Global Warming Will 'Stop', New Peer-Reviewed Study Says

Inhofe EPW Press Blog ^ | April 30, 2008 | Marc Morano

[neverdem]

Seems an odd bit of logic, doesn't it.

Well, it's CNN.

[eyedigress]

I've been watching this story for a few days now to catch the spin. The moonbats guess it will be colder and may lose all their momentum from the sheeple. God indeed has a sense of humor.

[FBD]

ok, thanks for your input.

-and I will stand by my prediction that their AGW computer models are totally flawed...and worthless.

They completely missed this current downturn, and have even been in denial (not a river in Egypt) about the 2007 colder then average winter.

[FBD]

>”The extra .25% of CO2 that we add to the other 99.75% of natural CO2 given off each year? Hardly.”

-Is it that small of an amount? (.25%) I knew it wasn't very much.
I was looking for that info, on the amount of CO2 produced by anthropogenic. Do you have a source for that?

Thanks.

[4woodenboats]

Good Grief, what'll these fairies come up with next to keep this fraud going until they can find some data that coincidences with their fantasies;

The heat is eventually transferred to the sea and land, ultimately disrupting Earth's complex climate system.

Problem is, the 3000 robots swimming the world's ocean's all came up with the same data: None of the oceans are warming up, but some are slightly cooling. This of course brought about the new theory of 'believe anything that pays' scientists - the heat is now hiding in the depths - it's a newly discovered "cool heat", so it goes down instead of up.

Climate experts have long warned, though, that warming is unlikely to be a gradual trend, but a movement in stops and starts.

What an AMAZING COINCIDENCE - just exactly like the cooling and warming trends since long before the industrial revolution. This is both fascinating AND convenient.

The main reason for this is that the oceans -- the biggest store of heat -- go through natural cycles of circulation.

Hey what a coincidence - almost just like the other coincidence - the consensus team just discovered the Theory of Heat That Goes Down - And Around - Until They Find It

The long churning of the seas can have a far-reaching effect, sometimes delaying for years the moment when the stored warmth is released at the surface.

Who wrote that dime store romance novel mush, Joan Wilder? Someone get her a room before she wets herself.

You should be embarrassed to be caught reading this garbage, much less trying to push it on people.

[21twelve]

Here’s a good link that I’ve seen before, and may have been where I got the 0.25%. However, I see that I am in error on the CO2 thing.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Human contribution to the TOTAL effective greenhouse components, including water vapor, is 0.28%. And water vapor is the largest component of greenhouse gases. The amount of CO2 is something like 3% (its in the link). And I don’t recall if the 3% is the amount of CO2, or the “effective” amount of extra greenhouse effect. The link goes into detail on all of that.

And of course all we hear about in the press is the CO2, because that is something we can sort of understand (it comes out of our tailpipes and sounds like a pollutant - actually it is now based on last years Supreme Court Ruling!!??). Water vapor doesn’t sound quite so evil.

Anyway, with the .28% thing, I showed my kids 100 copper pennies on the table, with 1/4 of a single penny colored white with wite-out. Then asked them “how much does that white color change the color of the entire bunch of pennies?”. So simple, even a 10 year-old can figure it out.

[Lancey Howard]

“Global warming” hoax BUMP!

[21twelve]

Okay , going off topic of this thread (Sun Spots), but that previous link says madmade contribution of the “effective” CO2 amount is 0.117%.

Then it summarizes things with:

“The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

This is much less than the natural variability of Earth’s climate system!

While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.”

---

” There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures — one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. “

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

[cogitator]

Fine.

[cogitator]

Your input is appreciated.

[FBD]

thanks for the info.
CO2 is a trace gas anyway, and as you pointed out, anthropogenic is a tiny fraction of that.
I’m amazed the AGW argument ever got any traction.

[4woodenboats]

Thanks for playing.