Global warming, global cooling

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hell, for all we know..the 2º rise will have a positive effect. :eek6:

Wheat & corn farms in Canada..


My point is, what is it going to hurt if we start using clean burning renewable energy?

I don't think anyone is saying it's a bad idea or there's anything wrong with it. There is something inherently wrong with being forced to do these things, not by necessity but by government.

Allow free markets work. Keep governments limited.



Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

Source
 
The question is not whether some scientists agree that human activity increases a warming trend...the question is "By how much and what effect will it have?"

We don't know what a 2º overall rise in global temperatures over the next 50-100 years will/may have...nor what percentage of that amount is caused by humans.

If 5% of the 2º rise is caused by humans...and we remove the human equation (shut down all manufacturing, machines, transport, burning of fossil fuels for heat, farming etc...) then we're still stuck with a 1.90º rise in temperature in the next 50-100 years.

That 1/10th of a degree more... what difference does that make exactly?

Hell, for all we know..the 2º rise will have a positive effect. :eek6:

Hark! Is that a voice of reason I hear in this vapid wilderness?

The Earth was hotter than it is today 800 years ago and it had a positive effect. Wine grapes were grown in England, a feat impossible today after the cooling came; and Iceland and Greenland were farming nations.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1663

Global Warming: Relax and Enjoy
From the desk of Richard Rahn on Fri, 2006-11-17 10:10

Yes, the world is getting warmer, but the Earth does this roughly every 1,500 years, and we cannot stop it. The good news is humans and most other species tend to do better during the warm periods.

There is a wonderful new book, “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years,” by distinguished climate physicist Fred Singer and award-winning environmental economist Dennis Avery. The conclusion of their book in a nutshell is that, yes, the world is getting a bit warmer, but this is just the natural cycle. They provide overwhelming evidence this warming would occur with or without mankind increasing CO2 emissions or doing anything else. The good news is that if we realize we cannot stop global warming, and concentrate on constructively dealing with the problems it causes – which are all manageable at reasonable cost – and then enjoy the benefits, mankind will do just fine.

We have already had two cycles in recorded history; the Roman warming (200 B.C. to 600 A.D.) which was a very prosperous period, and the medieval warming (900 to 1300) during which farms were created in Greenland and Iceland. The modern warming period began about 1850, well before mankind was producing massive amounts of CO2.

And, as this guys says, what is an ideal temperature for the Earth?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/

Opinion: Global Warming Fears Overblown
GUEST OPINION
By Richard S. Lindzen
Special to Newsweek

April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.
 
The problem is that we don't have a clean, renewable form of energy handy. Nor are we likely to have one that can replace petrol anytime soon...in the amounts needed. Ethanol is not an option now...and it continues to release CO2 into the atmosphere when burned, much like oil.

Better to reduce usage and work on engine efficiency rather than try and create a new fuel for which we have no impact studies.

Recycling is a good thing..when it actually happens. With the current economy, recyclable materials are being stockpiled instead of worked into new products. I do the 3 R's - but I still feel that reduce is the best option of the three..forcing companies to reduce the amount of packaging needed for a product so that the package takes up less than 50% of the total mass of package/product...which is not always the case.

Yes! Yes! The voice is getting louder.

We cannot grow our way out of foreign oil dependency and, as already stated, biofuels produce greenhouse gases in quantities larger than petroleum based fuels. We cannot make power with windmills when the wind doesn't blow. We cannot make solar power when the sun doesn't shine. On top of that, the oil/gas/coal power plants have to stay online for the periods when there is no source to drive the alternatives. You simply can't flip a switch and poof! they magically come on line.

On top of that, the incoming president has publicly stated that he would have no problem with bankrupting the coal industry.

It costs more in power to extract hydrogen than the amount of power derived. It is a poor fuel for automobile engines because the flame front is over 9,000 fps. That is called explosive detonation. On top of that, engines would be prohibitively expensive due to hydrogen embrittlement the chief detractor of hydrogen power and compatibility with other materials.

On top of that, the highly factionalized enviros don't want wind power because it kills birds.

They don't want solar because it despoils the landscape and has a detrimental effect on animal migration and mating habits.

They don't want wave power because it disrupts the natural ocean environment for the fish and crustaceans.

They claim there is no such thing as clean coal even though clean coal has been one of their "goals" forcing corporations to install scrubbers, catalytic burners, filters, etc. Once their "goal" is attainable they promptly change their tune. (hint: follow the money.) Have any of you linked to a dead link lately and gotten the message "Like clean coal, this page does not exist" with a link to their webpage?

Don't plan on building any new dams. Hell, under that nut, Interior Secretary James Watt, we started tearing down dams which produced power.

