ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
I bet I contribute less to global warming than all the freaks here. You guys want to punish me - take a look in the mirror. When you sell your cars and buy bikes, then come calling on my door.
We don't want to punish you. We want you to share in a clean and safe global environment. That way, you and your family will get enjoy the natural beauty of America for a long, long time.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
The hard numbers you presented mean nothing. Whether scienstists say that the increase in CO2 is .28%, 5.5%, or 90% is only meaningful if it can be shown that such increases is causing harm. The global warming scientists have shown that in several ways: charts that show unusual trends of temperatures, especially since the 1880s; charts that show the increased number of CO2 particles in our atmosphere, especially since the 1880s; and various visual evidence that shows areas turning to desert, ice shelves breaking apart, glaciers melting, etc. While there are some scientists who believe that global warming is not so serious, most seem to believe otherwise, including scientists and journals that I have always respected.
While of course it's possible that the majority of scientists are wrong, that generally is not the case. Think of your views as belonging to cult like the one that burned Giordano Bruno at the stake. Your clinging to a set of arguments that are manipulative, like the one you cited about water vapor, or do not confront directly the evidence showing a sharp increase in global warming since the Industrial Revolution.
I pointed out the shortcomings of the methodology used to reach the numbers. This you either don't understand pr know about which is fine. The reality is that all this talk is abstract. None of the signers of Kyoto are meeting their commitments, so this is all noise anyway. BTW the predictions that the Solar out will start declining in the next few years. The temps will start dropping after this (too bad IMO).
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
I pointed out the shortcomings of the methodology used to reach the numbers. This you either don't understand pr know about which is fine.
You present a link to a site run by Monte Hieb and Harrison Hieb. Who are they? Why do you trust these people, and why would you expect a layman to trust these people? Are you so easily in awe of charts and numbers? Is this the kind of garbage you base your views on? Or do you know who these people are? Why do you trust them? Have they Ph.D.s in climatology? Have they written papers from prominent journals? I think you're just wowed by their big terms and charts. Again, the layman has to judge the information not only on its content, but by who is presenting and where it is being presented. At least find studies from real scientists if you want to be taken seriously.
Below is a link to an explanation that's frankly above my head on water vapor. It's from RealClimate, which is think is quite a legitimate site with well qualified writers. Unfortunately, the site seems to be partly down. This author explains why water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas in the way other gases are. It behaves differently and plays a different role in our atmosphere. Both the article and the commentary that follow are quite interesting (though a lot of it was above my head).
who concludes his piece with, "So: adding CO2 to the atmosphere warms it a bit and ends up with more water vapor. Adding water vapor does nothing much and the atmosphere returns to equilibrium. This is why water vapor is not the *dominant* GHG; its more like a submissive GHG :-)
Tell, please tell us about the Hieb brothers (or are they father and son)? How did you find them? What are their qualifications? Who are they associated with?
Who they are isn't relevant, the data (and they provide links to their sources) is what is relevant. Science is about facts not concensus, politics is about consensus.
Real climate acknowledges that Water Vapor is the largest single contributor to the greenhouse effect. They then try to discount the contribution because they don't view it as a forcing agent. When the original models were costructed they focused on CO2 they speculated that it served as a forcing agent for trapping the sun's radiations, When the models dould explain the lack of heating requitred for a climate crisis they increased (fudged) the magnititude of the forcing factor of CO2. Other scientist now view CO2 (most of which is dissolved in the ocean) as a lagging indicator, ie it is a byproduct of Global warming not a driver. THe importance of water vapor ihas to do with cloud formation. Think how at night when it is cloudy the temp don't drop the way they do on a cloudless night.
This sort of an assumption is the type of oversight that misses the significence of the effects of sunspot cycles (solar wind) on cosmic rays entering the atmosphers. Labratory experments have clearly prioven that cosmic rays have a major impact on cloud formation, which in turn have a dramatic impact on Global tempatures. Exterristerial effects go beyond the variations in the Sun's radiation reaching the earth. This reach is relativly new (last 10 years0 and is not ffacotred into the Climate models cited by the IPCC.
Aas to the other site, i googled it.
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
Who they are isn't relevant, the data (and they provide links to their sources) is what is relevant. Science is about facts not concensus, politics is about consensus.
Of course it's relevant. How do I know those unknowns didn't fail to take into account important information, other data, other relevant factors? How do I know I don't need to verify their information? Why do you trust them? Because they are saying what you want to hear. But, as I said before, the percent of global warming caused by humankind is irrelevant except for soundbites. It's the effect of our contribution that matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsfan13
Real climate acknowledges that Water Vapor is the largest single contributor to the greenhouse effect. They then try to discount the contribution because they don't view it as a forcing agent. When the original models were constructed they focused on CO2 they speculated that it served as a forcing agent for trapping the sun's radiations, When the models dould explain the lack of heating required for a climate crisis they increased (fudged) the magnititude of the forcing factor of CO2. Other scientist now view CO2 (most of which is dissolved in the ocean) as a lagging indicator, ie it is a byproduct of Global warming not a driver. The importance of water vapor has to do with cloud formation. Think how at night when it is cloudy the temp don't drop the way they do on a cloudless night.
Yes, I follow that, but a search for CO2 as a lagging indicator turns up a rather shoddy set of links. Perhaps you can point me to someone with some qualifications. I am not a scientist, so a person's resume is relevant. Your approach means that you'll accept any intelligent-sounding argument from anyone who agrees with your point of view. I think that's a standard that the global warming skeptics might subscribe to, but most people want the word of someone who's qualified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsfan13
This sort of an assumption is the type of oversight that misses the significance of the effects of sunspot cycles (solar wind) on cosmic rays entering the atmospheres. Labratory experiments have clearly proven that cosmic rays have a major impact on cloud formation, which in turn have a dramatic impact on Global tempatures. Exterristerial effects go beyond the variations in the Sun's radiation reaching the earth. This reach is relativly new (last 10 years0 and is not ffacotred into the Climate models cited by the IPCC.
