Global Warming? are humans to blame?

can anyone define what a primary forcing agent is in the climate system and what a feedback is? Hint, water vapor is a feedback, CO2 is a primary forcing agent. If that ones stumping anyone here's another, Can anyone define what other effect CO2 could have on the atmosphere, other than warming ? [end quote]

Yes I can explain and have.

Defining CO2 as a forcing agent in global warming is an effort by warm-mongers to deny that water vapor is the primary green house gas.

Relegating water vapor which is 95% of all green house gasses to a feedback role, is the other half of this awkward fuzzy logic.

Warmists insist their (high and mighty raised on a pedestal) 380 ppm CO2 causes global warming. Warmer temperatures cause more evaporation, so more water vapor results.

It's a silly and fraudulent argument and the logic is VERY awkward!

Water vapor is 95% of all green house gas. CO2 is only 3 % of all green house gas. Water vapor is a more powerfull heat absorber than CO2 in equal quantities. Considering the magnitude of difference in amounts of, the water vapor must be retaining or capturing many, many times more heat than tiny CO2.

Ergo: If warming causes more evaporation and more water vapor, it's the warming caused by the water vapor itself, thats driving it.
Self perpetuating loops are very common in nature. Plants, animals, and humans procreate too!

Trying to have the tail wag the dog, is a political tactic. It's disgusting seeing it in a "science" theory.

As to the "other" aspect of atmospheric CO2? It promotes and encourages plant life.
Which in turn absorbs CO2. Another of natures cycles or loops.

in summary:
Boston.
I know you didn't invent the CO2 is the force and vapor is only a feedback nonsense.
But don't you have enough sense to see the logic is seriously flawed?
It's a desperate attempt to assert tiny CO2 as greatly important. To do that, they have to discount HUGE water vapor.

I agree, that to believe and promote this ridiculous idea, requires turning off ones brains or putting them to sleep, ie: a no-brainer!

 

CO2 drives climate change, is a belief in the idea of the final straw that broke the camels back.
The agenda is to have americans reduce the size of this last straw, so the rest of the developing world, can put their last straws on board. SILLY!

The public agenda is for americans to adopt a third world life style for it's middle class and the poor, so china and other industrializing nations can have their turn at the trough.

The real hidden agenda is to destroy freedom by destroying america, so a one world government can arise!

The elitists will enslave ALL the peoples of the world.
Everybody will be ignorant they are slaves and content, because the elitists will announce global warming was an error or maybe a scam (they'll sacrifice a few scape goats). Everybody will be encouraged to consume and consume which keeps everybody employed. Full employment is paramount under dictatorships. The "devil" finds work for idle hands.
No more worries about energy conservation or CO2. Minor warming will be touted as GOOD! Longer growing seasons. More food! Everybody can live in a place with sunshine. Obesity will be popularized in the media. It leads to early death and keeps population down. It will be a happy time.


Except your freedoms will be gone!

 

I can pretty surely guarantee that Al Gore and Hansen won't adopt a 3rd world life-style and neither will any of their privileged minions, with the possible exception of Ed Begley Jr.

 

The rich elite won't be living reduced life styles. They're entitled!

Us serfs and peons shouldn't be allowed to live like the luxurious high and mighty.

Makes us have ideas we are equal.

 

Let's cut through some of the fog here, folks.

I'm not a scientist of any sort, much less a climatologist. But common sense tells me any denial of climate change that depends on assuming most scientists, academics and government leaders worldwide are fools, dupes or conspirators is worthless.

In my opinion, arguments that begin or end with that assumption aren't worth reading, much less refuting. And to tell the truth, I haven't seen any denials on here that can stand on their own two feet without it.

 

Common sense tells me that the idea or "theory" that man made CO2 is causing or WILL cause "catastrophic global warming can only be based on one or more of these basic assumptions.

1. A feeling or intuition that burning carbon fuels MUST some how be bad! Assuming that's true, then you have to find something that "proves" it's bad. CO2 was picked as the pivotal point. Nothing else was available or suitable.


2.) Assumes that .8 degree C rise in global temperature over 150 year span, is somehow unique, not natural, is very significant, and is bad (or dangerous).


