Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member patbrunz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,590

    The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'

    Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts

    http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

    What are the take-home messages:

    The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.

    The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C.

    The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).

    The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.

    The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)

    Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.

    Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.

    Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.

    There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.

    Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).

    Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.
    All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. -Edmund Burke

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    reno, nev
    Posts
    1,902
    Majority of leading scientices say different. That global warming is mainly man caused.
    I tend to believe them over Al Gore and anyone else's opinion.
    Man made emissions has had an effect on the rain forest for many years.

  3. #3
    Senior Member patbrunz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,590
    Quote Originally Posted by dyehard39
    Majority of leading scientices say different. That global warming is mainly man caused. . .

    Man made emissions has had an effect on the rain forest for many years.
    What man made emissions effect are you referring to with regard to the rain forest?

    Who are these, "leading scientists," you refer to?

    What majority are you referring to, the UN's IPCC "majority?"
    Besides, the, "majority of scientitsts," have been wrong before - look at history. Science doesn't work by vote, it works by experimentation and examining data and the data tells a different story than the global warming alarmists.

    Personally, rather than just blindly accepting what the mainstream media tries to spoonfeed me, I like to check things out a bit for myself. Have you looked at the data, or are you relying on the alarmist mainstream media for your information?

    If you do some research, you'll find that the IPCC report that the mainstream media uses as source material for their alarmist reports has a lot of flaws in it, not to mention that a lot of the, "scientists," they claim signed onto the report either aren't scientists at all or don't agree with the conclusions of the report.

    Despite what the alarmists say, based on flawed computer climate models, the data shows that Earth has been warmer than it is now quite a few times in the past and CO2 levels have been much higher than now in the past and those were times when humans could not have influenced it. Not to mention the fact that the Earth didn't turn into Venus or anything in those times when the climate was much warmer and atmospheric CO2 levels were a lot higher. The Earth may be warming, but it is part of a natural cycle that's been going on for millions of years and humans cannot control it. It's a very complex system and we don't have a complete understanding of how it works yet.

    In addition to the one I posted at the beginning of this thread, here's another website with useful information on the subject:
    http://www.co2science.org/
    All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. -Edmund Burke

  4. #4
    Senior Member patbrunz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,590
    All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. -Edmund Burke

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,663
    Quote Originally Posted by dyehard39
    Majority of leading scientices say different. That global warming is mainly man caused.
    I tend to believe them over Al Gore and anyone else's opinion.
    Man made emissions has had an effect on the rain forest for many years.
    I guess you define a "leading scientist" as anyone who toes the party line on global warming, because "most" scientists, generically speaking, do not agree. In fact, "Most" scientists are either undecided on the issue or do not believe that man is responsible for any significant degree of global temperature change.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •