31,000 Scientist Say No To Global Warming

[The Oyster Guy]

Mindless drivel is somebody making 10,143 posts...

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Mindless drivel is somebody making 10,143 posts...

You can read the post count. I'm impressed, you're moving up.

 

[This_person]

I'll repeat myself... please provide a reference for your claim, or retract it. I suspect it's much like alot of the other poop I've seen written in this thread: merely hearsay offered as evidence.

I'm sorry, I forgot to answer you.

Per the DOE, transportation in the US was 1884.7 Million metric tons of CO2, out of 7075.6 MMT of man-made gases. That’s about 26.6% of the US greenhouse gas emissions being from transportation.

Now, according to Wiki (I don’t like it as a source either, but it works for rough numbers), 81% of transportation is highway transportation (cars, trucks, et al). So, 81% of 26.6% is 21.6% of the US greenhouse manmade gases being from highway transportation.

Also, according to Wiki the US makes up about 20.2% of the world’s manmade greenhouse gases. So, 20.2% of 21.6% is about 4.4%. 4.4% of the world’s manmade greenhouse gases from US highway transportation.

Now, this site says that total manmade gases account for about 5.5% of the total greenhouse gases that are in the environment (certainly there were these gases before man made increases, right?).

So, 5.5% of the 4.4% is about 0.25% of the total greenhouse gases coming from US highway transportation.

Feel better, snookums?

 

[wildsage]

Now, this site says that total manmade gases account for about 5.5% of the total greenhouse gases that are in the environment (certainly there were these gases before man made increases, right?).
...Feel better, snookums?

You really don't look at your own sources, do you? Your "this site" link (again, by amateur fossil-hunter Monte Heib) has as a reference for its "findings" the Ecoenquirer which on its website posts this disclaimer:
"All content on this site, being a mixture of parody, satire, and lame humor, is for entertainment purposes only. If any content is found to be offensive or objectionable in any way, please accept our apologies... but we also suggest that you get a life."
BTW, It is not valid to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect because the influences of the various gases are not additive.

 

[wildsage]

You're actually denying solar activity can cause the globe to warm?

Nope, just not in the way that you are misusing the data:
The amount that solar irradiance affects global temperature is about half of the previous estimates, and is small compared to the effect of greenhouse gases.
The Milankovitch cycles help explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, but do not have much impact on the decade/century timescale. For the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these impacts are far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

Explain mars' warming.

Nope, not interested, having a hard enough time explaining Earth science to you.

I suppose you're going to deny that an object like the moon - being as far as it is from earth - has any effect on our ocean tides.

I suppose you are going to deny that cruising the playgrounds scoping out little children is sick.

 

[This_person]

You really don't look at your own sources, do you? Your "this site" link (again, by amateur fossil-hunter Monte Heib) has as a reference for its "findings" the Ecoenquirer which on its website posts this disclaimer:
"All content on this site, being a mixture of parody, satire, and lame humor, is for entertainment purposes only. If any content is found to be offensive or objectionable in any way, please accept our apologies... but we also suggest that you get a life."

Okay, ignore it.

Makes it about 4% instead of less than one percent. If all cars in the US just plain stopped, not went from 25 to 30 mpg. Big whoop if that's what happens, don't you think.

(see, I can concede when I'm wrong. But, I have to be wrong to do it, like I was here)

BTW, It is not valid to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect because the influences of the various gases are not additive.

The claim I was defending was that if all cars in the US were shut off and never started again, if we all just walked everywhere and never started another car in the US, that the amount of greenhouse gas production would be reduced by less than 1%. Clearly, I was wrong. It's about 4%.

 

[wildsage]

How about who's the big players in Carbon Offsets?

Who are the big players? I really didn't know it was such a racket.

do you think maybe they have a vested interest to keep the Hysteria running?

I consider the "hysteria" the oil-fed response of "FREEZING IN THE DARK, CRASHING ECONOMY" to the initial suggestion to conserve energy, reduce waste, cut emissions.

