quote:

ORIGINAL: Evility

Supposed to be in the teens this week in Georgia.

GEORGIA.

I know it's winter but still, this is Georgia.

So much for your global warming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

1)  What happens to the CO2 that results from burning coal or oil?  Any reasonably sharp kid could ask this question.  Ans: goes into the atmosphere and stays there for 75 years or so.  The scale is chosen to show the time frame of production and the clearing process.  The fact that the clearing process is very slow has everybody worried.

2)  Once it's in the atmosphere- what does it do?  Again, any kid could ask this question.  Ans: lab experiments have shown that CO2 traps photons  (mechanism discussed in prior posts/different thread.) hence, it functions as a "greenhouse gas".

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

"Is there evidence that carbon is causing the rise in temps, or is the rise in temps causing the rise in carbon levels?"

Tough question -

The paleontological record shows that CO2 is a lagging indicator of climate change. 

There are two main causes of climate change- geological changes ... and changes in the earths orbit.  The Earth's orbit goes through periodic shifts every 10,000 years or so which causes climate change and is responsible for the ice ages we've had in the past couple million years (maybe more?). 

The geological record shows that CO2 levels lag climate change- assuming the dating data is correct (and that may be a big assumption as well, but it's a diversion.) 

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

I don't know why CO2 levels increase after a warming period- but its not relevant since those causes for warming are absent now- we have a pretty good idea of the earth's orbit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

However, the data that we've accumulated now shows that CO2 can have a different function as well- which is to force climate change due to trapping photons.  As I've said before- if you want to argue with this theory of global climate change-you're now arguing with physics.  A quick recap

There are only two sources of heat for the planet- geological processes and the sun.  We've now got good enough data on solar output for 3 cycles to show that the observed warming doesn't match changes in solar output.  That leaves geological processes.  Radioactive decay is reasonably well understood and is a simple logarithmic decay.  So unless you have evidence that shows that somehow, these radiological processes have sped up in the past 1.5 centuries, the amount of heat released from geological processes is reasonably constant.  (Volcanoes may be a perturbation.)  If the planet is warming up, then the only other possibility is that some cooling process has been altered.  The smoking gun here is the increase in CO2.  Other explanations require tossing out Occam's Razor and become far less likely.

Hence, the most likely conclusion is that we have global climate change driven by release of CO2 due to anthropogenic activities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

You are aware, aren't you that the latest predictions are that we are now going into an ice age?  

quote:

W 57- Science may be it's own religion, and then clearly I'm a believer.

quote:

And yet Josef Fritzl represents merely the most extreme form of a very common philosophy of life: I will do what makes me happy, and if that causes others to suffer, hard luck. In fact you could argue that, by our refusal to face the truth about climate change, we are as guilty as he is—we are in effect locking our children and grandchildren into a world with no future and throwing away the key. We are right to be disgusted at these crimes.

quote:

A 2008 survey of 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68 per cent disagreed with the claim that global warming science is settled. And 31,000 American scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition Project that urges the U. S. government to reject the Kyoto treaty and any similar proposals, saying there is "no convincing scientific evidence" of a "catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere." Source: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=46999d7c-4078-4fe4-a0e0-3df0eaac0f4f 

quote:

Okay, children, let’s all sit up straight at our desks. We are going to begin 2009 with a lesson about carbon dioxide (CO2).


Why do we need to know about CO2? Because the President-elect, several of his choices for environmental and energy agencies, the Supreme Court and much of the U.S. Congress has no idea what they are talking about and, worse, want to pass legislation and regulations that will further bankrupt the United States of America.


Do I have your attention now?


For the purpose of the lesson, I will be borrowing heavily from a paper on CO2 written by Robert A. Ashworth [http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/No_Evidence.pdf]. It requires some understanding of science, but anyone with a reasonable education and common sense should be able to read it on their own. Ashworth is a chemical engineer.


Suffice it to say that if any of the nitwits babbling about CO2 and global warming ever went to any of the several dozen excellent websites that provide accurate scientific data and analysis, they would cease from their abusive manipulation of the public and perhaps find honest work.

To begin at the beginning; at the heart of the global warming hoax is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. While it purports to represent the views of thousands of scientists, it does not. As Ashworth notes, “Most scientists do not agree with the CO2 global warming premise. In the United States 31,072 scientists, including the author, have signed a petition rejecting the Kyoto global warming agreement.” An additional 1,000 scientists are being verified to be added to the list. Thousands more exist who find the assertion the CO2 will destroy the Earth totally absurd.

Here’s what you need to know; if an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) is directly related, i.e. causes changes in the Earth’s temperature, there would be a direct correlation between the two. As CO2 rose, we would see a comparable rise in the Earth’s temperature. This correlation does not exist.


Global warming liars, however, insist that CO2 builds up on the atmosphere over a 50 to 250 year period, but this is untrue. “Every year around April, increased CO2 absorption by plants in the Northern Hemisphere starts reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere,” notes Ashworth, “and the reduction continues until around mid-to-late August when plants start to go dormant.”


“It is clear that nature reacts very fast in its consumption of carbon dioxide.” Farmers call this the growing season, followed by the harvest season, followed by snow and cold during which nothing grows. Modern civilization, beginning about 5,000 years ago, is predicated on the ability to provide food to both humans and livestock, all based on these obvious seasonal cycles.


The ancient Egyptians and Mayans understood the seasons, but they are apparently too difficult a concept for today’s many ex-politicians, some PhD’s, United Nation’s flunkies, and high school teachers.


Warming and cooling cycles are well known throughout human history, reaching back to the days of ancient Rome. There were Viking settlements in Greenland because they arrived in warmer times. By 1410 the place froze up. Shakespeare lived during a Little Ice Age when the Thames would freeze too. The man-made emissions of CO2 had nothing, zero, to do with these climate events.


The IPCC, however, with its agenda to tax and control energy use that produces CO2, is not based on either the obvious or more complex science involved. Its “data” is the invention of computer models that are deliberately manipulated to produce false results which, in turn, can be announced and repeated worldwide.

“Taxing carbon,” Ashworth adds, “would do absolutely nothing to improve the climate but would be devastating hardship to the people of the world.”  For example, U.S. Representative John Dingell’s plan to tax carbon would add 13% to the cost of electricity and 32% to the cost of gasoline; just what we need during a Recession that threatens to become a Depression.

Dr. Tim Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, recently asked, “How many failed predictions, discredited assumptions and evidence of incorrect data are required before an idea loses credibility? CO2 is not causing warming or climate change. It is not a toxic substance or a pollutant.”

It is time to rebuke everyone attempting to foist the global warming hoax and carbon taxes on the United States and the rest of the world. It is time let Congress and the White House know that Americans will not be ruled by laws that have no scientific merit.
Source: http://www.therealitycheck.org/2009/01/05/the-plain-truth-about-glorious-carbon-dioxide/ 

quote:

In terms of the "31,000 scientists" that are claimed to have signed such a petition.  This is highly suspicious

quote:

I'm not going to debate history with you here- it's a red herring. 

quote:

This is highly suspicious- since I haven't met one of them and in the course of my professional travels I meet approx. 200 plus scientists/yr.  

quote:

Like all suggestions of a large cabal hiding the truth from the population- this one fall flat on its ass when examined closely.