Global cooling or global warming?

[Chris]

Gee...You'd think all the millinea of the sun shining othe Earf like that and trapping all that heat, we'd be, like, a kiln by now.

But we're not because the ecosystem isn't linear, it's dynamic.

And when you double the amount of a greenhouse gas like CO2, it causes the earth to retain more heat.

 

[mdn2000]

Because water releases its heat more slowly than does air.

Not that anyone would expect you to accept a clear, unambiguous and scientific answer that contravenes your communist politics, though.

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,haaa!!!!!!!!!!!

No.

Because we have almost doubled the amount of a greenhouse gas that traps heat.

CO2 makes up .03% of our atmosphere. .03% = 0.0003

Lets put it into form you maybe will be able to understand - picture book.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Easy-Set-Pool-Complete-Intex/dp/B0017A8AR2"]15' x 48" Pool Complete Set by Intex[/ame]
15' Diameter x 48" Wall Height, Water Capacity: 3,736 Gallons

Let's say the contents of the pool above is the earth's atmosphere.

3,736 Gal X 0.0003 = 1.12 Gal

Here is the approximate total CO2 in our atmosphere, both natural and man made.

Now, how much of CO2 is man made? Data vary anywhere from 5% to 50%.

Here is your 5%...

And worse case of 50%

At the maximum this would be the man made CO2 in the pool above, half a gallon. If you believe it's closer to the bottom figure it would be about 12 table spoons of the pool.

Still laughing?

Thanks to Peabody.

More than 24 hours and no disagreement.

Not all of that CO2 is man-made, less than 1% of the 0.0003. So what does that take the figure down to.

 

[Chris]

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,haaa!!!!!!!!!!!

No.

Because we have almost doubled the amount of a greenhouse gas that traps heat.

CO2 makes up .03% of our atmosphere. .03% = 0.0003

Lets put it into form you maybe will be able to understand - picture book.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Easy-Set-Pool-Complete-Intex/dp/B0017A8AR2"]15' x 48" Pool Complete Set by Intex[/ame]
15' Diameter x 48" Wall Height, Water Capacity: 3,736 Gallons

Let's say the contents of the pool above is the earth's atmosphere.

3,736 Gal X 0.0003 = 1.12 Gal

Here is the approximate total CO2 in our atmosphere, both natural and man made.

Now, how much of CO2 is man made? Data vary anywhere from 5% to 50%.

Here is your 5%...

And worse case of 50%

At the maximum this would be the man made CO2 in the pool above, half a gallon. If you believe it's closer to the bottom figure it would be about 12 table spoons of the pool.

Still laughing?

Thanks to Peabody.

More than 24 hours and no disagreement.

Not all of that CO2 is man-made, less than 1% of the 0.0003. So what does that take the figure down to.

Bullshit.

Lying as usual.

Over loading the system with CO2 is cumulative, it stays in the atmosphere for decades.

 

[frazzledgear]

Gee...You'd think all the millinea of the sun shining othe Earf like that and trapping all that heat, we'd be, like, a kiln by now.

But we're not because the ecosystem isn't linear, it's dynamic.

And when you double the amount of a greenhouse gas like CO2, it causes the earth to retain more heat.

Mmm -how? The problem with this part is that CO2 only exists in the atmosphere as a gas -and as a tiny fraction of the whole, representing just a few parts per billion of all atmospheric molecules. Which means that CO2 molecules aren't clumped together but widely dispersed. Compounds with the capability of trapping heat beneath it exists in the form of solid or vapor in the atmosphere which happens when molecules are grouped together, not dispersed. Like water has that property. It exists as both vapor and ice in significant amounts and is a MAJOR player in regulating surface temperatures. Actually FAR more important in that equation than any gas that only exists as a tiny, minuscule portion of the whole. Here is the real problem with claiming that tiny, totally dispersed amounts of ANY gas can actually cause a major rise in surface temperatures -you must first assume a dispersed gas can have those properties. Problem is -gas by its very nature doesn't possess those properties. No matter who is trying to fudge the numbers on it. In addition, CO2 -even in the minuscule amounts that exist -are critically and vitally necessary for the very existence of life on this planet. Yet the levels that exist today aren't even as high as they have been known to occur in the past -but without precipitating any disastrous climate change. Yet according to the drama queen hysteric global warmers -that is impossible without it resulting in either frying the earth or causing a major ice age. Depending on who is doing the drama queen act at the time.