Its not necessarily ignoring data, its who's/which/what data do you believe in? There is as much data against ManMade Global Warming as there is for it.

No, there is not. That's what they want you to believe but 20 solid years of that excuse forced closer looks by more specialists and has resulted in firm conclusions from refined data that says global warming is happening and man-made effects contribute to it.

How do you explain ManMade Global Warming occuring in other planets in the Solar System?

I don't believe that there is any such thing, never heard of it. Rush Limbaugh or WorldNetDaily?

 

[wildsage]

hell the climatologists have put off GW for the next 10 yrs, that we are now in a cooling cycle ....

What climatologists say that and do they have any proof or is it just a wish/feeling?

 

[blazinlow89]

What climatologists say that and do they have any proof or is it just a wish/feeling?

Power Line: Global Cooling Alert

Global cooling? - Forecast Earth

Br-r-r! Where did global warming go? - The Boston Globe

Canadian Scientists Fear Global Cooling | NewsBusters.org

DailyTech - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Year of global cooling#-#-#Breaking News, Political News & National Security News - The Washington Times

BMI Special Report -- Global Warming Censored

If i remember correctly you said in an earlier post that 2007 was one of the hottest years on record, yet from what i have been seeing worldwide average it was one of the coolest.

Im going to pull a couple excerpts from the last link.

• Can I See Some ID?: Scientists made up only 15 percent of the global warming proponents shown. The remaining 85 percent included politicians, celebrities, other journalists and even ordinary men and women. There were more unidentified interview subjects used to support climate change hype than actual scientists (101 unidentified to just 71 scientists)

Global warming crusader Al Gore repeatedly claims the climate change “debate’s over.” It isn’t, but the news media clearly agree with him. Global warming skeptics rarely get any say on the networks, and when their opinions are mentioned it is often with barbs like “cynics” or “deniers” thrown in to undermine them

Now i know this is media based info, however it seems that they want you to recognize someone so you will be on the global warming bandwagon. It also seems they dont want you to hear from the skeptics, cause the info they have doesnt go with the "consensus".

Also i though antarctica was melting than why in the hell has it been getting colder for the last 35 years.

On another post i made earlier bout gore not using his money to pay for alternative energy. He gets money donated to his foundation, its easy to say you donate money, when its money you had someone else donate you.

Oh yeah forgot to add this.

Global Cooling: Amazing pictures of countries joining Britain in the big freeze | Mail Online

If its getting hotter than why are places that havent seen snow in decades all of a sudden getting it. Oh yeah global warming causes global cooling, its called natural cycles. Its easy to blame every strange weather pattern on global warming.

 

[wildsage]

Global cooling? - Forecast Earth
"Yep, global cooling is here! We no longer have to worry about global warming, but maybe we should be concerned about a coming ice age!
That's what one might think based on all the hoopla on this topic recently, such as here and here and here and here and here and so on and so on.
Aside from the global cooling frenzy, passions have also been running high as scientists try to analyze what would constitute a true deviation from the climate change consensus.
Whew! (At least hopefully the alleged 1970s global cooling scientific consensus has been debunked once and for all, although old myths die hard.)
My goal has always been to understand what's going on by looking at things objectively, and if at some point it becomes apparent that the long-term warming trend is truly reversing (and not just in winter) and the kinds of atmospheric patterns that have become a signature in recent years in association with the warming have disappeared, then that's what I'll say in a blog. But not in this one. I call 'em as I see 'em, and I still see the warming signals present -- in droves. [my emphasis of your source] I'm looking at things from the perspective of being an operational meteorologist, not a statistician or climate modeler."

Br-r-r! Where did global warming go? - The Boston Globe
A commentary (editorial), not news.

DailyTech - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
A website that actually does a poor job of showing sources (links are to previous blog entries) plus the data is old and a "snapshot" of a long-term trend.

Year of global cooling#-#-#Breaking News, Political News & National Security News - The Washington Times
A commentary (editorial), not news.

BMI Special Report -- Global Warming Censored
Yeah, right. Sometimes the news ignores crackpots & BS, but they also like controversy. Go Nexis Pat Michaels or Fred Singer, you'll find plenty of ink from them.