Need I even mention nuclear power?
 
Speaking personally, I have no issues with CO2. I have issues with CO, SOx, NOx, CFC, NH3, and other particulate pollutants. I have major issues with water pollution (accidental or otherwise), and overfishing. These things are more immediate and have a noticeable impact.

Now, if stricter emission standards have a positive effect on removing these pollutants and improving overall health, then so be it. I don't mind the additional prices to end-product if it means that the manufacturing process doesn't dump alcalides into the rivers or Nitrides into our air.

If it makes the politicians feel good that they're 'doing their part' in reducing CO2 and fighting climate change..so be it. I'll leave them their illusion. So long as their new standard affect the more important IMO issues of pollution.
 
We cannot make power with windmills when the wind doesn't blow. We cannot make solar power when the sun doesn't shine.

There's ways to store power Jim.

On top of that, the incoming president has publicly stated that he would have no problem with bankrupting the coal industry.

I believe your misrepresentation has already been debunked on these boars but here ya go.

"But Sen. Obama’s stance on the future of coal power doesn’t appear to differ much from Republican proposals. Both candidates say that climate change and global warming is a problem, and both want to spark a transition away from traditional coal-fired plants. Both candidates have proffered support for “clean coal,” a new generation of plants that can capture and bury carbon emissions. Spokemen for the Obama campaign stressed that he never called for the abolition of the coal industry and underscored similarities between his proposals and Sen. McCain’s."

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalc...in-obama-camp-spar-over-bankrupting-big-coal/

On top of that, the highly factionalized enviros don't want wind power because it kills birds.

They don't want solar because it despoils the landscape and has a detrimental effect on animal migration and mating habits.

They don't want wave power because it disrupts the natural ocean environment for the fish and crustaceans.

I think everytime you post you should ask yourself "Am I making some sort of illogical generalization yet again?"

Many "enviros" are actually for wind, solar, and wave power.


They claim there is no such thing as clean coal even though clean coal has been one of their "goals" forcing corporations to install scrubbers, catalytic burners, filters, etc. Once their "goal" is attainable they promptly change their tune. (hint: follow the money.) Have any of you linked to a dead link lately and gotten the message "Like clean coal, this page does not exist" with a link to their webpage?

Who is this "they" that has changed their tune. It would be helpful to your argument if you pointed out who the group was and their before and after position.

I would think the idea is that coal is not clean but there are ways to improve it.

It looks like the word is getting out.

There's nothing in your links that would suggest "word is getting out". A more rational assessment would be that some people who have an opinion still have that opinion and that one particular carbon offset program has some issues.

Mostly your grabbing a bunch of random crap and trying to portray it as some sort of cohesive point where there is none.
 
President Bush leaves the office with the Earth cooler than where Clinton left it. That would make him Nobel Peace Prize material:


2008: Another Grim Year for the Global Warmers

The year 2008 marked the tenth consecutive year of no global warming. This is not widely reported or known. In fact the Earth has been cooling for the last 6 years.

A profound analysis of the global warming issues....asks two very important questions:

1. Has the global warming alarm become the goal itself, instead of the result of scientific research?

2. Is climate science really designed to answer questions or promote political goals?

Too often we witness climate alarmism being promoted while solid science is ignored, misrepresented, or downplayed. This makes great fodder for scary movies, scary news articles, and scary documentaries, but it is still bad science.





Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted

You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.

Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.

halp21uw2.jpg
 
This may sound too good to be true, but the U.S. has a renewable-energy resource that is perfectly clean, remarkably cheap, surprisingly abundant and immediately available. It has astounding potential to reduce the carbon emissions that threaten our planet, the dependence on foreign oil that threatens our security and the energy costs that threaten our wallets. Unlike coal and petroleum, it doesn't pollute; unlike solar and wind, it doesn't depend on the weather; unlike ethanol, it doesn't accelerate deforestation or inflate food prices; unlike nuclear plants, it doesn't raise uncomfortable questions about meltdowns or terrorist attacks or radioactive-waste storage, and it doesn't take a decade to build. It isn't what-if like hydrogen, clean coal and tidal power; it's already proven to be workable, scalable and cost-effective. And we don't need to import it.

Read More
 
Speaking personally, I have no issues with CO2. I have issues with CO, SOx, NOx, CFC, NH3, and other particulate pollutants. I have major issues with water pollution (accidental or otherwise), and overfishing. These things are more immediate and have a noticeable impact.

Now, if stricter emission standards have a positive effect on removing these pollutants and improving overall health, then so be it. I don't mind the additional prices to end-product if it means that the manufacturing process doesn't dump alcalides into the rivers or Nitrides into our air.

