Global Warming -much ado about nothing

[masonranch]

Here's the deal on AGW . . It's a farce. BUT . . . Once the "Chicken littles" ceased calling it that, and started to call it "Climate Change" they aren't really wrong, as long as they don't associate man's activities as the full cause . .

"Climate Change" in the normal sense is a natural occurrence, and is caused by both things we understand and things we don't . . And has been changing since the sphere cooled enough to hold an atmosphere . . And oddly, we are beginning to see the planet Mars is affected the same way and apparently in the same cycle(s) so unless man's activities affect the planets also, you have to kiss all this off as nature in action and adapt . . however, because the climate does change, the "Warmers' can always blame man and just as it's actually impossible to disprove their prattle, it's just as impossible for them to prove it . . Kind of a stalemate of rhetoric . .

Or . . basically, no longer worth the energy to argue the non subject . . Elect people who will be serious about using the available energy in the most economical and responsible way while developing more economical "renewable" energy . . Make the warmers as relevant as the Y2K advocates!

Dealing with true believers I find that decisions are made with a herd mentality, so I try to keep it simple as possible. 1365W/m2 is the solar constant.

Look at the IPCC Radiative forcing analysis from 1750 to 2005. It shows CO2 being 1.6W/m2 or 0.6 degree F(1.6/520Fx1365W/m2). Nature (the sun) produces 520F above absolute zero or Nature 99.9% of the temperature on earth and man 0.1%. In terms of the 60F greenhouse effect Nature 99% man 1%. Get a grip on reality!

[monroe]

And that is exactly the motivation of the Envro terrorists! It isn't Global Warming or not Warming, it is the dedication to maintain an unchanging earth a situation that is not nor has ever been possibile whether by nature i.e. volcanism, the sun or man.

I believe it is deeper rooted than that, Mike. It is man's inherent nature to find or fabricate a cause and to apportion blame. In the absence of religion and the ability to claim that "It is the will of God" we must blame the only other available sentient being.

And if by pointing fingers and instilling guilt we get the warm fuzzies (or we can make money) all the more reason to proselytize.

[large]

Okay, here's the reply to the warmists . .

Because they contend that it's "Scientific Theory", here's th argument that it isn't . .

If you want to rise to the level of a scientific theory, you have to make a testable — and hence, falsifiable or validatable — predictions. Even a physical state that arises as a consequence of an established theory, such as the multiverse, isn’t a scientific theory until we have a way to confirm or refute it; it’s only a hypothesis, even if it’s a good hypothesis.

[monroe]

Okay, here's the reply to the warmists . .

Because they contend that it's "Scientific Theory", here's th argument that it isn't . .

If you want to rise to the level of a scientific theory, you have to make a testable — and hence, falsifiable or validatable — predictions. Even a physical state that arises as a consequence of an established theory, such as the multiverse, isn’t a scientific theory until we have a way to confirm or refute it; it’s only a hypothesis, even if it’s a good hypothesis.

While I fully agree with you and refuse to use the word myself unless used under its scientific definition, just Google the words conjecture, hypothesis, and theory. It seems that we are fighting against overwhelming odds when the dictionaries offer them as synonyms.

[large]

This was not MY statement, it was made by a Physics Professor who is very well credentialed . . And he was discussing "String Theory" when he made it . .

So, if it's good enough for the "How the Universe was Made" crowd, it ought to fit in well with the weather, y'think?

[masonranch]

Is Global warming so transparent? The International Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) in their 2007 summary states that man is responsible for 3.5% of the annual carbon dioxide load (23 gigatons vs 670 gigatons from all sources). So does it really matter whether our part is 3% if everybody Kyoto'd or 4% if nothing were done? Because Co2 has risen from 0.03% to 0.04% or increased by 25% in the last 150 years they say our 3.5% caused it. That's a stretch. That 25% increase in Co2 they say is responsible for 0.61 degrees F rise in temperature (1.66 W/m2) according to the summary. If we were really concerned about Co2 (I'm not) shouldn't we look at the other 96.5% to see if we could do something there? For example Termites are a bigger contributor than are we are (8.2% to our 3.5%, call an exterminator?). Suppose our 3.5% really caused only a 3.5% rise in Co2 then we are responsible for 0.09 degrees F. Since most of Global Warming occurred before 1940 our part is most likely this low. But even accepting their highly inflated estimates we're supposed to believe that our 0.61 degree rise will lead to monster hurricanes, melting ice resulting in awful sea level rises and droughts and famines, a biblical apocalypse now, all of it very negative. Just the fact that not a single benefit from a warmer earth, like, for example, an ice free northwest passage, is listed should set off alarms that this is pseudo science. We're all supposed to believe that man fared better when the earth was cold as in the little ice age with it's 111 famines, than in the Medieval warm period when the Vikings settled Greenland, population expanded and the British were able to grow wine grapes. Oh! did I mention that water vapor, not Co2, is responsible for 95% of all Greenhouse gases leaving Co2 to compete with other gases for the remaining 5%.

Then the last insult to our intelligence is the summary speculates about increasing fossil fuel use by double or triple our current amount. It seems we as a species are running out of fossil fuels now. So just where are we going to get all this additional oil and fossil fuel? The tragedy is cult thinking like this falsely stops real solutions like oil shale development.

El Nino causes a temporary cooling in the tropics shifting heat to the north pacific which results in CO2 rising 3ppm (1998 and 2015) instead of the longer term average of 1.45 ppm. More warmth produces more photosynthesis and lower CO2 growth. Commercial Greenhouses increase CO2 to 1370ppm as compare to ambient 400ppm to double growth rate which causes .... If you wanted to really cool the earth (and I don't) cloud seeding to dry out the atmosphere might be much more productive, but then again controlling CO2 which is at the heart of the industrial revolution attacks would be world tyrants and silver Iodide does not.

[masonranch]

Dealing with true believers I find that decisions are made with a herd mentality, so I try to keep it simple as possible. 1365W/m2 is the solar constant.

Look at the IPCC Radiative forcing analysis from 1750 to 2005. It shows CO2 being 1.6W/m2 or 0.6 degree F(1.6/520Fx1365W/m2). Nature (the sun) produces 520F above absolute zero or Nature 99.9% of the temperature on earth and man 0.1%. In terms of the 60F greenhouse effect Nature 99% man 1%. Get a grip on reality!

Just happened to look and found no post for the last 30 days. What's up? Did everyone abandon the Pueblo Community forum?