If i remember correctly you said in an earlier post that 2007 was one of the hottest years on record, yet from what i have been seeing worldwide average it was one of the coolest.

I have repeatedly posted findings from several sources that say otherwise:
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation
"The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle."
From one of your links: "2007's global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001." Maybe that's because those have been the hottest years?
Im going to pull a couple excerpts from the last link.

Now i know this is media based info, however it seems that they want you to recognize someone so you will be on the global warming bandwagon. It also seems they dont want you to hear from the skeptics, cause the info they have doesnt go with the "consensus".

I'm not a bandwagon guy, I'm a science guy. If I see something on the news (or a forum or weblog) I'll google for sources and go check it out myself. (This is on top of the college studies in the earth sciences that I have done.)

On another post i made earlier bout gore not using his money to pay for alternative energy. He gets money donated to his foundation, its easy to say you donate money, when its money you had someone else donate you.

Al Gore has income from whatever sources. He chooses how to pay his bills and he chooses to spend extra for electricity from renewable resources.

Oh yeah forgot to add this.
Global Cooling: Amazing pictures of countries joining Britain in the big freeze | Mail Online
If its getting hotter than why are places that havent seen snow in decades all of a sudden getting it. Oh yeah global warming causes global cooling, its called natural cycles. Its easy to blame every strange weather pattern on global warming.

From your link: "The truth is that it is still much too early to draw any long-term conclusions from 2008's great freeze."
It has been explained several times: localized and short term weather events do not disprove global warming; those phenomena and the increasing prevalence of stronger storms have been predicted (and supported by science) as results of global warming.

 

[Lugnut]

The amount that solar irradiance affects global temperature is about half of the previous estimates, and is small compared to the effect of greenhouse gases

To paraphrase, "Green house gas has more effect on global temperature than the sun."


Uh.....

Would you mind expanding on that?

 

[greg_the_great]

oh my

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie

Just reading through all the post. Thought I would join. Amazing the denial that Al Gore is an idiot.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12679

I understand that it is difficult to read things that do not support the end of all things, but give a shot. It is also amazing to me that over the last couple of years, there have been a many articles about the farce, and they seem to disappear off the websites, but every article about the warming remains.

www.SolarMonitor.org

The sun does have an effect on the temperature of the Earth. Just dumb to say otherwise.

Dash of Calabash » Blog Archive » New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling

AccuWeather.com: Global Warming News, Science, Myths, Articles

How can anyone be intellectually honest and say that there is proof that we as human have control over the rise and fail of temperatures. If the Earth is as old as you think, and it has survived the Big Bang, meteors, floods, fires, evolution, do you really think that we matter much? And so what if we do cause the temp to go up a little? Will we not adapt, or "evolve" to meet the change?

So WILDSAGE, the real question is, will you support the building of nuclear reactors across the US and world to provide the energy? It would also be a great way to produce the hydrogen that would power our vehicle and have nothing but water released from the process? You seem to know the answers, but offer no real solutions. Oil is not "fossil" fuel. It is a continual source of energy and we will never run out of it. So make a change, build a reactor.

 

[This_person]

It has been explained several times: localized and short term weather events do not disprove global warming; those phenomena and the increasing prevalence of stronger storms have been predicted (and supported by science) as results of global warming.

Yet, what is "short term"? Globally, regarding temperature? 1 year? 100 years? 1,000 years?

Show me long term, geologically speaking, man made global warming.

 

[wildsage]

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie
I'll get back to you on that.

The American Spectator
Great, more data-mining from oil-owned Pat Michaels. Virtually all the other data on the link that he references (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/)
shows evidence of global warming. So there is more ice in the Antarctic -- what does that mean? Global warming models are imprecise about isolated phenomena (and the scientists admit that). Is it an anomaly or does it offset the consistent higher temps in most of the rest of the world?

