Mathematically Confirmed: There Is No Climate Change Crisis

rightwingnews.com ^ | July 16, 2008

[GOPJ]

Ping

[Rurudyne]

Thanks!

[piytar]

You have clearly studied the issue thoroughly. Have you looked into any possible accelerating/exacerbating factors? I’m thinking volcanic activity and/or extremely large forest fires that increase cloud reflectivity and/or formation or block additional sunlight? Not sure the recent large Chilean volcanic activity is enough to matter, but if it is, might that bring down temps more/sooner? How about the enormous fires in CA, the smoke from which is easily seen from space?

[rbmillerjr]

Water vapor makes up far more of our atmosphere than CO2 does and is far more efficient at absorbing and trapping heat from the sun.

“While accurate, this is irrelevant. We’re not adding water to the environment.”

I’m not a scientist but I’m not sure how the above posters statement is irrelevant. In order to be scientifically irrelevant, wouldn’t you have to prove with evidence that the efficient trapping of heat by huge amounts of water, is mitigated by the relatively small increases of CO2?

The reason I ask and bring up this point is that just the opposite seems to be happening. We seem to be having an increasing CO2 level with drops in temperature.

[SoConPubbie]

Good point. I hope that McCain and his campaign will have the courage to look at the newer data and reconsider the AGW hypothesis.

You act like this was a principled stand on McCain's part.

The scientific articles challenging the Global Warming Scam have been out their for several years now.

McCain's position on the Global Warming Scam has always been a calculating position of convenience, one he believes will garner him more votes and get the media to like him.

It is all part of his 'Maverick' branding.

He is a total and complete pandering politician.

He does not do things out of principle, but out of calculation.

[Sherman Logan]

The reason I said our adding small amounts of water vapor to the atmosphere is irrelevant is that the atmosphere is already saturated with water vapor.

The earth already has 332,500,000 cubic miles of water, almost all of it in contact with the atmosphere and available for evaporation when conditions are right. Are you seriously contending that adding a few hundred or thousand (or hundred thousand or million) tons a year to this amount will make a difference?

[Kenny Bunk]

Sherman, I must take issue wiith your use of facts to contradict religion.

Global warming is now the religion of many people. Therefore, if they truly believe it, it is true, and just as good as any other religion. They feel good about Gobal Warming, and they feel bad about people like you who use facts to negate their beliefs. You are saying that they are wrong. Saying that people are wrong is so hurtful, it is now really the only wrong thing a human can do.

It makes you negative, and it makes them positive. Positive is always better than negative. I feel that is a fact; just like the dead polar bears, about whom Republicans care even less than they do about the caribou of ANWAR.

[FBD]

>”...it is just a fact that we are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels that have concentrated carbon out of the atmosphere for millions of years. CO2 has increased, and all the evidence is that its increase is anthropogenic....”

disagree.
just because B follows A, it doesn't mean B is caused by A.
It's been argued by some very intelligent people, that the majority of CO2 increase could well be caused by the oceans being naturally warmed, by solar cycles. When the oceans warm, they release CO2. See here:
http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif

There has been a lag time between CO2 increases, and global temp increases. This (it is argued)is not caused by man made CO2, which is less then 1% of atmospheric CO2 levels, but by oceans release of CO2

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/5342/05swindle3xz8.jpg

[Sherman Logan]

You are correct. I spoke too strongly when I said that “all the evidence” is that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic.

However, what is a fact is that the observed increase in concentration since 1750 has tracked very closely with estimates of the total amount released by burning of fossil fuels, to the point where the total released by burning of fossil fuels is very nearly equal to the total additional carbon in the atmosphere.

This seems reasonably conclusive to me, although we shouldn’t exclude other possible explanations. If warming of oceans is indeed the cause, it means that some other unknown mechanism is removing the anthropogenic carbon at roughly the same rate it is being added. This is, of course, possible, but I’ve seen no evidence that such a mechanism exists.

[Sherman Logan]

What is your authority for the statement, “man made CO2, which is less then 1% of atmospheric CO2 levels?”

CO2 has increased since 1750 by about 100 ppm. It is generally believed that 100 ppm of the present 380 ppm is anthropogenic, whether this belief is accurate or not.

Your statement implies that man made CO2 (not really an accurate way to put it) is <1%, or <3.8 ppm. I’m curious what you base this on.

[GOPJ]

Unfortunately for leftists, there is no /sarc tage at the end of that statement. Of course if they actually thought, they’d be conservatives.

Good one!

[mdmathis6]

I was citing data suggesting that the outer planets have been shown to have experienced warming as well...I did note the solar minimum data as well...so what has been causing the other planets to warm? Has the solar system moved into a “less dusty” region of space?

[TChad]

This has been added above the body of the Monckton article:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions.

Monckton has responded.

Advantage Monckton, unless and until the APS provides specific, point by point rebuttals to the article. The caveat printed above, which might as well say "Monckton sucks!", does not cut it.