Do you really think we now know all the variables that play a role in causing the earth to enter or leave an ice age? Because so far we haven't a clue and still haven't figured out what caused earth to enter or leave ANY previous ice age. Not one. You know, all those pesky ones where you can't blame the existence of man for them? But NOW we are going to pretend that we know it all and that a minuscule rise in the minuscule level of a vitally necessary gas in our atmosphere is going to bring about the doom of the entire planet?

The first faulty assumption that CO2 has the properties to raise earth's temperature came from the fact that in real greenhouses with real plants in them -levels of CO2 were significantly higher than in the outside air. And then the incredibly stupid leap that the fact that the temperature inside that greenhouse was also higher than outside had to mean higher levels of CO2 played a role in that. WRONG. CO2 levels are higher inside a real greenhouse because of the natural respiratory cycle of plants whose emissions of CO2 were no longer being exchanged with the outside atmosphere and CO2 remained trapped inside the greenhouse causing the levels to rise.

This one has been so easily proven to be true over and over again that you global warmers convinced that the minuscule rise of CO2 in the minuscule levels of CO2 that exists in our atmosphere will result in the torching (or freezing) of earth -should be embarrassed.

Pay attention. If you take a greenhouse built of glass and fill it entirely with oxygen and an identical greenhouse and fill it with CO2 and let them both bake in the sun side by side for however long you like -want to take a guess which greenhouse will have a higher temperature inside? I won't keep you in suspense. The temperature will be IDENTICAL. That is because it isn't the gas inside a greenhouse that causes the temperature to rise - but the GLASS which is the only variable in this equation with the properties to trap heat beneath it. How about if we remove the glass variable and make them both metal boxes instead? THEN will the internal temperatures be higher for the one with CO2 inside it? Again -both will have identical internal temperatures. If CO2 had the properties to trap heat and cause a surface temperature rise -then it sure as hell would do it when it represents 100% of the atmosphere inside a glass or metal box, wouldn't it? So insisting it can only do it when it represents 0.03% of the atmosphere is ridiculous on its face.

Sorry, but the big dirty secret in the phony global warming bs is that CO2 as it exists in our atmosphere, in the form of minuscule levels of a widely dispersed gas -just doesn't have the correct chemical properties to trap heat beneath it. Only if CO2 could exist as a vapor or solid in our atmosphere could it do that -and it never ever exists in our atmosphere in those forms. All of this SPECULATION assumes that no other variables known for a fact to play a role in surface temperatures will ever change. To say nothing of the ones we still don't know about that play a role in regulating surface temperatures will also never change. You really buy that? Think we will never in the next 50, 100 or even 1000 years ever again have another volcanic eruption on the planet? Never get hit with a solar flare again? Never be hit by solar winds again? And on and on through the more than 100 known variables we know are involved in regulating surface temperatures -all while still completely ignorant about the completely unknown but obviously critical variables since we still don't know what causes major climate shifts on this planet! LOL Just a change in one of those makes all the drama queen crap a worthless exercise.

So the REAL question is - what would motivate people to insist a minuscule rise in a minuscule level of CO2 is the sole or at least primary culprit and THE cause of the earth getting baked (or frozen) while ignoring any and all other variables both known and unknown -when that REQUIRES that we all pretend we know ALL the variables involved in any kind of major climate change when we know for a fact we don't. And we know that we don't -or we would know what caused the earth to enter and leave all other ice ages. But we don't know why it did for even ONE of them. Now THAT is a question worth getting the answer to, isn't it?

Don't bother with repeating any of the global warming bs and CO2 levels. The oft repeated experiment of glass boxes filled with O2 and CO2 have disproved this one -if CO2 at 100% of the atmosphere cannot cause the temperature to rise -it sure as hell can't do it when its only 0.03% and I don't care which scientist wants to argue it has more magical properties at 0.03% somehow.

 

[frazzledgear]

Why is the arctic ice is melting even though the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years?