I understand that it is difficult to read things that do not support the end of all things, but give a shot. It is also amazing to me that over the last couple of years, there have been a many articles about the farce, and they seem to disappear off the websites, but every article about the warming remains.

The reason they disappear is that they were bogus to begin with. Someone eventually points out the lie so the greedheads move on to another lie.

www.SolarMonitor.org
Thanks for the kewl link to solar info. WTF does that have to do with this thread?

The sun does have an effect on the temperature of the Earth. Just dumb to say otherwise.

Never disputed that solar radiation has some influence on global temps, just keep pointing out that it has less influence than GHG.

Dash of Calabash » Blog Archive » New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling
Would have been nice if this guy had something besides text on his blog. No source for data? Must be opinion.

AccuWeather.com: Global Warming News, Science, Myths, Articles
From your source: "low solar activity that may counteract man-made greenhouse temperature increases" Hey, genius, how could that counteract something that doesn't happen?
(Answer: it couldn't because solar irradiance has a much smaller effect that GHG.)

How can anyone be intellectually honest and say that there is proof that we as human have control over the rise and fail of temperatures. If the Earth is as old as you think, and it has survived the Big Bang [the earth survive the big bang? homeschool, much?], meteors, floods, fires, evolution, do you really think that we matter much? And so what if we do cause the temp to go up a little? Will we not adapt, or "evolve" to meet the change?

Do you really think that man-made effects have no influence? If so, you probably don't believe in evolution -- you certainly don't understand it. Regardless, I'm not a "save the planet" fool; the planet will survive -- will your kids & grandkids? The fact is we can't control the rise & fall of temps but that doesn't mean we can't screw it up.

So WILDSAGE, the real question is, will you support the building of nuclear reactors across the US and world to provide the energy?

Hell, no. Not until they find a safe way to dispose of the waste. We have the solution in renewables but as long as idiots like you keep saying they won't work they won't get started so they will never compete on an equal basis.

Oil is not "fossil" fuel. It is a continual source of energy and we will never run out of it.

OMFG, do you really think that?

 

[wildsage]

A relief: much better sourcing than most of these no-read yahoos.

No comments about who pays for Scientests grants? Dont want to discuss the possibility that Scientests could be also making sure they dont crap where they eat?)

Nope, I admit that I'm not a finance guy. All I know is that scientists (other than industry mouthpieces) tend to get paid regardless, otherwise their research can be suspect. So who would pay them ? The polar bear lobby?

Google Carbon Offsets, also Google Al Gore Carbon Offsets, seems he made a pretty penny last year. Use the same criteria of skepticism you show towards Big Oil

Wow, seriously had no idea that there was such a market. Of course it is relatively small compared with big oil. (Remember about 16 months ago when the RECORD annual earnings for Chevron & Exxon were published? With gas above $1 more per gallon, why aren't they back in the news?) I'm not going to defend Al Gore but I will argue that the science presented in his movie is sound.

We're in agreement with conservation, but once again a middle ground has to be met from both sides.

Here's the middle ground: fossil-fuels have had the run of the playground for generations. I don't advocate shutting them down, nor the nukes at this point, but it's time to let solar & wind play a part rather than just dis them as "not ready yet."

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report)

your source: Baliunas speculated it is "likely not the sun [my emphasis] but long-term processes on Mars and Pluto" causing the warming. However, until more information is gathered, Baliunas said, it is difficult to know for sure.
Pat Michaels [!!!], past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and senior fellow at the Cato Institute, similarly expressed a desire for more information about the Martian climate. "What is the internal dynamic that is warming Mars?" asked Michaels. "Given the fact that there are not a lot of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions on Mars, and given the fact that new research [this is from 2005] indicates that 10 to 30 percent estimated conservatively of Earth's recent warming is due to increased solar output [long since debunked], the Martian warming may support that new research."

Climate change hits Mars)

"The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth."

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists)

Nothing offered that correlates with terrestrial processes.

Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds)

Sorry, N, the info in this article belies the headline: "the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species."

