Balloon guy, on Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 6:33 PM, said:
Does Co2 only reflect the sun's energy down? It doesn't reflect some of the energy away before it gets trapped in our atmosphere? So a rise in Co2 could actully reflect more of the sun's energy before it adds to the earth's 'problem'? Almost like the natural flow of things is working itself out.But if you want to believe that the entire world will reduce it's carbon belching internal combustion engines by a factor that is enough to heal the entire ecosystem that is so badly damaged that the entire planetary weather system is now destructive, well you go ahead and do the math. I guess if all cars were outlawed in the entire world it would be a start, but heal the whole planet? Probably too late.However if you were to take the let's clean up the air and water you would get alot farther. Going off on a tangent and blaming the US for being successfull and productive is more likely to just get you shut out of the debate. Pick your battles better and you'll get farther ahead.Or just keep whining while the USA protects your socialist borders, freeing up the money you need to keep your economy killing social programs afloat.
To the first bolded statement: Yes, CO2 and other greenhouse gases only keeps the suns energy on earth, they don't "reflect more of the sun's energy before it adds to the earth's 'problem'". Nice try though, but your teory is way off base. http://en.wikipedia..../Greenhouse_gas
The second bolded statement:First of all, the US is not the only country that needs to make fundamental changes. Basicly every country in the world have to comabt this problem. EU and USA just happen to be the worst culprits. And why do you think we are trying to "freeing up the money you need to keep your economy killing social programs afloat." Yes, the US is the biggest economy in the world, but you are acting like the rest of the world can't take care of itself without you, which is just plain false. The US is in no way superior except in one thing, military power. You have an ignorant opinion in the matter.
Loismustdie, on Tuesday, March 6th, 2007, 8:27 PM, said:
What caused it to be warmer 400 years ago- that's a damn good question. I would love to hear the answer to that.
You don't understand the facts. Read this and you'll see that yes, it was warm 400 years ago, but it is possibly warmer now and it will become warmer.
Study Says Earth's Temp at 400-Year HighBy JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press WriterThursday, June 22, 2006(06-22) 08:10 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, probably even longer. The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is running a fever and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.The Bush administration also has maintained that the threat is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs.Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years. Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member. The conclusions from the '90s research "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.The panel looked at how other scientists reconstructed the Earth's temperatures going back thousands of years, before there was data from modern scientific instruments.For all but the most recent 150 years, the academy scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the academy said.Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.The scientists said they had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600. But they considered it reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said.The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters.
What probably happened after this report is that someone that didn't like the conclusions (or didn't fully understand them) said that it was this warm 400 years ago, global warming is therefore a fraud. They failed to mention (or didn't grasp) the fact that the current rise in average global temperature is unprecedented.
Balloon guy, on Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 2:50 AM, said:
puhleese. They did an IQ test for all the states????? Might want to think about the logistics of that one. That's alot of number 2 pencils.And I do believe that I am subject to hearing how Katrina, Tornados, etc etc etc are results of global warming, so why can't an all time record low be used against that argument. Although I agree that it isn't, but the point of having isolated incedents to prove a point, also must allow isolated incedents to disprove the same point. I know ISAspelling
Scientist don't really understand why hurricanes form, but they do know where they get their power from. Warm water adds energy to hurricanes. The global average temperature rise caused the mexican gulf to be above normal when it comes to temperature. This led to Katrina beeing extremely powerfull, so in a way, global warming was the cause of the extent of the destruction.Also, you don't seem to understand how statistics work. Do you think they ask every voter when they do before an election polls? They ask a small amount of people, usually around 1000, how they would vote, and with that small population (statistical term) they can make a 95% certain prediction. The same can be done with IQ tests. That is how they can statisticly show, that red states are inhabited by, on average, less intelligent people, than blue states. I haven't seen the data, but it is certainly possible to conclude such a thing.
Atremis, on Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 7:27 AM, said:
Al Gore is correct when he says that no peer-reviewed scholarly article explicitly denies the existence of the human-enhanced greenhouse effect. This is due to the fact that any paper with such a conclusion would never be published in a peer-reviewed journal, regardless of how reasonable its arguments may be.Mysteriously, most of the scientists weighing in against the enhanced greenhouse effect are retired and/or independent in some way. Those who still rely on the regard of their colleagues cannot openly take such a stance or they will rapidly be out of a job.
The first bolded statement: No, you are largly incorrect in this matter. If a scientific study showed that humans are not the cause of the increase of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere it would surely be published. The reason there is none such paper is that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that humans are the cause, so therefore, if a study showed we weren't, the paper would be wrong, and therefore not published.The second bolded statement: Mysteriously, these same men also swore that smoking and second hand smoke wasn't unhealthy back in the day when some people actually could say such a thing and be taken seriously. Watch this investigative report: http://video.google....2...67811&hl=en
FCP's resident swede...
...and global warming informer.
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." - Albert Einstein
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the
evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something
which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest
evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way." - Bertrand Russell