?? Arctic ice is ALWAYS melting and refreezing. And maybe you missed out on this part -but overall, arctic ice has been GROWING even while in other parts it has been shrinking. ICECAP
ICECAP
Intellicast - This Week in Weather
Arctic Ice Increasing Rapidly | Climate Realists (Mobile Edition)
West Antarctic ice comes and goes, rapidly

That actually means there is more of it now, not less. The fact some phony "documentary" shows a chunk of ice breaking away and falling into the ocean and wants you to believe that kind of thing has never happened before until the levels of CO2 rose from some 3 parts per billion of all atmospheric molecules to 4 parts per billion doesn't mean you HAVE to play the chump. Only if you are really comfortable with that role, ok?

 

[Si modo]

Gee...You'd think all the millinea of the sun shining othe Earf like that and trapping all that heat, we'd be, like, a kiln by now.

But we're not because the ecosystem isn't linear, it's dynamic.

And when you double the amount of a greenhouse gas like CO2, it causes the earth to retain more heat.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has doubled? On what point in time to you base this doubling?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

No....Because you're a stupid fuck, who won't accept a clinical scientific answer if it goes against your commie politics....Just like the envirocommie "scientists" who got outed today, for making shit up and destroying contrary evidence.

The arctic ice is melting and the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

That's called evidence.

No its called underwater volcanoes

Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

CO2 makes up .03% of our atmosphere. .03% = 0.0003

Lets put it into form you maybe will be able to understand - picture book.

15' x 48" Pool Complete Set by Intex
15' Diameter x 48" Wall Height, Water Capacity: 3,736 Gallons

Let's say the contents of the pool above is the earth's atmosphere.

3,736 Gal X 0.0003 = 1.12 Gal

Here is the approximate total CO2 in our atmosphere, both natural and man made.

Now, how much of CO2 is man made? Data vary anywhere from 5% to 50%.

Here is your 5%...

And worse case of 50%

At the maximum this would be the man made CO2 in the pool above, half a gallon. If you believe it's closer to the bottom figure it would be about 12 table spoons of the pool.

Still laughing?

Thanks to Peabody.

More than 24 hours and no disagreement.

Not all of that CO2 is man-made, less than 1% of the 0.0003. So what does that take the figure down to.

Bullshit.

Lying as usual.

Over loading the system with CO2 is cumulative, it stays in the atmosphere for decades.

Co2 is not a cause oceans warming Mr Gore.

 

[KittenKoder]

CO2 makes up .03% of our atmosphere. .03% = 0.0003

Lets put it into form you maybe will be able to understand - picture book.

15' x 48" Pool Complete Set by Intex
15' Diameter x 48" Wall Height, Water Capacity: 3,736 Gallons

Let's say the contents of the pool above is the earth's atmosphere.

3,736 Gal X 0.0003 = 1.12 Gal

Here is the approximate total CO2 in our atmosphere, both natural and man made.

Now, how much of CO2 is man made? Data vary anywhere from 5% to 50%.

Here is your 5%...

And worse case of 50%

At the maximum this would be the man made CO2 in the pool above, half a gallon. If you believe it's closer to the bottom figure it would be about 12 table spoons of the pool.

Still laughing?

Thanks to Peabody.

More than 24 hours and no disagreement.

Not all of that CO2 is man-made, less than 1% of the 0.0003. So what does that take the figure down to.

Bullshit.

Lying as usual.

Over loading the system with CO2 is cumulative, it stays in the atmosphere for decades.

Holy shit batman!



This Joker is just stupid.

 

[FactFinder]

Here is a contradicting study:

Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere 5-15 Years Only

Jennifer Marohasy » Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere 5-15 Years Only

With the short (5-15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently-based) conclusion that the long-term (~100-year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most probably the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident.

 

[Ame®icano]

Why does it matter if Arctic ice melts anyway?

It is teorized by OwlGore that seas would rise, Land would disappear, and Hurricaines would be a YEAR-Round Event in BOTH Hemispheres...larger than Katrina...

It is the unanimous opinion of all scientists worldwide that the melting of Arctic sea ice would not cause a significant rise in ocean levels. Think of it this way if you fill a glass with ice and then with water and allow it to sit until all the ice melts, does your glass run over with excess water? Of course not. Arctic ice is not on a land mass.

