Posted on 08/20/2009 6:50:11 AM PDT by PreciousLiberty
Obviously, because people are awake and driving their SUVs more in the day than at night.
That’s perfect! Unfortunately when the greenies try to schedule a meeting with that guy, I bet his flight gets cancelled because of snow! :-)
You are correct... but they cannot have it both ways and win the argument.
LLS
See #35. :-)
“Many scientists agree, however, that hotter times are ahead. A decade of level or slightly lower temperatures is only a temporary dip to be expected as a result of natural, short-term variations in the enormously complex climate system, they say.”
The argument is not whether the planet is getting warmer or colder, what matters is whether or not we can do anything thing about. That is the real argument, and an argument the AGW proponents refuse to participate in. Since they won’t debate the carbon “crisis”, the justification for taxing and controlling industries around the world, lets just use the facts that are readily accessible, and their own claims concerning man’s activities, to determine the legitimacy of their case for regulating Carbon.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) tells us that humans contribute 5% of atmospheric carbon concentrations, and Carbon Dioxide from man’s activities needs to be reduced to save the planet. For the sake of argument lets accept their number of 5%. Since we also know that the carbon dioxide currently makes-up thirty-eight one-hundredths of one percent (.0038) of our atmosphere, it is easy to do the math to determine the outcome should we do what they tell us needs to be done to save the planet. In fact, lets go farther by pretending that every man, woman, child and SUV has died and use the full 5% instead of the far smaller reduction they now expect to achieve with us all stubbornly staying alive.
By multiplying 38/100 of one percent by 5% (.0038 x .05) you get the number of .00019, or 19/1000 of 1%. Now think about that. If every person disappeared off the face of the Earth we would achieve a reduction of a colorless, odorless, harmless inert gas called Carbon Dioxide by .00019 the total of all atmospheric gases. Again, please think about it.
Think about what they are asking us to do to change the atmosphere by far less than the number we just calculated. Think about how many jobs they are asking us to give-up for that number. Think about the freedom they are asking you to sacrifice this. Think about the absolute poverty they are asking the third-world to endure to achieve that insignificant statistic. It is not only absurd, it shows you just how craven and dishonest the global left has become in their quest to lord over the rest of us rubes and peasants.
Simple math demonstrates what an outrage this fraudulent Anthropogenic Global Warming campaign is. Think about it.
Charles McFarling
Indianapolis, IN
I just checked Spaceweather, and we are at 40 days and counting without a single sunspot. And I thought that one in July was the beginning of a much more active cycle as Cycle 24 kicked in....
hh
They admit that the climate system is enormously complex, yet still maintain that they can model and use the models to project the future of this enormously complex system.
Just how many of their sophisticated modeling programs predicted the current 10 year global cooling?
I think the answer is - not one.
The government was predicting in May that the new solar cycle was supposed to have started ramping up by now. But things are quiet. If still no sunspot activity by January, then we may have entered a sunspot minimum. Whether it's a moderate "Year without a summer" Dalton-type minimum or a "Little Ice Age" Maunder-type minimum remains to be seen.
There are other problems with the "not so simple math". Apparently all the global warming models use a simplifying assumption of an infinite atmosphere. When updated to reflect a finite atmosphere, the predicted warming drops from six degrees C to one degree C. There are other problems with the models that also make that number meaningless.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2018
The models have never been good enough to warrant committing trillions of dollars.
“Just how many of their sophisticated modeling programs predicted the current 10 year global cooling?
I think the answer is - not one.”
That’s correct. Further, not one climate model successfully models the El Nino, La Nina, or either ocean’s (multi) decadal temperature oscillations.
They have other problems, the main one being a “positive warming bias” for increasing cloud cover. Meaning that the increased cloud cover that comes with increasing warmth makes things warmer, not cooler. That’s almost certainly wrong, otherwise the Earth would have reached the same “tipping point” they’re talking about now during one of the earlier, well documented, warm periods.
They also have simplistic, and optimistic (for warming) solar and volcanic models.
It was about 51~52F this am here in Indy. And it’s frick’n August for criss sake.
Global warming is much too complex for you rubes to understand. Just shut up and pay your carbon tax. /s
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.
