Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Warnings of warming 'refined'
Waterbury Republican-American ^ | January 16, 2007 | Editorial

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: globalwarming
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last
To: Baynative
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?

YES, IT MEANS YOU ARE HANGING OUT WITH THE WRONG CROWD!!!!!!!

21 posted on 01/16/2007 9:30:33 AM PST by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for SSgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows

How dare you denigrate Al Gore !

He invented the internet, you know !


22 posted on 01/16/2007 9:32:54 AM PST by Kellis91789 (Sarcasm should never need a tag.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

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.


23 posted on 01/16/2007 9:34:04 AM PST by sionnsar (†trad-anglican.faithweb.com†|Iran Azadi| 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | UN: Useless Nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rumplemeyer

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


24 posted on 01/16/2007 9:38:38 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

"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".


25 posted on 01/16/2007 9:40:30 AM PST by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

"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.


26 posted on 01/16/2007 9:43:08 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

Al Gore must be spinning in his grave.................................Wawd I miss? LOL....


27 posted on 01/16/2007 9:50:17 AM PST by litehaus (A memory tooooo long)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: relictele
Liberal global warming gameplan: if any evidence contradicts our viewpoint, immediately move goalposts.

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.

29 posted on 01/16/2007 10:01:34 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Rumplemeyer

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?


30 posted on 01/16/2007 10:09:40 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Peace will come when the Palestinians love their children more than they hate Israel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
"So ask them what kind of carbon-belching SUVs do they think Hannibal used when he crossed the Alps during his invasion of Europe."

Elephant farts!

:0)
31 posted on 01/16/2007 10:10:02 AM PST by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

FINALLY-----Common Sense !!!!


32 posted on 01/16/2007 10:12:50 AM PST by LC HOGHEAD (I DEMAND an EXIT STRATEGY for the WAR on POVERTY !!!! 40 years is too long !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
So ask them what kind of carbon-belching SUVs do they think Hannibal used when he crossed the Alps during his invasion of Europe.

The much hated and evil Opal Paki-Derm, special edition./

33 posted on 01/16/2007 10:14:45 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

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.


34 posted on 01/16/2007 10:23:26 AM PST by four more in O 4 (God Bless America. Let Freedom Reign.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: four more in O 4

10 years? Hell, they are trying to tell you they know what it will be in 100 years!


35 posted on 01/16/2007 11:15:34 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

"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.


36 posted on 01/16/2007 12:24:18 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
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?

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.

37 posted on 01/16/2007 12:35:02 PM PST by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
Added Global Warming as a keyword for this article.
38 posted on 01/16/2007 12:39:25 PM PST by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
CO2 is abundant on Venus, a hellishly hot planet that warmists say portends earth's fate unless mankind curbs its greenhouse-gas emissions now.

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

39 posted on 01/16/2007 12:41:18 PM PST by Gandalf_The_Gray (I live in my own little world, I like it 'cuz they know me here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
It's not a crowd I'd hang out with by choice. But, it is good to get over there and mix wits with those of a different opinion. I love this site, but you have to admit that being on the same page with everyone else 98% of the time can get a bit stale.

Never debate a fool....they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. }B >)


40 posted on 01/16/2007 1:15:16 PM PST by Donald Rumsfeld Fan ("Fake but Accurate": NY Times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson