We Think We Own The Earth But We Don't

[publicprotector]

Yes its true only arrogant man would assume that we own this Planet that we live on and that we can control it, what fools we are.

Now after a several years of lies deceit and deception the perps would have it that it is indeed man thats causing all the problems. And what's their solution to this, well its not hard is it, its taxes and punitive fines levied by the soon to be Eco Police. The financial parasites have found a new way in which to make yet even more money.

Its is strange indeed that when one listens to the diatribe put out by so called intelligent people that they always seem to forget that the Earth is a living organism thats in a cycle of constant change. And that as it hurtles along in space it is affected by our Moon, the Sun and all the other Planets in the system and in turn were are part of a massive spiral galaxy so big we cannot comprehend it, all this affects our little World

Yet alas this all escapes those who are pushing the global warming agenda, man and only man is responsible for all whats going on. Well thats not so, we are but ticks on the back of a giant that can flick us off any time it likes are there is not a damn thing we can do about it. Its only mans arrogance and ignorance to think we can. If we can manipulate the weather it will probally acccelerate our end, mans meddling knows no bounds.

That is not to say I don't think we should clean up our act abit, there is much we can do in a practicle sense but taxes and fines are not the answer, they are just a means to raise revenue and profits and will do nought to help the Planet.

 

[Old Rocks]

What you are saying is that you prefer to remain ignorant, not look at the huge amount of evidence that has created an overwhelming consensus among scientists that the GHGs we have create are changing the climate that we depend on for our agriculture. You yap about the impossibility of mans actions affecting the planet, and totally fail to see the many areas where man has created a desert where once there was abundant life.

Here again is a site where you can learn the basic physics of GHGs, and the history of the scientific investigation into their effects.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[publicprotector]

Where was I ignorant, you may want to be fooled by so called facts and figures but if you want to use said evidence then you have to take everything into account and that is not being done is it. For every scientist agreeing with global warming another disagrees so what dose that prove.

You also omit the fact that the Earth is in constant change and for you only man can bring that about which proves my point entirely. Of course man has done damage to the Planet but to lay al the blame at his door is wrong and you know it. Whatever man does it is nothing compared to what mother nature can do and who said were here forever. when the perps want to raise money they will use whatever lies and deciet they can.

The article you refer to states that massive layes of ice that took thousands of years to build up disapeared very quickly and the cause was the build up of gages in the atmosphere. Well that begs the question what was the source of those gasses, as man was not around to pollute the Planet in such a way then there must be another cause perhaps a natural one. And if such events occured tens of k years ago it may indicate that this is a natural process.

Thats my point, what we are observing may just be natural events with mans activities merely accelerating said events but none the less they are natural. From what I can see all natural causes are being ignored by the pro global warming lobby, and one must ask why, for what purpose.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Where was I ignorant, you may want to be fooled by so called facts and figures but if you want to use said evidence then you have to take everything into account and that is not being done is it. For every scientist agreeing with global warming another disagrees so what dose that prove.

You also omit the fact that the Earth is in constant change and for you only man can bring that about which proves my point entirely. Of course man has done damage to the Planet but to lay al the blame at his door is wrong and you know it. Whatever man does it is nothing compared to what mother nature can do and who said were here forever. when the perps want to raise money they will use whatever lies and deciet they can.

The article you refer to states that massive layes of ice that took thousands of years to build up disapeared very quickly and the cause was the build up of gages in the atmosphere. Well that begs the question what was the source of those gasses, as man was not around to pollute the Planet in such a way then there must be another cause perhaps a natural one. And if such events occured tens of k years ago it may indicate that this is a natural process.

Thats my point, what we are observing may just be natural events with mans activities merely accelerating said events but none the less they are natural. From what I can see all natural causes are being ignored by the pro global warming lobby, and one must ask why, for what purpose.

Dude you just layed the smack down on real good there.....nice post.

I like this paragraph from your OP too

That is not to say I don't think we should clean up our act abit, there is much we can do in a practicle sense but taxes and fines are not the answer, they are just a means to raise revenue and profits and will do nought to help the Planet.

 

[WivoutPrejudice]

I've used the argument of the ice caps melting for many years.

The last ice age was about 16,000yrs ago,so,as you said,with no humans around mass polluting,what caused the planet to start heating up?

Most people seem to forget that we are on a living,breathing planet that not only creates life,but destroys it as well.The cycle of death and rebirth is never ending.

Basically,what we have,is governments who have found a new way to tax us to death.For example,you have Las Vegas,Tokyo,London's Piccadilly etc etc lit up like christmas trees 24/7 365 days of the year.But we've been told its us causing the problem because we don't turn off the little red standby button on our tv's,computers,et etc.You have countries like America and China (more recently) bellowing out huge amounts of pollution,but its not their fault.Its ours,for having tiny garden fires and heaters.

 

[byansi]

The cycle of death and rebirth is never ending.
I agree it

 

[code1211]

What you are saying is that you prefer to remain ignorant, not look at the huge amount of evidence that has created an overwhelming consensus among scientists that the GHGs we have create are changing the climate that we depend on for our agriculture. You yap about the impossibility of mans actions affecting the planet, and totally fail to see the many areas where man has created a desert where once there was abundant life.
Here again is a site where you can learn the basic physics of GHGs, and the history of the scientific investigation into their effects.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

As always, you see what you want to see and ignor what does not support your conclusion.

The rise of the Egyptian Empire resulted from the growth of the Sahara Desert. I know that in AGW theory, it is required to believe that the future can cause the past, but, seriously, is the popularity of auto travel in the USA today responsible for creating the biggest desert on the planet 6000 before the USA was created?

And, in the interest of a reality check, here's a quote from that article you keep posting:

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2),

-end quote-

Even the experts you revere know that Water Vapor is the most important GHG AND tha CO2 appears only in the "also effective" category.

 

[Old Rocks]

Code, you are posting nonsense. Nobody claims that at any given moment, water vapor is not the trapping the most heat. However, should you remove all the water vapor from the atmosphere, in a very short time, days, the oceans would replace the water in the atmoshere. Should you double the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, in less than ten days, that water would be rained out.

Now if you removed all the CO2 from the atmosphere, the earth in a few short years would be nearly frozen from pole to pole. Should you double the CO2, it will take at least a couple of centuries for the prior level to be achieved again. In the meantime, the increased heat will evaporate more water vapor into the atmosphere. And increase the heat even further. Then there is the matter of CO2 and CH4 that would be released by that heat from the permafrost and ocean clathrates.

Each of these events has happened in the geological past, and just because we are the causitive agent this time will not change the results one bit.

 

[dilloduck]

uh ---rocks----you missed the point-----you're drowning in petty details.

 

[Old Rocks]

<=>Biosphere

Meanwhile the level of CO2 in the air kept rising, indeed faster than anyone had expected. Ever since the late 1950s, an increasing number of experts had been saying that effects on climate would become clearly visible around the year 2000. They were right. As the 21st century began, not only was the global temperature soaring in a way never seen before, but field evidence showed that the expected feedbacks were kicking in. The world's plants were taking up more CO2, but many ecosystems were under stress and their capacity to absorb was waning. Warmer oceans were absorbing less CO2, and gas was seen bubbling from melting Arctic tundra.(60) In sum, global warming was leading to more greenhouse emissions, which would lead to more warming... and so forth. Also as predicted, the world was beginning to suffer worse heat waves, droughts, floods, and severe storms, while the sea level rose and important ecosystems began to show signs of stress. (See the essay on impacts). For the scientists, as one of them remarked, "Seeing their own predictions come true has been a frightening experience."(61)







<=Biosphere
=>Modern temp's
=>Climate cycles





Still more sobering, people were just now coming to grips with the implications of a fact that scientists had known for decades &#8212; the climate system has built-in time lags. Even if human emissions of CO2 magically dropped to zero, the gas already in the air would linger for many centuries, trapping heat. Global temperatures would continue to creep upward until the ocean depths reached equilibrium with the heated air, until biological systems finished adapting to the new conditions, and until Arctic icecaps melted back to their own equilibrium. Whatever we did now, humanity was already committed to centuries of changing weather and rising seas.(62*) Yet emissions of greenhouse gases, far from halting, were soaring at an accelerating rate.
The basic physics and chemistry of the problems raised by Tyndall were now well in hand. There were reliable calculations of the direct effects of CO2 on radiation, of how the gas was dissolved in sea water, and other physical phenomena. Further progress would center on understanding the complex interactions of the entire planetary system, and especially interactions with living creatures. The creatures who would count the most were humans. The climate a century hence would depend chiefly on what they chose to do about their emissions.
If the planet warmed up by several several degrees during the 21st century, as paleontologists and computer modelers agreed was likely, what would be the consequences? This became the new center for much of the research. Extensive studies showed that the consequences of a two degree rise would be severe in many parts of the world &#8212; and such a rise was more likely than not by the late 21st century, even if governments woke up to the danger and began to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. And if we did not act promptly and forcefully to shut down emissions? It was even odds that by the end of the century we would face an unprecedented and catastrophic collapse of many of the ecosystems on which civilization depends.
See the summary of expected Impacts of Global Warming
<=>Biosphere

