Posted on 12/11/2007 6:46:22 AM PST by Between the Lines
A new peer-reviewed study disputes the claim of former Vice President Al Gore and other green activists that global warming is caused by human activity and constitutes a "planetary emergency."
The study -- conducted by climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia -- finds that atmospheric warming patterns, or "fingerprints," over the last 30 years are not caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The report is published in the December issue of the International Journal of Climatology. Results from the study greatly contradict the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia -- and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project -- says he is "fairly" sure that the current warming trend is due to changes in the activities of the sun. "The sun is constantly active, emitting particle streams that carry magnetic fields; and they in turn have an influence on the climate of the earth," he says.
Singer says he and other global warming skeptics have grown accustomed to claims that they are beholden to the oil and gas industry. "Of course that's not only untrue, but it's completely immaterial," says Singer. "In other words, we are using the data that is furnished by the IPCC. They are published, we use only published work. What we are basically doing is to make a comparison of model results and observations."
The report concludes that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and therefore "attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless -- but very costly."
...by filling Al Gore's pockets.
btt
As of November 2007, the CO2 concentration in Earth’s atmosphere was about 0.0384% by volume, or 384 ppmv.
The OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% CO2 averaged over a 40 hour week, 3% average for a short-term (15 minute) exposure, and 4% as the maximum instantaneous limit considered immediately dangerous to life and health.
We need to keep an eye on atmospheric CO2, but at the moment it seems we’re not in immediate danger of any ill effects.
http://www.ciesin.org/docs/003-074/003-074.html
The greenhouse effect, despite all the controversy that surrounds the term, is actually one of the most well-established theories in atmospheric science. For example, with its dense CO2 atmosphere, Venus has temperatures near 700 K at its surface. Mars, with its very thin CO2 atmosphere, has temperatures of only 220 K. The primary explanation of the current Venus “runaway greenhouse” and the frigid Martian surface has long been quite clear and straightforward: the greenhouse effect (3) . The greenhouse effect works because some gases and particles in an atmosphere preferentially allow sunlight to filter through to the surface of the planet relative to the amount of radiant infrared energy that the atmosphere allows to escape back up to space. The greater the concentration of “greenhouse” material in the atmosphere (Fig. 1) (4), the less infrared energy that can escape. Therefore, increasing the amount of greenhouse gases increases the planet’s surface temperature by increasing the amount of heat that is trapped in the lowest part of the atmosphere. What is controversial about the greenhouse effect is exactly how much Earth’s surface temperature will rise given a certain increase in a trace greenhouse gas such as CO2.”
There are legitimate and well founded arguments against the theory of global warming, and whether humans are responsible. There is not a legitimate argument over whether CO2 in excessive levels in the atmosphere can be very harmful. Co2 absorbs energy in the form of heat, and that is a fact that has been scientifically proven, and can easily be scientifically recreated.
One man's bill is another man's check.
Look, I am not a big global warming alarmist. But there is a difference between questioning the alarmism of global warming, and making comments that Co2 isn’t dangerous because plants need it. Comments like that come from a complete lack of understanding on the issue.
Go for sooner rather than later. It had a huge impact on my first two. Of course they told the other 3, which eliminated the effect.
Apparently neither does the EPA. There is a new restoration process which allows cleaning everything from old paintings and books to brickwork and fire damaged wood. It uses no abrasive, surfactant, or even water. The process uses a high velocity flow of CO2 to propel pelletized dry ice (solid CO2) against the surface to be cleaned. The sudden drop in temperature causes any grime or dirt adhering to the surface to "pop" loose and the flow of gas flushes it away leaving the surface clean and dry.
This process has become commonplace and even manufacture of the equipment used to perform this restoration work has become big business. The consequence of all this is we are now using CO2 literally by the ton as a cleaning agent!
Regards,
GtG
PS All soda and most beer is "artificially" carbonated with CO2, has ANYONE even suggested that we stop doing that?
That report is politically incorrect to the Nth degree, and it will no doubt be buried by the media and never seen again outside the libraries of the universities that sponsored it. The man-made global warming hoax has now been so thoroughly ingrained into the gullible public's mind by the left wing media and their liberal politico cronies that I don't think a resurrected Moses speaking from Mount Sinai could successfully debunk it.
I read recently that approximately 20,000 climate experts from many countries have signed a paper that disputes the bogus man-made global warming baloney, and only about 5 thousand scientists from all fields of science, mostly fields which have no relation to climatology, have signed onto the UN paper that accuses humans of destroying the earth's climate balance with man-made greenhouse gas emissions. But of course no amount of actual climate expert testimony matters as long as the MSM and AlGore's hippie-dippy Goraphiles are incessantly ballyhooing the globaloney myth and the public is swallowing it hook, line, and sinker. The facts are that 97% of all greenhouse gas presently in earth's atmosphere is simply water vapor, and of the remaining 3% less than 1/10th of 1% is man-made CO2. If that virtually insignificant percentage of greenhouse gas can drive the earth and humanity into wreck and ruin there is no hope that mankind can survive even if we accepted Algore's globaloney as truth and acted accordingly. But thankfully it is just globaloney and mankind will survive and thrive unless we are stampeded into believing it and approving the anti-American agenda of AlGore and the MSM's Globaloneyists.
Folks, we are being hornswaggled by ALGore and his cadres of Gaiia (sp?) worshipping leftover hippies who hate America and Americans for being relatively rich while some socialist 3rd world nations are poor as owl roost, and even hordes of otherwise credible "experts" have been deceived by the globaloney hoopla. This deception will end up destroying or seriously damaging the US economy like nothing else ever has or could, and we the ordinary American people are bringing down upon ourselves and our nation what I believe to be a deliberately manufactured economic disaster by not seeking out and learning the truth about globaloney, and by not speaking out and voting accordingly. May the one and only true God help us and our great nation to detect and reject the deceit and lies, because AlGore's mind-numbed troops and their false god Gaiia, aka Satan, certainly won't.
Is there a market for farm-raised Polar bears? If there is, you may have bought into a gold plated money machine.
The earth is what is referred to in science as a buffered system. If CO2 experiences a sudden rise in concentration it will cause an increase in the rate of reaction with other chemical processes which use it as a reactant. It will bind with organic materials to form plant and animal matter. It will bind with calcium, magnesium, and other metals to form carbonates (limestone, coral etc). The result is a return to the equilibrium level.
This buffered ecosystem is ABSENT on Mars and Venus so they are not analogous models. Why do you bring them up?
Actually, I did not hear this. I would appreciate it if you had a link.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
But the problem is that 99.9999% of the people won't spend the time and effort it would take to look into and assimilate all that massive amount of data, and will continue to buy into Agore's globaloney myth.
Maybe when they are living in tents and eating out of garbage cans with no electricity for lights or gasoline for their about to be repossesed cars they will come to their senses and realize how badly they were deceived and lied to by mind-numbed AlGorephiles, the MSM, and their own government. I sincerely hope that I am totally wrong about all this, but I'm very much afraid that I'm not.
This is actually funny. Venus' atmosphere has 96.5% CO2, Mars' atmosphere has 95.32% CO2. The only difference is Venus' atmospheric pressure is 92 times that of earths and Mars' is 0.007 of earths atmosphere. The "greenhouse effect" would seem to be from atmospheric pressure and not from composition.
And then there is that whole thing about Venus being closer to to sun, but....
Wikipedia: Sathya Sai Baba
In other words, the skeptics are trying again. For some reason I don't think they'll be more successful this time.
Singer is incorrect. There are multiple ways to show that current solar variability is insufficient to drive the observed climate changes.
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.
