of speculation. It's not like we can just cut out a chunk of the ozone and put it in a lab since it's surrounded by zero gravity on one side which is very hard to replicate.

I'd say we don't know enough about the ozone to try and deduce what's going on up there. Having a zero gravity environment pushing on one side could cause a number of things to occur. Sadly we have not had much time as a species to study chemical effects in a zero gravity environment.

If the CO2 were escaping to space, then why are measurements of atmospheric CO2 increasing over time? And what is providing the CO2 molecules, and only the CO2 molecules, with the energy required to escape the Earth's gravitational well?

I apply Occam's Razor--i.e. the simplest solution should be assumed--and that, to my mind, means that you would expect an increase in surface temperature given a forcing of carbon dioxide concentrations.

For me, the fishy part is the "climate sensitivity" whihc is the additional warming, on top of the radiative heat transfer, posited by the IPCC. Based on heat transfer equations, doubling CO2 should increase the temperature about 1.1 deg C. However, the IPCC posits an increase of between 1.5 and 4.5 deg C due to positive feedback. That's the part of the IPCC study that I don't buy--mind you, I readily admit that I'm a lot more comfortable with physics than I am with earth sciences.

Same here to be honest I was just throwing out possibilities. My point was that we honestly have no clue when it comes to the ozone because we can't replicate the conditions in the lab to find anything out really.

[Zipperfish]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Maybe if you listened more, you'd have a more objective and educated opinion.

Adler and Green definately go out of their way to invite and encorage an open debate. I've heard a number os shows with both sides from those two. I've also heard Good interupt and cut off callers who question the science.

Boy you, keep digging yourself deeper, don't you? Keep telling us all how Charles Adler and Roy Green are the epitome of fair journalism. Shuuuuuuurrrrrre.

[sandorski]

Annihilator Annihilator:

sandorski sandorski:

Annihilator Annihilator:

The fact that the world is getting more industrialised and that the earth is warming up at the same time doesn't mean that there is a correlation between the two.

I prayed, I got a raise the day after, so prayers work? Nah.


About CO2 emissions, I saw a graph that compared the man-made CO2 and the one that is emitted in the nature. The former was a tiny fraction compared to the latter. This is anecdotal evidence at best.

I'm not saying that it is impossible that we caused this. It is just that we really don't know yet, and anything saying that we can prove without a doubt that man caused global warming is sadly deluded.


The problem is that this situation is used by anti-capitalism, anti-globalisation nut jobs as a pretext to enroll people to attack corporations. It is only an excuse.

BS.

Nice argumentation.

That's all it deserves.

[Annihilator]

sandorski sandorski:

That's all it deserves.

Yet you've failed to prove me wrong and you're just proving again that you don't have any point. If you think that everyone in those ecological protests are pure minded and only want fresh air you are deluded.

[CanadianJeff]

He is right you know real or not the media and people like Kerry have used this situation to get the word out about their own views.

It is undeniable that some people have taken direct advantage of the situation for political points.

[N_Fiddledog]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

He is right you know real or not the media and people like Kerry have used this situation to get the word out about their own views.

It is undeniable that some people have taken direct advantage of the situation for political points.

Cash too

[OldChum]

Hyack Hyack:

People here have been arguing the pros and cons of Global Warming and Global Cooling for years now. The only thing anyone can be sure of is what has already been shown to be factual. Extrapolating what will happen in the future is an iffy situation at best. As I pointed out earlier the loss of the polar icecaps could cause a shift in the earth’s rotation axis, thus altering Earth's climate forever. There could be a sudden increase or decrease in the number of sunspots, which could change the Earth's overall temperature for years. There could be another massive volcanic eruption which could throw the earth into another mini iceage. There could also be a complete change in the Erath's weather patterns due to a greater number of El nino or La nina occurrences. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the only thing we CAN be sure of is what has already happened, and that no amount of scientific projection can be relied upon.

Problem is there are still some who chose to stick their heads in the sand and not see what is happening around them . Because it is out of their ability to think that large . GOOD POST

[OldChum]

Factory builds car, creates pollution , owner gets rich . seems pollution and the mess that it has created, has made people wealthy too.

[N_Fiddledog]

Not so much lately.