Meanwhile the level of CO2 in the air kept rising, indeed faster than anyone had expected. Ever since the late 1950s, an increasing number of experts had been saying that effects on climate would become clearly visible around the year 2000. They were right. As the 21st century began, not only was the global temperature soaring in a way never seen before, but field evidence showed that the expected feedbacks were kicking in. The world's plants were taking up more CO2, but many ecosystems were under stress and their capacity to absorb was waning. Warmer oceans were absorbing less CO2, and gas was seen bubbling from melting Arctic tundra.(60) In sum, global warming was leading to more greenhouse emissions, which would lead to more warming... and so forth. Also as predicted, the world was beginning to suffer worse heat waves, droughts, floods, and severe storms, while the sea level rose and important ecosystems began to show signs of stress. (See the essay on impacts). For the scientists, as one of them remarked, "Seeing their own predictions come true has been a frightening experience."(61)







<=Biosphere
=>Modern temp's
=>Climate cycles





Still more sobering, people were just now coming to grips with the implications of a fact that scientists had known for decades &#8212; the climate system has built-in time lags. Even if human emissions of CO2 magically dropped to zero, the gas already in the air would linger for many centuries, trapping heat. Global temperatures would continue to creep upward until the ocean depths reached equilibrium with the heated air, until biological systems finished adapting to the new conditions, and until Arctic icecaps melted back to their own equilibrium. Whatever we did now, humanity was already committed to centuries of changing weather and rising seas.(62*) Yet emissions of greenhouse gases, far from halting, were soaring at an accelerating rate.
The basic physics and chemistry of the problems raised by Tyndall were now well in hand. There were reliable calculations of the direct effects of CO2 on radiation, of how the gas was dissolved in sea water, and other physical phenomena. Further progress would center on understanding the complex interactions of the entire planetary system, and especially interactions with living creatures. The creatures who would count the most were humans. The climate a century hence would depend chiefly on what they chose to do about their emissions.
If the planet warmed up by several several degrees during the 21st century, as paleontologists and computer modelers agreed was likely, what would be the consequences? This became the new center for much of the research. Extensive studies showed that the consequences of a two degree rise would be severe in many parts of the world &#8212; and such a rise was more likely than not by the late 21st century, even if governments woke up to the danger and began to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. And if we did not act promptly and forcefully to shut down emissions? It was even odds that by the end of the century we would face an unprecedented and catastrophic collapse of many of the ecosystems on which civilization depends.
See the summary of expected Impacts of Global Warming
<=>Biosphere

Meanwhile the level of CO2 in the air kept rising, indeed faster than anyone had expected. Ever since the late 1950s, an increasing number of experts had been saying that effects on climate would become clearly visible around the year 2000. They were right. As the 21st century began, not only was the global temperature soaring in a way never seen before, but field evidence showed that the expected feedbacks were kicking in. The world's plants were taking up more CO2, but many ecosystems were under stress and their capacity to absorb was waning. Warmer oceans were absorbing less CO2, and gas was seen bubbling from melting Arctic tundra.(60) In sum, global warming was leading to more greenhouse emissions, which would lead to more warming... and so forth. Also as predicted, the world was beginning to suffer worse heat waves, droughts, floods, and severe storms, while the sea level rose and important ecosystems began to show signs of stress. (See the essay on impacts). For the scientists, as one of them remarked, "Seeing their own predictions come true has been a frightening experience."(61)







<=Biosphere
=>Modern temp's
=>Climate cycles





Still more sobering, people were just now coming to grips with the implications of a fact that scientists had known for decades &#8212; the climate system has built-in time lags. Even if human emissions of CO2 magically dropped to zero, the gas already in the air would linger for many centuries, trapping heat. Global temperatures would continue to creep upward until the ocean depths reached equilibrium with the heated air, until biological systems finished adapting to the new conditions, and until Arctic icecaps melted back to their own equilibrium. Whatever we did now, humanity was already committed to centuries of changing weather and rising seas.(62*) Yet emissions of greenhouse gases, far from halting, were soaring at an accelerating rate.
The basic physics and chemistry of the problems raised by Tyndall were now well in hand. There were reliable calculations of the direct effects of CO2 on radiation, of how the gas was dissolved in sea water, and other physical phenomena. Further progress would center on understanding the complex interactions of the entire planetary system, and especially interactions with living creatures. The creatures who would count the most were humans. The climate a century hence would depend chiefly on what they chose to do about their emissions.
If the planet warmed up by several several degrees during the 21st century, as paleontologists and computer modelers agreed was likely, what would be the consequences? This became the new center for much of the research. Extensive studies showed that the consequences of a two degree rise would be severe in many parts of the world &#8212; and such a rise was more likely than not by the late 21st century, even if governments woke up to the danger and began to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. And if we did not act promptly and forcefully to shut down emissions? It was even odds that by the end of the century we would face an unprecedented and catastrophic collapse of many of the ecosystems on which civilization depends.
See the summary of expected Impacts of Global Warming
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[code1211]