3.) Assumes that science has the capability of determining and making moral judgements!


4.) Requires assumptions that the world and the atmosphere is small and fragile. That man and his technology are bad for the planet and don't belong here, or not in huge populations.
Assumes that nature hasn't, doesn't, and can't self regulate or adjust.


I reject all these assumptions based on the logic. I AM as qualified as anyone else to recognize shakey logic.

If the basic assumptions are wrong, how can the proofs be right?

So WHY are scientists, politicians, and citizens enamored of this global warming idea or dogma?
It seems only those of a certain political philosophy are susceptible to the doctrine and dogma and support it. The left. The collectivists. Leaders of both US political parties are collectivists. Their actions and voting records prove it.

When politics and science become indistinguishable, it also becomes uncredible.

Universities teach not only science, but among other subjects, also teach political activism. It's the culture of US colleges. Maybe in other nations too.

We see the results!

 

The "assumptions" you've pulled out of the ether are not worth reading. Invalid and illogical on many levels. Climate science does not make the assumptions you are proposing below, it isn't based on "intuition", "common sense", making "moral judgements" or that man "doesn't belong".

Absurdity upon absurdity.

 

Okay Ray

What , in your opininion, DID start the idea that we have catastrophic global warming?

Did we have large areas of the planet suddenly experience catastrophic warming?

Are the records of temperatures alarming? Ignoring prediction models. Claiming models started the GW idea, would be as silly as CO2 that follows behind temperature, drives the temperature up.

 

No one is claiming burning carbon fuels is inherently 'bad;' they're saying too much of it in too short a time can be bad. You might as well accuse the Coast Guard of believing water is bad -- because they try to keep people from drowning in it.

A misrepresentation of the science involved. No one is saying that temperature rises are inherently unique, significant or 'bad.' They're saying the amount and speed of temperature rise in the recent past is unique and driven by unprecedented circumstances, and if it continues there will be strong consequences.

Pointing out scientific facts is hardly a 'moral judgment.' You might as well accuse someone of making moral judgments about gravity, when they tell you falling too far will kill you....

Again: climatologists make calculations and predictions based on science, not on morality. Your repeated references to morality are a red herring.

Actually, you're the one making an unwarranted assumption: that nature has some sort of supernatural power, which smothers changes.

That isn't how nature works; it doesn't stop change. Instead, it gives with the changes and incorporates them, until it settles into a new natural balance (more or less; nature is never truly static). And if climatologists are right, we may not be happy with the new natural balance we find ourselves dealing with.....

Are you better versed in climatology than the overwhelming majority of climatologists worldwide? No. Therefore (as you pretty much admit) you're rejecting the idea of climate change mostly on ideological and political grounds -- as shown by your comments about 'the left' and 'collectivists.'

It would make just as much sense for me to say the theory of climate change must be correct, because conservatives and right-wingers are fighting it. Come to think of it, I'd say that makes even more sense....

I don't believe an entire scientific discipline spread throughout the world is just a sinister political ploy. It simply isn't plausible -- any more than the concept and theory of evolution can be dismissed as simply the work of the Devil.

If you want to say that some of the actions proposed in response to climate change are politically motivated, that's another matter entirely. Tagging something as a remedy for climate change doesn't automatically make it right and wonderul .... but that's completely different from dismissing the science itself as some sort of Machiavellian conspiracy.

In conclusion, it seems to me that you and those who agree with you are the ones trying to turn a scientific discussion into an ideological and political war -- not the scientists.

 

Ok, since you are unable or unwilling to answer, I'll defend my list of global warmists assumptions with historical facts.

Actions speak louder than words. Here are actions, agreements signed and agreed to. They demonstrate intent and philosophical position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming

"Most countries are Parties to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The ultimate objective of the Convention is to prevent "dangerous" human interference of the climate system.

During negotiations, the G77 (a lobbying group in the United Nations representing 133 developing nations) pushed for a mandate requiring developed countries to "[take] the lead" in reducing their emissions. This was justified on the basis that: the developed world's emissions had contributed most to the stock of GHGs in the atmosphere; per-capita emissions (i.e., emissions per head of population) were still relatively low in developing countries; and the emissions of developing countries would grow to meet their development needs.This mandate was sustained in the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention, which entered into legal effect in 2005.

In ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, most developed countries accepted legally binding commitments to limit their emissions. These first-round commitments expire in 2012.

US President George W. Bush rejected the treaty on the basis that "it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy."

I think these real history facts at least partially support two of my percieved assumptions of global warmists. 1 And 3 and maybe 4

I agree the assumptions aren't valid. They're not my assumptions. They're the "assumptions" of global warmists.

I'll be back!

 

|QUOTE=Yobarnacle;546805|Common sense tells me that the idea or "theory" that man made CO2 is causing or WILL cause "catastrophic global warming can only be based on one or more of these basic assumptions.

1. A feeling or intuition that burning carbon fuels MUST some how be bad! Assuming that's true, then you have to find something that "proves" it's bad. CO2 was picked as the pivotal point. Nothing else was available or suitable.


2.) Assumes that .8 degree C rise in global temperature over 150 year span, is somehow unique, not natural, is very significant, and is bad (or dangerous).


3.) Assumes that science has the capability of determining and making moral judgements!


4.) Requires assumptions that the world and the atmosphere is small and fragile. That man and his technology are bad for the planet and don't belong here, or not in huge populations.
Assumes that nature hasn't, doesn't, and can't self regulate or adjust.
|end|

 

"Carbon that took billions of years to form has been released in a geological blink of an eye. Human emissions have grown significantly over the past 200 years, and now exceed 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide, annually. To pretend this isn’t having any effect on the 12-mile thin atmosphere overhead is to throw all logic and common sense out the window".

"This is a moral issue. Because the countries least responsible will bear the brunt of rising seas, spreading drought and climate refugees. Because someday your grandkids will ask what did you know…when…and what did you do to help? We’ve been binging on carbon for 200 years, and now the inevitable hangover is setting in. Curing our addiction to carbon won’t happen overnight."

My points 1 and 3?

These aren't isolated quotes. These are global warmist doctrine.

Ask any warm-monger if he disagrees with the above two quotes.

 

Growing Pressure on IPCC to be More Honest and Credible - Jan 10
Dr. John Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science of global warming for political ends. He told CNN in may 2007: "I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol."
This does not mean that human CO2 does not cause global warming, only that the scientists putting forward this claim are being less than honest so that the claim itself has lost credibility.
We may not know for sure whether global warming is caused by human CO2 emissions, but we do know for sure that the science backing this theory has been "cooked" by the scientific organisations responsible for analysing the data and presenting it to governments and the general public.
Why this deliberate deception has been perpetrated is anybody's guess, but you can bet that there is a hidden political agenda somewhere, probably involving the concentration of political power (in this case, that of the UN and those who control it).
Suppressed evidence indicates that Earth was significantly warmer than it is today only a thousand years ago (before humans were spewing out significant amounts of CO2), making recent warming not so unprecedented or necessarily manmade. does not mean that human-caused global warming is not a reality, but it should certainly raise serious doubts in the minds of the most ardent global-warming supporters.
We need an honest review of the science before allowing it to dictate international law and policy."

Ah, even at least one climatologist thinks there is a hidden political agenda.
What you bet I'll post others?

 

I wish the UN building would slide into the water. Its full of America haters.

 

What prompts scientific investigation? A question. Always a question.
example:
The US government funds and supports SETI, radio telescopes seeking extraterrestial life. Why? Is explained at the end of post.


The Drake equation states that:


where:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
and

R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space



The astronomer Carl Sagan speculated that all of the terms, except for the lifetime of a civilization, are relatively high and the determining factor in whether there are large or small numbers of civilizations in the universe is the civilization lifetime, or in other words, the ability of technological civilizations to avoid self-destruction. In Sagan's case, the Drake equation was a strong motivating factor for his interest in environmental issues and his efforts to warn against the dangers of nuclear warfare.

When Carl Sagan asked Proxmire, "How many civilizations survive the knowlege of how to destroy themselves with nuclear bombs?"
It was decided it would represent a great "HOPE" for us, if we found such a civilization in the cosmos!

So what question prompted the theory anthropogenic CO2 is causing drastic global warming?


photo didn't upload and can't delete. see next post