Global Warming? are humans to blame?

THATS A GOOD LIKENESS OF YOU BOS,YOU SHOULD BE IN THE MOVIES

 

I think everybody is polarized, but on the off chance there is a fence sitter here. Here is some REAL science.

The IPCC theories and models about CO2 are completely wrong BECAUSE...they made an big error in the numbers, in the beginning.

Professor Nasif Nahle points out that error in IPCC models:

“It’s quite simple. The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [IPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2.”

Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be receiving a flux of 1368 W/m^2 of solar power (394K under the zenith facing the Sun). With the atmosphere, it receives and absorbs 718 W/m^2 (335K) on its surface.

GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. The IPCC is almost always wrong. Proved again and again.

 

Why the nations surrender their sovereignty to global tyrants like the UN body is a mystery to me. Guard your borders and ignore "international law" designed to take your freedom.

 

Let the UN rant and rave. As long as they're screaming, they aren't doing anything really damaging. If europe wants to pay cap and trade, it's their money. We didn't and won't sign any such agreement. Even if King Obama is so arrogant, he thinks he can unilaterly sign it, congress won't ever ratify it. Without ratification, it's toilet paper. On Obamas face!

 

Coal is good. Algae is stupid.

 

Algae is good. Makes oxygen. Absorbs CO2. Makes ice cream thick. ect

 

Algae is good. To use it to make fuel is stupid.

 

I'm not a scientist, and I'm not particularly science literate. However, i don't see a PhD after your name, either. So tell me: why should I believe you and Professor Nasif Nahle, instead of the thousands of scientists who comprise what's probably the most remarkable scientific consensus in modern history?

You blow your entire case anyway, when you claim the IPCC is 'almost always wrong.' That simply isn't true.....

 

Why? If it works, it isn't stupid. If it doesn't, it was worth a try.

What would the average person have said fifty years ago, if you had talked to them about making fuel out of sugar cane or corn? I think they'd have laughed....

 

Why do GW alarmists think burning bio-diesel would replace burning crude oil diesel (an ancient natural bio-diesel), and be a reduction in CO2 emmissions?

I agree bio-diesels, whether made by Ecoli bacteria, or from algae, or from switchgrass, or fry oils, http://www.dieselsecret.com/ ,are viable alternatives to importing oil. I'm all for alternative energy sources.

But seems to me, the CO2 released would be very near identical in all cases. They are all carbon fuels! Silly warm-mongers!

 

I wish you Obama opponents would make up your minds. One minute Obama is a completely ineffectual leader, who's basically leaving the country adrift. The next minute he's a ruthless dictator, single-handedly forcing the entire country to obey his every whim.

Which is it? You guys need to get your story straight, and stick to it....

 

OK... that's an interesting question, and the first thing new I've seen on this thread in a blue moon.

 

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/sun_radiation_at_earth.html At Earth's distance from the Sun, about 1,368 watts of energy in the form of EM radiation from the Sun fall on an area of one square meter.


http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1982/JA087iA06p04319.shtml
A mean value for the 1 AU total solar irradiance of 1368.2 W/m2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irradiance
the formulae and definitions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation
The "solar constant" includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. Its average value was thought to be approximately 1.366 kW/m²,[7] varying slightly with solar activity, but recent recalibrations of the relevant satellite observations indicate a value closer to 1.361 kW/m² is more realistic

I'm no Phd Troy, but there are many many sources for the suns energy falling on earth, not supporting IPCC theories and models. The IPCC made a gross error in original premise. The IPCC aren't scientists most of them. They are UN politicians. Scientists contibute articles and research and data to the IPCC, then the IPCC edits and compiles.

 

in juxtaposition for easier comparison

 

http://www.renewableenergypartners.org/biodiesel.html paints a rosy picture of biodiesel reduced pollution.