Global warming

[H2Andy]

Actually, methane (or Meethane, as the Brits pronounce it) is a more potent agent for atmosphere warming than CO2. That's methane, as in cow farts...lots of them.

methane accounts for 20% of the enhanced greenhouse effect, whereas
CO2 accounts for 60%

http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/methane.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/carbon_dioxide.shtml

 

[radinator]

there is no denying that the frequency and severity of the storms you and the rest of the world have increased considerably.

Ahh yes, the "there's no denying" school of argument. Very convincing.

Hurricane severity is on a 60-or-so year cycle, and it's currently on the upswing again.

Here's a link to some real data.

 

[Bill51]

rick and bill:

we have the ability to affect the natural cycles, and we have been
affecting them in a serious scale since the industrial revolution began

we (humans) are not as separate from nature as you guys seem to think.

what we do HAS an effect (we, for example, can wipe out species, create
deserts in our passing, destroy natural rainforests which act as CO2 filters,
contribute to erosion through deforestation, etc, etc. etc...)

we do have (and have had) an effect on the natural world

to pretend otherwise is to play ostrich

I’ve been monitoring the work of climatologists and environmental groups since Peanut Carter started paying academics to claim that global warming rather than global cooling was the pressing problem. While I agree that there are many local climate and environmental problems we need to look at and correct, I have not seen ANY evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny and analysis that man has altered global climate conditions. I’m especially concerned with the way heat island effects have modified local weather patterns and the way point source pollution problems can alter local and regional areas, but on the global scale there is no hockey stick global warming and there is no evidence that stands up to indicate there is – despite the phony studies coming out of the UN and the IPCC. I could give you hundreds of links to counter what comes out of the partisan biased BBC, but here’s just one example. http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2003/nov_18_03.htm

I attended meetings back in the 70s with the likes of Tom Hayden and Stewart Brand when they were looking at how to create a global tax on energy consumption as a way to “redistribute” the wealth of the world, and I’ve reviewed what public data is available from the IPCC climate models only to discover they take out any factors that don’t give them the results they’re looking for.

Rick hit it on the head when he points out that the world could spend $100 trillion trying to modify the climate with absolutely no assurances we’d accomplish a thing, or we can spend $10 trillion preparing the people of the world for the inevitable climate changes we can expect in the next 200 years. That’s not to say we shouldn’t try to stop the sandstorms in the Sahara that deposit bacteria in the reefs of the Keys, but CO2 is not the big problem facing our planet, though it is the political and economic one.

BTW: There is some serious scientific debate as to whether rainforests are net CO2 sinks or methane generators, unlike other forests and croplands that we know to be sinks. It may be that rainforests are better at converting CO2 to methane than we are aware of.

 

[radinator]

I hear there is global warming on Mars too, go figure.

Here's the link .

Very interesting. Two planets around the same star may be warming up. Hmm, what heat source do they have in common...? (hint - it's not SUVs).

 

[Bill51]

Actually I thought that even the White House has now accepted that we are contributing to global warming with our activities (contributing being the operative word!) The differences that seem to exist now are purely about how to do something about it.

LOL Yes and No depending on how you want to read the political spin. A climate study was commissioned by President Clinton that was completed under President Bush, and the results showed a possibility of human induced global warming. It was never peer reviewed and many scientists questioned the methodology, the assumptions, the results, and the interpretations. Originally the administration was going to just kill it, but that would have looked like a coverup, so they allowed it to be published with the caveat that further research needed to be done. That gave both sides limited bragging rights to a victory, but the White House never endorsed the results, only the fact it was done by government employees with government money. Is that clear as mud?

 

[Bill51]

Here's the link .

Very interesting. Two planets around the same star may be warming up. Hmm, what heat source do they have in common...? (hint - it's not SUVs).

And as we continue approaching solar maxim we’ll keep having days like this where we lose communications and have to protect our satellites from huge solar storms.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2499.htm

I think I need to move to 60 fsw and avoid it all.

 

[H2Andy]

I could give you hundreds of links to counter what comes out of the partisan biased BBC, but here’s just one example. http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2003/nov_18_03.htm

HAHAHAHA!!! like that site isn't biased? please...

let me quote you the HEADLINE and the FIRST line of the article:

UN Global Warming Panel Preparing to Scare Again



The UN's global warming panel is cooking up another scary report for 2004.

yeah... that's unbiased for you :14:


say, Bill51, who pays your bills? let's have some disclosure here

 

[BigJetDriver]

Andy,

I will say the same thing to you that I said to Clive.

Science, Andy, science. Just because Auntie Beeb says it is so, does not make it so.

NOAA is a better source.

Cheers!

R

 

[Bill51]

At one time many years ago I was paid by a US Senator who hired me as his BS Detector (his words) to help sort out the environmental junk science coming across his desk. Now I just want to show people how easy it is to twist science to meet a political agenda – no matter which side it’s coming from, and you now know how easy it is to do.

Now, biased or not, can you find one fact stated on the site that isn’t true? Remember that 17,100 (not being paid by grants) scientists signed against Kyoto and despite many contradictory statements over 4,000 (including 72 Nobel laureates) signed the Heidelberg Appeal, which states there is no scientific evidence for man-made global warming.

 

[Rick Murchison]

there is no denying that the frequency and severity of the storms you and the rest of the world have increased considerably.

This "common knowledge" false statement is typical of the junk science supposedly "supporting" global warming. Perhaps an increase in the frequency and severity of storms would support the supposition, if only it were true.
But the pesky fact is that since we started keeping track of storms that hit the United States in 1851, the number of storms per year has been lower than average for the past 40 years. The average per decade is 17.7, with highs in the 1870-1900 decades (average about 20) and in the 1940's which saw 24. The last half of the 20th century averaged 14 per decade. So far, since 1/1/2001 we're going at a rate that will reach about 20 for this decade, and of course we don't know how it'll finish.
So there is indeed a denial of the supposition that "the frequency and severity" of the storms is increasing. That denial is contained in the facts.
Ref: NHC historical data
Rick