[OldChum]

Well then maybe not cars

[N_Fiddledog]

OldChum OldChum:

Hyack Hyack:

People here have been arguing the pros and cons of Global Warming and Global Cooling for years now. The only thing anyone can be sure of is what has already been shown to be factual. Extrapolating what will happen in the future is an iffy situation at best. As I pointed out earlier the loss of the polar icecaps could cause a shift in the earth’s rotation axis, thus altering Earth's climate forever. There could be a sudden increase or decrease in the number of sunspots, which could change the Earth's overall temperature for years. There could be another massive volcanic eruption which could throw the earth into another mini iceage. There could also be a complete change in the Erath's weather patterns due to a greater number of El nino or La nina occurrences. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the only thing we CAN be sure of is what has already happened, and that no amount of scientific projection can be relied upon.

Problem is there are still some who chose to stick their heads in the sand and not see what is happening around them . Because it is out of their ability to think that large . GOOD POST

Is it? I'm not sure I understand it. Is he saying you can't predict the future like the global warmists claim they can with their magic modeling play stations, so better to deal with the problems you know you actually have? If so, I agree. Good post.

[OldChum]

That's what I take it as and yes we cannot predict the future , as a race we have proven that so many times . We also seem to very poor at controlling nature , if you really believe gas engines are not part of the problem .
Stick your mouth over the exhaust and take 10 good gulps see if you are still standing then tell me what you think.

[Hyack]

That is exactly the point I was trying to make. No matter what mankind does to this planet, whether good or bad, no one is able to predict with any degree of certainty what the future will bring. It is inevitably going to be nature itself which will be the ultimate determining factor. That is unless mankind REALLY screws up and destroys both the planet and mankind itself with some biological, nuclear or some other horrific accident......Does anyone know when the Large Hadron Collider is set to go back online?

[Zipperfish]

OldChum OldChum:

That's what I take it as and yes we cannot predict the future , as a race we have proven that so many times . We also seem to very poor at controlling nature , if you really believe gas engines are not part of the problem .
Stick your mouth over the exhaust and take 10 good gulps see if you are still standing then tell me what you think.

Baloney. Science predicts the future all the time. When engineers build an airplane according to science-based models, they predict it will fly and virtually all of the time, it does.

Of course, the issue with climate change is trying to model an inherently complex system (the planetary climate). That is what science is not very good at--yet. But, like in any field of science, the models improve with more research.

[N_Fiddledog]

When you can predict a horse race with a model come see me. Until that time don't be telling me you can predict, or hope to predict some time in the near future a system which is almost infinitely more complex.

At present we have some predictive power of weather systems a few days in advance. Go any farther into the future than that, and you might as well use tarot cards.

Was somebody saying earlier there were no scientists involved in the predictions of global cooling in the 70s? Bullshit. One of the big guys at NASA was one of the main proponents. He used a model developed by a young, up and comer named James Hansen. James Hansen is now one of the main pushers of the global warming drug. In 1988 Hansen used models to create a prediction of what climate would do. He was way off.

Check it out

The IPCC tried the modeling predictions as well, more recently, but with similar results.

Check it out

Models at first told us there would be warming at both poles. The North pole warmed. The South pole did not. They simply changed their interpretation of the models, and claimed that was what they said all the time. Later this guy named Steig came up with this study using magic math, claiming the south pole actually had warmed. The warmists then said, "Yeah that's what the models said all along, warming at both poles". However when - as is usually the case, and will no doubt be the case with this Greenland is currently getting warmer in spite of the fact we can easily look at a graph and see the arctic ice pack taking a record jump study - that study turned out to be bogus, and useful only to generate a quick media headline. The model predictions of warming at both poles were once more proved false by reality.

Models similar to the family of models used to produce the consistently proven incorrect climate predictions were used by Wall street bigwigs, and appear to have played a large part in the recent economic crisis.

So you know, you can dream into the future about some fantasy computer that will tell you everything you want to know about what the sun, clouds, and ocean currents will be doing in a hundred years, but at present no, scientists can not predict the future of climate, and their hopes of doing so in any for-see-able future are about as silly as the false predictions they're currently offering.

At present we've got these bogus modeled predictions, and in the name of those you want to what? Go multi-trillions of dollars into debt, unravel the economic and social structure of the world, and sign over your country's sovereignty to the UN?