Code, you are posting nonsense. Nobody claims that at any given moment, water vapor is not the trapping the most heat. However, should you remove all the water vapor from the atmosphere, in a very short time, days, the oceans would replace the water in the atmoshere. Should you double the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, in less than ten days, that water would be rained out.
Now if you removed all the CO2 from the atmosphere, the earth in a few short years would be nearly frozen from pole to pole. Should you double the CO2, it will take at least a couple of centuries for the prior level to be achieved again. In the meantime, the increased heat will evaporate more water vapor into the atmosphere. And increase the heat even further. Then there is the matter of CO2 and CH4 that would be released by that heat from the permafrost and ocean clathrates.

Each of these events has happened in the geological past, and just because we are the causitive agent this time will not change the results one bit.

Not trying to be excessively contrary here, but everyone knows that when it's cloudy, the temperature drops.

In one statement you say that if the amount of water vapor increases, it will rain out in a matter of days. Rain comes from clouds.

In the next statement, you say that increased CO2 will cause increased water vapor and this will cause increased heat. Clouds block the sun and retard the rise of temperature.

Because the experts obviously do not have a handle on the climate system, it becomes important to figure out what they are missing. One of the many things that they are apparently missing is the effect that clouds have on the climate.

Because water vapor both warms AND cools, it cannot be boxed in. Because it occurs naturally, it cannot be regulated. Because it is so overwhelmingly more effective at climate affection than anything else, eveything else, including CO2, becomes a second thought.

The schitzophrenic view of water vapor, clouds and rain is one of many dynamic areas that seem to be confusing the experts on this issue.

By the by, in Indy, we are staring at yet another day when the predicted high is the average temp historically. That's good. Our highs have rarely been very high this year. Still haven't watered my lawn and the grass is green on both sides of the fence.

 

[editec]

We do not own this planet.

This planet owns us.

 

[Toro]

Where was I ignorant, you may want to be fooled by so called facts and figures but if you want to use said evidence then you have to take everything into account and that is not being done is it. For every scientist agreeing with global warming another disagrees so what dose that prove.

Actually, its more like for every 9 or 10 scientists agreeing with global warming, another isn't so sure.

As for owning the planet, of course we own the planet. We are humans and humans can do anything.

 

[Old Rocks]

Except control themselves.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Where was I ignorant, you may want to be fooled by so called facts and figures but if you want to use said evidence then you have to take everything into account and that is not being done is it. For every scientist agreeing with global warming another disagrees so what dose that prove.

Actually, its more like for every 9 or 10 scientists agreeing with global warming, another isn't so sure.

As for owning the planet, of course we own the planet. We are humans and humans can do anything.

Get your head out of the partisan clouds would ya.

There are thousands of scientists that believe man is affecting the climate and there are thousands that believe man is not.

 

[Old Rocks]

Where was I ignorant, you may want to be fooled by so called facts and figures but if you want to use said evidence then you have to take everything into account and that is not being done is it. For every scientist agreeing with global warming another disagrees so what dose that prove.

Actually, its more like for every 9 or 10 scientists agreeing with global warming, another isn't so sure.

As for owning the planet, of course we own the planet. We are humans and humans can do anything.

Get your head out of the partisan clouds would ya.

There are thousands of scientists that believe man is affecting the climate and there are thousands that believe man is not.

There are a few thousand scientists that are not sure about global warming, and there are millions that state the evidence is overwhelming that AGW is a fact. Those are the numbers. Find me a scientific society that claims that AGW is not real.

 

[Toro]

Where was I ignorant, you may want to be fooled by so called facts and figures but if you want to use said evidence then you have to take everything into account and that is not being done is it. For every scientist agreeing with global warming another disagrees so what dose that prove.

Actually, its more like for every 9 or 10 scientists agreeing with global warming, another isn't so sure.

As for owning the planet, of course we own the planet. We are humans and humans can do anything.

Get your head out of the partisan clouds would ya.

There are thousands of scientists that believe man is affecting the climate and there are thousands that believe man is not.

I was skeptical of global warming. However, the vast majority of scientists believe that it is happening and mankind is a cause of it. Some disagree but most do not. The partisans are those who claim otherwise. Maybe the majority of scientists are wrong, I don't know, but there are more objective people who agree with it.

What we should do about it is another issue.

 

[Camilla]

Nice post!

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, the GHGs are creating the problem, so ceasing to put them into the atmosphere would be a good start. However, with a fifty year lag between the full effects of what is in the atmosphere today and the result of what is in the atmosphere, for sure we should be looking at what we intend to do as those effects are felt.

The military has already been looking and their scenerios are pretty grim.