If all of Greenland were to melt it could result in up to 20 feet of rise in the ocean levels. What sort of temperature increase would cause all of Greenland to melt? It would take about a 15C rise in temperature and probably several decades once it got there to melt all the ice. A 3C rise in temperature would probably lead to Greenland melting more than it snows every year. No sane person expects a 3C rise anytime in the next century or more. An 8C rise in temperature would probably cause a rise of a foot or two in ocean levels, at our current rate of temperature increase based on the last century it would take 1,600 years before we had that much increase in temperature and 600 years before we saw a 3c rise, so it isn't something to get all worked up about right now. In 200 years I think we should revisit the issue, until then who cares?

I like your post. Here is the addition to it.

Oceans contain 97.25% of all water on earth. Icecaps and glaciers contain 2.05%, and remaining 0.7% is in lakes 0.01%, ground 0.68%, soil moisture 0.005%, atmosphere 0.001%, rivers 0.0001% and biosphere 0.00004%.

The key work in your post is could. There is no data we could rely on, since every study suggests something could or may happen, but without firm cause. Politicians are using that word to scare people and justify measures they taking, which are always taxing people in order to finance their pet projects and line up their pockets.

Does anyone remember Al Gore's movie and famous IPCC "hockey stick"? Well, that "hockey stick is based on a "scientific" computer model. If we are to believe the "scientific" theory consensus that man is driving the current warming and it's not just another of the Earth's natural warming periods, the theory needs to be based on an accurate computer model. Do we really know that model is accurate?

The only way we can prove it is capable of any accuracy at all is to run it backward and let it predict the past. We already know what has happened and determine it's measure of accuracy by known results. The wise thing to do is to have our government ask IPCC to see the results of their computer model with backward accuracy check. Would they do it? Of course not. Since global warming theory is falling apart, they changed terminology to suit their needs, so now we are in "climate change", and that is still taxable.

 

[Ame®icano]

It is teorized by OwlGore that seas would rise, Land would disappear, and Hurricaines would be a YEAR-Round Event in BOTH Hemispheres...larger than Katrina...

It is the unanimous opinion of all scientists worldwide that the melting of Arctic sea ice would not cause a significant rise in ocean levels. Think of it this way if you fill a glass with ice and then with water and allow it to sit until all the ice melts, does your glass run over with excess water? Of course not.

BALONEY!

Think of it this way, if you fill a glass to the brim with water and then heat the water a couple of degrees, does your glass run over from expanding water? Of course it does!

Water highest density is at the 4 deg C. From 4 degrees to the boiling point of 100 C water expands nearly 3%. Therefore, couple of degrees wont expand water enough to run it over.

 

[Ame®icano]

An warmer oceans means more evaporation which leads to a stasis.

For someone who cites so much science, you're an incredibly one-dimensional linear thinker.

I don't see a reason why are you arguing with someone what has no knowledge about the matter. For GW supporters everything that mention greenhouse gas must be bad for us. Water vapor is greenhouse gas, but you can't say anything positive about it. You can't just say that clouds increase the earth's albedo.

It’s too bad that people have to exhale, and by doing that we release another greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Oops, it's time to tax us for breathing...

 

[Ame®icano]

More than 24 hours and no disagreement.

Not all of that CO2 is man-made, less than 1% of the 0.0003. So what does that take the figure down to.

Bullshit.

Lying as usual.

Over loading the system with CO2 is cumulative, it stays in the atmosphere for decades.

There it is. Pure "scientific" response.

 

[edthecynic]

Have you really never researched the quotes you use in your signature to make sure you fully understand the context in which they were said? ROFL Because it sure makes you look like a real dufus.

For example, the ones from Limbaugh. What a hoot that you use those as part of your signature as if some kind of "proof" of how evil conservatives are.

