Where is defense of guys manipulating data in favor of global warming? Do we have "consensus" Global Warming was ho

Hmmmm wrote:

"Spencer is a proponent of intelligent design, and rejects evolution as the mechanism for the origin of species"

sorry guy.

And Stephen Hawking believes God exists. Does that discredit him as a physicist?

[/quote]

Does it always have to be global cooling or warming? Does there always have to be a worldwide disaster? How about we just stop the nonsense and hysteria and just let the world be instead of diagnosing it with all these bullsh*t illnesses? The world is not going to end.[/quote]

The world won't end, but it is becoming a very difficult place for humans to survive. In Queensland, Australia they are down to just a two months supply of water due to the drought:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/03/2760440.htm

And that is the problem with the argument that everything will be ok even if the Earth is warming. Human populations have pushed natural resources to their limits. There is little margin for floods, droughts, rising ocean levels, disappearing glaciers (i.e. water supply) etc. This is no time to be taking chances with the glogal climate. One third of the world depends on the Himalayan glaciers for water for agriculture, drinking water, transportation and power generation. If the Himalayan glaciers disappear, the world won't end, but a third of the humans on the planet will have a very hard time surviving. And your personal opinion that there is no global warming and everything is going to be ok is just not a sufficient basis to ignore the real threat that global warming is to human survival.

Roy, there is NOTHING people can do to stop the climate from changing.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Roy, there is NOTHING people can do to stop the climate from changing.

True, but people can do a lot to keep the climate from changing in ways that would put human survival at risk. If CO2 emmissions are allowed to continue unabated, we will reach a level of CO2 in the atmosphere that could cause enough warming to thaw the artic permafrost. That could release massive amounts of greenhouse gasses that are stored in the permafrost. That is an experiment that we do not want to run. If we reduce CO2 emmissions, we could avert this result by keeping atmospheric CO2 levels in a safe range.

Put another way, given what is at stake, why roll the dice? Will ExxonMobil be willing to feed everyone and provide drinking water for everyone if predictions about global warming come true?

who cares? we will run out of potable water long before it

gets much hotter.

Hell fossil-fuels may outlast clean water.

We could completely end ALL human CO2 emissions and your scenario will still occur at the same rate. Besides what proof do you have that a warmer climate will create a drier world? There's plenty of evidence from the geologic record that points to the exact opposite.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

We could completely end ALL human CO2 emissions and your scenario will still occur at the same rate. Besides what proof do you have that a warmer climate will create a drier world? There's plenty of evidence from the geologic record that points to the exact opposite.

You wrongly assume that rain water is all people need. Glaciers are a crucial source of fresh water that cannot be replaced with an increase in rain water. The California Central Valley (as well as most of the cities on the West Coast) rely heavily on water from the glaciers and snow pack of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. We have already maxed out those resources. If we lost the water that came from the snow melt and glaciers of the Sierra Nevadas, we would lose one of the most productive agricultural region in the US. Same goes for Himalayan glaciers (except that those glaciers supply most of Asia with fresh water) and Alpine glaciers. There is no guaranty that there would be an increase of rain water after a loss of fresh water from glaciers or the kind of desertification that is eating up parts of China due to mismanagement of water supplies.

In short, over the past thousand years, humans have been able to develop large advanced civilizations because of a relatively stable climate and reliable water sources from glaciers. There has never been a time in human history where this many people have inhabited the planet without glacial water supplies. You may be ready to just let them melt and see whether everything is ok, but I do not want to take that chance. We have quickly gone to war over oil. I would hate to see what we would do for water.

There are plenty of places with high population densities without glacial water supplies. What you're discussing isn't a climate problem, it's an economic problem. If the resources of an area cannot support the human population, then people will move. It happens all the time. As far as I'm aware there has never been a war over water, just as there has never been a war over oil. And don't give me that Democrat BS that we invaded Iraq to get their oil. It was cheaper to buy it from Saadam than it was to invade the country.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

You're correct as long as you're only talking about scientists, none have said CO2 is the only contributor. However, many have said that it drives global warming, ignoring the overwhelming effects of solar variation, water vapor, ocean temperature, ocean currents, wind currents, cloud cover, etc. We could completely stop emitting CO2 and the climate would continue to change.

How does the graph indicate that CO2 drives temperature. Temperature consistently drops before CO2 does. If CO2 drives warming, then CO2 MUST drop before temperature can.

Concerning the additional overwhelming effects that you list: do you think climatologists really just left water vapor and solar activity out of their studies? (whoops!) Every beginner's introduction to climate study emphasizes that the climate is solar-driven. Also, check this:

From the abstract:

My findings do not by any means rule out the existence of important links between solar activity and terrestrial climate. Such links have over the years been demonstrated by many authors. The sole objective of the present analysis is to draw attention to the fact that some of the widely publicized, apparent correlations do not properly reflect the underlying physical data.

Also, the mean content of water vapor in the air is mostly dependent on the mean air temperature. This can actually be shown mathematically from fundamental physical principles. This means that, although water is a very potent greenhouse gas, it doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere at a given mean global temperature (duh, it rains). It DOES, however, create a positive feedback (as well as some negative feedbacks) for other greenhouse gases that do accumulate in the atmosphere like, say, CO2. A similar argument goes for methane, which has a fraction of the atmospheric half life of CO2.

The main gist is that, yes, they've considered these things in their studies.

Actually, the models that have bothered to include cloud cover are doing a poor job and are NOT considering everything this entails. They underestimate the amount of cloud cover that would result from warming and dismiss the negative feedback the increased cover causes. Because of this they overstate the warming that results.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-05-26/problems.htm

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/04/15/climate-models-better-cloudsless-warming/

I don't disagree that water vapor can only accumulate so much at a given temperature. But trying to force more vapor into the air implies more clouds (from which the rain comes). Yes water vapor provides positive feedback, but clouds provide negative feedback. The effects of which is poorly understood at this time.

The scientists may be considering these things, but the politicians are not. Since CO2 is their only concern (thanks Al), they will spend trillions and retard economic growth worldwide in an attempt to fix something that is unfixable.

Doesn't the type of cloud cover determine whether heat is lost or gained? And at what altitude? And most importantly, are there night time clouds? All cloud types prevent night time radiation of heat back into space.

If clouds block the solar radiation to begin with there's not as much heat to radiate back. As your post indicates clouds are one factor affecting the climate, but this one factor causes many different, sometimes conflicting, effects. Multiply this by dozens, maybe hundreds of other factors, then explain to me how CO2 is the culprit. I'm sorry, but trading carbon credits or taxing fossil fuels won't stop climate change.

What annoys me is that people say that there is no "scientific" evidence to dispute global warming but there are thousands of our nations top scientists that beg to differ. Many of them with the best educations and PhD's and all that have testified before congress and have presented valid points. However, Al Gore will never tell you this. I'm sure that it's obvious that people in our political system (repubs and dems) have known that global warming was a hoax and have played along to make money or stay in office.

The question is: Does it go all the way to the top? Does it go all throughout congress? Have Bush, Clinton, and Obama known the truth all along? What about Pelosi, Reid, and even Gingrich and McCain?

Hopefully, we are seeing the end of the global warming debate and thus the end of the war against the invisible man just before we spend several TRILLION dollars to fix it. Gore is a greedy little (or not so little) rat and everybody knows it. But who goes down with him?

My IQ is 16 and yours is 14. Global warming is for real.