There's no denying there are many players in global warming, but the fact remains that since the Industrial Revolution we have seen significant anomalies and the evidence that CO2 particles are at record levels is quite convincing (analyzing sheets of ice from Antarctica over 650,000 years). What sort of empirical evidence do the skeptics have that global warming has not been unduly increasing since the 1880s?
On Friday, The Guardian reported that the American Enterprise Institute — which has received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil — was offering to pay global warming skeptics to speak out in an effort to push back on the new IPCC climate change study. The IPCC report states that it is “very likely” that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause of the Earth’s recent warming trend.
The article reported that one American scientist — Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university — turned down the offer citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. “You wouldn’t know if some of the other authors might say nothing’s going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it’s not our fault,” he said.
Kenneth Green and Steven Hayward, the AEI employees who sent the letter, claimed they were soliciting views that would highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report. But, in the letter, Green and Hayward clearly indicate they are only seeking views that criticize the IPCC. They write:
As with any large-scale “consensus” process, the IPCC is susceptible to self-selection bias in its personnel, resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work of the complete Working Group reports.
[…]
We are hoping to sponsor a paper…that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy.
[…]
AEI will offer an honoraria of $10,000. … We intend to hold a series of small conferences and seminars in Washington and elsewhere…for which we can provide travel expenses and additional honoraria if you are able to participate.
Indeed, the letter reveals that the oil lobbyists at AEI are quite familiar with “self-selection bias.”
On Friday, The Guardian reported that the American Enterprise Institute — which has received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil — was offering to pay global warming skeptics to speak out in an effort to push back on the new IPCC climate change study. The IPCC report states that it is “very likely” that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause of the Earth’s recent warming trend.
The article reported that one American scientist — Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university — turned down the offer citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. “You wouldn’t know if some of the other authors might say nothing’s going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it’s not our fault,” he said.
Kenneth Green and Steven Hayward, the AEI employees who sent the letter, claimed they were soliciting views that would highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report. But, in the letter, Green and Hayward clearly indicate they are only seeking views that criticize the IPCC. They write:
As with any large-scale “consensus” process, the IPCC is susceptible to self-selection bias in its personnel, resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work of the complete Working Group reports.
[…]
We are hoping to sponsor a paper…that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy.
[…]
AEI will offer an honoraria of $10,000. … We intend to hold a series of small conferences and seminars in Washington and elsewhere…for which we can provide travel expenses and additional honoraria if you are able to participate.
Indeed, the letter reveals that the oil lobbyists at AEI are quite familiar with “self-selection bias.”
The End Is Near
God Help Us
__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)
In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself
Whether our contribution is at .28%, 6% or some other number is completely irrelevant. There is plenty of visual and stastical evidence that shows the effect of global warming -- everything from various records being broken, to photographic evidence of vast regions in environmental decline, to statistics that show most anamolous weather events (record highs, lows, floods, etc.) can be explained by global warming. The numbers are just tools used by the church of skeptics to market their claims. They are meaningless when compared to the physical evidence and the highly visible trends forming since the 1880s.
Huh? Visual evidence? Highs and lows? From when? 18 BC? What was the temp 4,000 years ago? Was it higher then, or do you mean the highs and lows of the last 100 years, which is representative of how much of the planets existence? Oh, and that "visual" evidence. You know, those clips the MSM shows of ice melting on an iceberg and falling into the sea, or those pics that show snow melting. Yeah, THAT visual evidence. It's not like they would show the sun flaring though right? Libbies love that "visual" evidence that shows mental midgits an image to stimulate a wanted reply. Too bad they don't do that when we talk abortion. You know, like show babies being savagely vacuumed and stuff. Libbies always argue that they want to show dead American troops to prove the cost of war, which is fine, so long as you aslo show the beheadings of people like Nick Berg, or the footage of people jumping off the WTC towers. Ah, but htey won't do that.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
You are avoiding my question: If we want to do the right thing, we will be in compliance with Kyoto, and there's no need to sign on. The only relevance of the treaty is if we fail to be in compliance. So are you opposed to cutting emissions to the Kyoto-required levels? Why? Or is it fair to say you support action to make the U.S. achieve Kyoto level emissions, but oppose signing the Kyoto Protocol?
Like I said, we're smart enough to figure out what WE need to do. If WE conclude that Kyoto levels is what's required, or what's best, let's do it. So long as WE conclude that. Personally, I don't trust anything EU or UN, so my guess is Kyoto is a bunch of crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patters
So, you are opposed to a set of laws that ensures justice for all, the spread of democracy, open markets, safe travel, end to ethnic conflicts, English as the international language, common monetary policy, etc. And you say I'm scary. I don't think we can achieve anything overnight, but may be in a 100 years or so, all nations will begin to think alike. I certainly don't favor the Bush approach that you had advocated, because it tries to impose our values through bloodshed, making bloodshed one of our values. But, I do favor working through the UN and other groups to try to promote American ideas and ideals.
I don't want to hijack a GW thread by discussing your globalization, or collectivist driven world. This is truly why socialists scare me. As my barber always says:
Liberalism is socialism, and socialism breeds communism.
Hate to say, but it sometimes seems so true.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
I've presented hard data, you have talked in euphasnistic cliches and I'm in a corner? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah but the Polar bears are changing color!
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
Re: Global Climate Change for Conservatives
Linear Mode