But the one about "accuse your opponents of what you yourself are doing" is something Limbaugh said (and still says) DEMOCRATS do who have taken the play from the leftist radical Saul Alinski about how to get one up on your opponent. He said the Democrats DO THIS. It was not a statement advising conservatives what to do. ROFLMAO. But hey -why let a little thing like CONTEXT get in your way now, right? Just like the one you have quoting Limbaugh saying "Don't doubt me". Want to take a guess what he was actually talking about with that one? Prior to the recent elections, Limbaugh predicted that Democrats would lose both governor races -which they did -while claiming a moral victory. Which they also did. Limbaugh responded by saying "Don't doubt me WHEN I SAY THEY WILL CLAIM MORAL VICTORY EVEN IN THE FACE OF UTTER DEFEAT. But hey, leaving out the rest of what he said doesn't work out for you so well, does it? LOL Now want to take a shot about who Limbaugh was actually referring to about having a Messianic complex? Oops

And the really funny thing is I don't listen to Limbaugh -but just reading those bs quotes in your signature I knew something had to be missing from them. It took all of 45 seconds to find out what it was.

Those quotes went completely over your head!!!

Those quotes are not there because he was talking about CON$, but to show his HYPOCRISY!!!!!
He defines a messianic attitude and then fulfills his own definition, "Don't doubt me," therefore exposing HIMSELF as someone who accuses others of what he does himself.
Understanding that, CON$ervative Alinskyites will accuse others of using Alinsky's tactics.
Get it???

January 24, 2007
RUSH: One of the techniques that Alinsky has advocated be used against people you need to destroy is ridicule, [Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.] because there's no response to it. When you get ridiculed and made fun of, that's the toughest thing to have a response because everybody's laughing at you... In order to execute the strategeries and the policies of Saul Alinsky, you cannot have a soul, you cannot have a conscience, because your sole objective is to destroy people and ruin them.

Algore
Former Vice President Al Gore.

Breck Girl
John Edwards.

Dingy Harry
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

Dung Heap Harkin
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)

Environmentalist wacko

Feminazi

Frenchurian Candidate, the
2004 Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry (D-MA)

NAGs (National Association of Gals)
National Organization for Women (NOW)

Nikita Dean
Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.

Nostrilitis, Nostrildamus
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)

Senator Dick Turban
Senator Richard Durbin, (D-IL).

Senator Helmet Head
Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)

 

[Old Rocks]

No....Because you're a stupid fuck, who won't accept a clinical scientific answer if it goes against your commie politics....Just like the envirocommie "scientists" who got outed today, for making shit up and destroying contrary evidence.

The arctic ice is melting and the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

That's called evidence.

No its called underwater volcanoes

Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean

No, the energy content in the volcanos is just too miniscule compared to the heat needed to melt the Arctic Ocean ice.

Volcanos in Gakkel Ridge NOT responsible melting the Arctic ice « Climate Sanity

I am not only a global warming skeptic, but a skeptic in general. I call ‘em as I see ‘em.

There have been some attempts to link the arctic sea ice loss of the last several years to reports of volcanoes under thousands of feet of water in the Gakkel Ridge,

The truth is that all the energy from a volcano the size of Mount St. Helens could only melt 100 square kilometers of three meter thick ice. This is a trivial amount of ice for the arctic region, which typically oscillates between about 4 million and 14 million square kilometers every year. 100 square kilometers is only one hundred thousandth of the yearly change in Arctic sea ice extent

 

[Oddball]

I am not only a global warming skeptic, but a skeptic in general. I call ‘em as I see ‘em.

You're no skeptic...You're a lemming.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1365280-post54.html

 

[Old Rocks]

Here is a contradicting study:

Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere 5-15 Years Only

Jennifer Marohasy » Carbon Dioxide in Atmosphere 5-15 Years Only

With the short (5-15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently-based) conclusion that the long-term (~100-year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most probably the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident.

Of course there is that nagging little question, if this is the case, why has there been a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 in the last 150 years? And why has the CO2 increased in the ocean to the extent of creating a measureable increase in acidity?

 

[Oddball]

Begging the question doesn't answer the question, doofus.

 

[Ame®icano]

Here is funny one...

Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a reference to a plan to "hide the decline" in temperatures.

The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the theft of 61MB of confidential data.

Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun," evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The authors of some of the e-mails, however, accuse the skeptics of taking the messages out of context, adding that the evidence still clearly shows a warming trend.

Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails