Posted on 01/16/2007 8:48:34 AM PST by Graybeard58
When warmists wax on catastrophic climate change, one agency they quote a lot is the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body comprised mostly of warmists bent on proving their man-made global-warming theory, the facts and their limited understanding of how climate works be damned.
The IPCC's last report in 2001 predicted planetary warming of up to 10 F and a sea-level rise of nearly 3 feet by 2100. Since then, it has been "refining" its numbers, weighing new data and supposedly developing a better understanding of climate science. Its "fourth assessment report," due out in February, will conclude civilization's threat has been overstated, so it will lower its warming projection to 2.7 F to 7.5 F, and adjust its guess on sea-level rise to 17 inches.
Still, the IPCC is worried because carbon-dioxide emissions have risen by 3 percent in the past five years. Relying on past IPCC work, The Earth Institute at Columbia University concluded this year that atmospheric concentrations of CO2, now 0.00038 percent, could reach 0.00055 percent "well before the end of the century, with potentially disastrous implications for human well-being and the Earth's natural systems." At the present rate, it would be more than 9,000 years before CO2 reached 1 percent.
Those numbers are meaningless without context, so here's some: CO2 is abundant on Venus, a hellishly hot planet that warmists say portends earth's fate unless mankind curbs its greenhouse-gas emissions now. But Venus' atmosphere is 97 percent carbon dioxide, giving it 255,000 times more CO2 by volume than earth's and making warmists' fears laughably overheated.
But even if fossil fuels were banned tomorrow, the effect on the climate would be at best immeasurably small. "So whether the climate changes we are observing are reversible is a nonissue," said Steve Milloy of junkscience.com. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., put the IPCC's revisions in perspective: "Climate science is always going through these 'refinements.' The media (have) alternated between four separate global cooling and warming scares since 1895, (including) the erroneous prediction of a coming ice age in the 1970s." Still, the IPCC and other warmists should be encouraged to keep refining their data until this latest warming scare disappears.
YES, IT MEANS YOU ARE HANGING OUT WITH THE WRONG CROWD!!!!!!!
How dare you denigrate Al Gore !
He invented the internet, you know !
A lot of that global warming stuff is falling outside right now -- third or fourth time this winter, when we usually get it once, maybe twice, a winter.
You think too much. Thinking is not conducive to the global warming discussion, it just clouds the mind with facts and information, ignoring your hotter feelings. /sarc
"Does that mean some thing special?"
Are they generally prefaced with commentaries on one's intellectual prowess or the dubiousness of one's ancestry? Roughly translated, these responses mean "You're right and I can do naught but despise you for it".
"I got into a debate with warmists on another website. When I cite anything that sheds doubt on ALgore's hype they reply in ALL CAPS ...and end with -!!! Does that mean some thing special?"
Just remind them that German scientists last year, using ice core samples from all over the Alps, found that the Alpine glaciers in Hannibal's day were 50% less than they are today. So ask them what kind of carbon-belching SUVs do they think Hannibal used when he crossed the Alps during his invasion of Europe.
Al Gore must be spinning in his grave.................................Wawd I miss? LOL....
70 degrees in NY in Dec is global warming. 25 degrees and snowing in Texas in March is global warming. 20 hurricanes in a season is global warming. 3 hurricanes in a season is global warming. Drought, global warming. Abundent rain, global warming.
EVERYTHING is caused by global warming.
Glaciers could overrun Canada and move across the great lakes and you would find people attributing it to global warming.
The total amount of CO2 from fossil fuels prior to the 20th century was miniscule compared to since.
Yes, C02 has risen dramatically, even in the last 50 years.
It is hard to tell what "Global Warming" means. It is both an ideology and a half baked scientific theory. Like most ideologies and half-baked theories, it is extremely robust with respect to data.
Ask a proponent of Global Warming what observations could falsify (or verify) this theory. Eight'll get you 13 they have no idea how to address the question. Certainly, the "global warming hypothesis" is at best only very weakly validated.
Einstein's theory of General Relativity was subjected to three + one classical tests:
1. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury.
2. Gravitational red shift in massive stars.
3. Deflection of starlight during a solar eclipse.
+1. Delay of radar echos from planets on the far side of the sun.
It has passed with flying colors. Where is the similar list for Global Warming?
FINALLY-----Common Sense !!!!
The much hated and evil Opal Paki-Derm, special edition./
All the global warming hype is nonsense, specifically it is opinion. Peroid. Opinion marketed as fact.
When they can tell me precisely what the weather will be in one month, then and only then, I'll begin to believe their predictions about the weather in 10 years.
Silly humans and their opinions.
10 years? Hell, they are trying to tell you they know what it will be in 100 years!
"The much hated and evil Opal Paki-Derm, special edition."
You get Wuli's Chuckle of the Day prize, and we thank you for your contribution to the levity our weighty discussions need from time to time.
Yeah. It means they're good at doing what they do best -- SHOUTING!!
To assist you in educating them, you might do a FR keyword search on Global Warming for up-to-date stories on the issue.
Mars also has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of CO2 and has a surface temperature cold enough to freeze CO2 as dry ice at the polls. The major difference between the two is Venus has 10,000 times the water vapor of Mars. Venus is also closer to the sun then Earth and thus receives more solar energy. Mars is further out then Earth and receives less input energy.
While it is true that CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas what the warmists conveniently ignore is that water vapor has about four times the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and is about 70 times more prevalent in our present atmosphere.
When you look at the projections of the warmists, the ordinate of their graphs are generally in percentages. I would remind all that a change in concentration of 1 part per million to 1.5 parts per million is a 50% increase and thus sounds much more dramatic.
Regards,
GtG
Never debate a fool....they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. }B >)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.