If it makes the politicians feel good that they're 'doing their part' in reducing CO2 and fighting climate change..so be it. I'll leave them their illusion. So long as their new standard affect the more important IMO issues of pollution.

Don't forget the most prevalent greenhouse gas -- water vapor.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

and these guys

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,501145,00.html
 
Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change. Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union’s Geophysical Research Letters.

“Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?”

The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

“The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous,” Dessler said.


Climate models have estimated the strength of water vapor feedback, but until now the record of water vapor data was not sophisticated enough to provide a comprehensive view of at how water vapor responds to changes in Earth’s surface temperature. That’s because instruments on the ground and previous space-based could not measure water vapor at all altitudes in Earth’s troposphere — the layer of the atmosphere that extends from Earth’s surface to about 10 miles in altitude.

AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback.

“This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide.”

Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).

“That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy,” Dessler said. “We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone.”

Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor’s impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth’s leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century.

“This study confirms that what was predicted by the models is really happening in the atmosphere,” said Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. “Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned.”

Source: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/water-vapor-a-greenhouse-gas-due-to-increase/
 
Spike,

A good debatable link. I'm happy with that.

The parts I would find suspect in the writeup are these:

Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

"... And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide.”

“We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone.”

Warming causes CO2 to be released from storehouses such as the oceans, the largest storehouse of CO2. Of course, there has been no warming for the last ten years and, in fact, cooling has occurred for the last six years. This means that CO2 released by warming will return to the oceans and get stored there again.

Ice core samples have proven that CO2 lags warming by as much as 800 years. The climate models are all predicated on CO2 preceding warming.

The other problem with the models is that they have been unable to "predict" weather and climate changes which have already occurred.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html

Global Warming Supercharged by Water Vapor?
Arianne Appel
for National Geographic News
November 10, 2005

The latest villain on global warming's most-wanted list is all wet—and a little surprising. Water vapor, experts say, is the culprit behind Europe's rapidly rising temperatures.

Evaporated H2O is a known greenhouse gas—a gas that absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation in Earth's atmosphere, thereby increasing temperatures (see our global warming fast facts).

But only now has a study uncovered evidence that water vapor is a major public enemy in Europe.

According to a team of Swiss scientists, heat from other greenhouse gases is causing more water to evaporate, releasing the vapor into the atmosphere above Europe. That vapor in turn, adds to the greenhouse effect, further warming the region.

Temperatures throughout the Northern Hemisphere have been increasing in recent years. But Europe has been heating up especially quickly, leading to studies, theories, and debate as to why.

In central Europe—Germany, Austria, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Switzerland, and Slovenia—temperatures have risen three times faster than the average for the hemisphere has.

Some scientists have argued that Europe's rising temperatures are due to normal weather-circulation patterns. But the new study's results suggest that large-scale weather patterns are only a minor influence on the temperature increase, said lead researcher Rolf Philipona of the World Radiation Center in Davos Dorf, Switzerland.

"It is an experiment that clearly shows which factors are driving the higher temperatures. It is not the clouds, not the sun, not the aerosols. It is the increased greenhouse gases and the strong water vapor impact," Philipona said.

"We believe strongly that we are observing increased greenhouse effect," said Philipona, whose results were published this week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

An increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, from car exhaust, industrial emissions, and other sources, has been observed throughout the planet since about 1960, Philipona said.

Vicious Cycle?

Lonnie Thompson, a climatologist at Ohio State University, said, "In the climate community, there has been debate as to whether water vapor is a slave to temperature."

"This research indicates that small changes in temperature, driven by greenhouse gases, put more water vapor into the atmosphere, which drives up the temperature more," said Thompson, who studies ice cores and glacier retreat in the tropics.

Under normal conditions, much of the heat that is emitted from the Earth's surface, called long-wave radiation, goes into the atmosphere and back out to space. But water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb some of that heat, Thompson said.

With an increased amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, more long-wave radiation is trapped, then emitted back to Earth, Thompson said. "So you have more energy to heat the Earth's surface."

By plotting recent climate data and geographical data, the researchers found that the increase in greenhouse gases in Europe has caused a major disruption in the natural cycle of water evaporating from the surface of the Earth.

The water cycle—in which water evaporates, rises into the atmosphere, and eventually returns to Earth in the form of precipitation—has been disrupted to the point where the water vapor itself is helping to fuel the temperature increase, Philipona said.

The Atlantic Coast: A Clue

The team reached its conclusion through a complex process of elimination.

They identified the various factors that influence temperature change, including cloud cover, air circulation, and greenhouse gases. Then the researchers cast each factor as an input in an equation whose result is temperature change.