Global Warming on Mars, Pluto, Triton and Jupiter
(pay attention to their sources, not the site itself)

One at a time:
"Abdussamatov" repeatedly quoted as comparing warming of the other planets as analagous to earth's; ya know, the deniers consistently claim that scientists don't have enough data and/or understanding to explain Earth's warm-up but phenomena on planets that we can't even touch are sufficient refutation against the volumes of hands-on data we get from our planet?

Jay Pasachoff, an astronomy professor at Williams College, said that Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in suraced: nlight. But the solar constant--the amount of sunlight received each second--is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto."

 

[Lugnut]

Never disputed that solar radiation has some influence on global temps, just keep pointing out that it has less influence than GHG.

How is it that green house gas's have more effect on global temps than the 1.5X10^17 watts of solar energy that hit the earth every second?

 

[SamSpade]

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_the_great
Oil is not "fossil" fuel. It is a continual source of energy and we will never run out of it.

OMFG, do you really think that?

If you mean, does it come from decayed dinosaurs, yes, it is not a fossil fuel. Even geologists who believe in the biogenic origin of petroleum don't claim this. They believe it is a part of long process of decayed sediment on ocean floors. Even so, there's evidence to believe that most organic matter in the ocean never reaches this point.

Believe it or not, there's a growing theory that oil does not derive from "fossil" material at all. One supporting piece of data is that we are currently drilling far beneath the lowest known fossil layers and extracting oil from them. A second observation is that all the world's biomass could not account for the volumes of oil that have been accounted for or used thus far. It's believed that it did NOT derive originally from living organisms.

Hence the abiogenic process of petroleum origin. Some parts of the world, such as in Russia, this is what geologists believe. I suspect there's a little of both going on, but neither process is subtle or simple.

I do faintly recall while in high school, someone set out to "prove" the abiogenic origin by drilling in a place where oil deposit couldn't possibly have formed biogenically. This was about thirty years ago - lemme check, quick - ok, found it - a guy named Thomas Gold convinced the Swedish government to drill a very deep borehole to prove his theories. They'd found a region in the granite layer that had once been struck by a meteorite, so it made drilling down 4.5 kilometers much easier. It yielded about 80 barrels of oil. Not much but it helped to prove Gold's much maligned theories.

There's a lot about this, and I'm not a geologist. I think, practically, it doesn't matter. Even if oil is "renewable", it's not "renewing" at a pace with demand. So the point on a practical level is moot.

 

[The Oyster Guy]

How is it that green house gas's have more effect on global temps than the 1.5X10^17 watts of solar energy that hit the earth every second?

Greenhouse gases have a greater effect on earth's temperature than the sun, because the power emitted by the sun is essentially a constant (to be completely accurate, it varies by 1/10 of 1% on a reoccurring 11 year cycle). Consequently, the amount of power projected from the sun to the earth is also essentially constant: 1/2 the earth is always illuminated, 1/2 is always shadowed.

How much of the sun's power is actually absorbed on earth, and how much of the earth's heat is shed back into space - are largely governed by the composition of our atmosphere, which is much more variable than the sun's power. In that regard, more water vapor in the atmosphere means more of the sun's energy is reflected back into space (more cooling); more GHG mean less of the earth's heat is radiated back into space (less cooling). But the output of the sun remains essentially constant, and has little effect on the heat balance of the earth as a whole.

:edited for clarity

 

[MMDad]

In that regard, more water vapor in the atmosphere means more of the sun's energy is reflected back into space (more cooling);

Wrong.

NASA - Top Story - SATELLITE FINDS WARMING "RELATIVE" TO HUMIDITY - March 15, 2004


If you were correct, more heat = more water vapor = more cooling. That would be a self regulating system that would result in no net temperature increase. But since you are not correct, that doesn't matter.

 

[SamSpade]

But the output of the sun remains essentially constant, and has little effect on the heat balance of the earth as a whole.

I think the original remarks were addressing the fact that were it not for the sun, the earth would be a stone cold lifeless rock in space, and virtually all heat on earth derives from it. Without it AT ALL, the effect of greenhouse gases would be irrelevant.