The scientists examined climate change data for Europe, paying close attention to differences in temperature changes throughout the continent.

The researchers then plotted the average monthly temperatures for the years 1995 to 2002 for different areas of Europe, including the Alps and central Europe. They made similar graphs of monthly changes in humidity for the same areas.

While Europe's overall temperature has increased recently, not all regions have increased to the same degree. Some areas have even experienced a temperature decrease.

The team noted that air currents from the Atlantic Ocean in the west typically bring warm, humid air onto the continent, helping to warm the coast.

Even so, the greatest temperature increases were not near the Atlantic coast but farther east—in fact, some temperatures along the coast had actually decreased.

Finally, they concluded that what was different in Germany and Poland was the greater amount of water vapor being released into the atmosphere by forests and crops.

The increased humidity had driven the temperature up, Philipona said.

The scientists calculated that 70 percent of the recent increase in temperatures in central Europe is due to water vapor, and 30 percent is due to other greenhouse gases.
 
What bothers me more about Spike's liked article is that it assumes that CO2 is affecting water-vapour content and not vice-versa... placing the emphasis once more on CO2 as the culprit.

If one controls 90% and the other controls 5%, then logically, you'd think that they'd be saying that the larger affects the smaller.
 
What bothers me more about Spike's liked article is that it assumes that CO2 is affecting water-vapour content and not vice-versa... placing the emphasis once more on CO2 as the culprit.

If one controls 90% and the other controls 5%, then logically, you'd think that they'd be saying that the larger affects the smaller.

It flies in the face of the known science. I haven't had a chance to delve deeper into this study but I want to. It states that the source is NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.

But then there's this:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its conentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.

As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when its warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.

SOURCE:
nesdisbannerleft.gif
 
Hmmnn. with all this uncertainty how is it a non-scientist like you is so certain?

Easy. I simply keep watching their predictions based on their "science" and models fail to materialize.

Remember when the GW proponents said that all sea ice would disappear in 2008; and that ice levels were lower than ever since they started monitoring it in 1979? If you will recall, we placed polar bears on the "threatened" list because of disappearing sea ice. It turns out that I was right about that being a farce also.

That went by the wayside with this report.

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Science Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
Michael Asher (Blog) - January 1, 2009 11:31 AM

Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.

Sea ice is floating and, unlike the massive ice sheets anchored to bedrock in Greenland and Antarctica, doesn't affect ocean levels. However, due to its transient nature, sea ice responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions.

Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.
 
Easy. I simply keep watching their predictions based on their "science" and models fail to materialize.

Many scientific models do materialize. It's very tiring to have a discussion with you when you constantly make illogical generalizations Jim. It's been pointed out to you again and again.

Remember when the GW proponents said that all sea ice would disappear in 2008; and that ice levels were lower than ever since they started monitoring it in 1979? If you will recall, we placed polar bears on the "threatened" list because of disappearing sea ice. It turns out that I was right about that being a farce also.

Here's a good example. You've created this group "GW proponents" that I assume you think of as some singular entity. Your above argument goes something like this:

GW proponents said all sea ice would disappear in 2008->All sea ice has not disappeared->therefore all GW proponents are wrong.

This falls by the wayside as soon as you look at it logically.

There is no group "GW proponents" that unanimously claimed that all sea ice would disappear in 2008. Perhaps someone or some people said that. Perhaps that person or people believe there is a danger of global warming. Don't know.

What I do know is that certainly not all (and probably not most) "GW proponents" have stated that. This makes it incredibly easy to shoot this argument down.

You did the same thing with the Habitat for Humanity thread and that didn't work either. In fact you've been using this method in many if not most of your debates and it keeps getting pointed out to you but then you go and do it again right away.

If you could just bring yourself to stop constantly thinking in sweeping generalizations we might get somewhere.
 
If you want to see the affect of water vapor in the atmosphere, just come to the midwest or head to the south in late July.
 
....This makes it incredibly easy to shoot this argument down....

NO! IT CANNOT BE! Spke, you know, not only is jimpeel everyone here's intellectual superior, he is also a leading scientist in his spare time when he is not being an international superhero of "coservative values"! I won't hear you slander such a wonderful pillar of the world community like this......SHAME ON YOU!!!
 
NO! IT CANNOT BE! Spke, you know, not only is jimpeel everyone here's intellectual superior, he is also a leading scientist in his spare time when he is not being an international superhero of "coservative values"! I won't hear you slander such a wonderful pillar of the world community like this......SHAME ON YOU!!!

dude, put a klamp on it. everyone knows jim (among others) has issues about being right all the time but what you've been posting lately sucks just as much as his drivel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top