Members chris-dax Posted August 21, 2007 Members Posted August 21, 2007 linky... A major new scientific study concludes the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on worldwide temperatures is largely irrelevant The project, called "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System," was authored by Brookhaven National lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1 percent a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (plus 0.45 percent per year)," he said. "We are responsible for just 0.001 percent of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor." Geologist Robert Giegengack, chairman of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, said he doesn't even consider global warming among the top 10 environmental problems. "[Former Vice President Al Gore] claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun's heat. That's just wrong
Members 50calexplorer Posted August 21, 2007 Members Posted August 21, 2007 www.worldnetdaily.com No thanks. Why not just post a link to a Rush Limbaugh segment?
Members Rippin' Robin Posted August 21, 2007 Members Posted August 21, 2007 If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor." Jeebus, where can I get me some 2.75 story-thick linoleum?
Members Emprov Posted August 21, 2007 Members Posted August 21, 2007 www.worldnetdaily.com No thanks. Why not just post a link to a Rush Limbaugh segment? If you look at Gore's own chart of warming and change in CO2, it seems pretty clear that temp moves first, CO2 follows. Go ahead, Google it. You'd be hard pressed to find a chart that's easy to read -- it's like they've all been removed. On the other hand, Google sunspots and global warming. You'll find a ton of clear, easy to read and understand charts.
Members hawkhuff Posted August 21, 2007 Members Posted August 21, 2007 claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun's heat. That's just wrong
Members hawkhuff Posted August 21, 2007 Members Posted August 21, 2007 If you look at Gore's own chart of warming and change in CO2, it seems pretty clear that temp moves first, CO2 follows. Go ahead, Google it. You'd be hard pressed to find a chart that's easy to read -- it's like they've all been removed. On the other hand, Google sunspots and global warming. You'll find a ton of clear, easy to read and understand charts. That's the latent effect that Algore and others seem to always ignore. The temperature warms then the CO2 increase occurs. Many climatologists have yet to explain how and why this happens.
Members 50calexplorer Posted August 21, 2007 Members Posted August 21, 2007 If you look at Gore's own chart of warming and change in CO2, it seems pretty clear that temp moves first, CO2 follows. Go ahead, Google it. You'd be hard pressed to find a chart that's easy to read -- it's like they've all been removed. On the other hand, Google sunspots and global warming. You'll find a ton of clear, easy to read and understand charts. I'm no scientist. Nor am I some 'librul' spouting off that global warming is real and man-made. If I laid out a technical manual for a 2006 Suzuki GSX-R 100 before you would probably say that it isn't very clear to read, however to me I can read it just fine, now as far as climatology and all that I don't think anyone on this bored is truly qualified to understand said charts graphs and other studies of god-knows what. All I am saying is that www.worldnewsdaily.net is hardly a non-biased site. Hell just look at the ad space they are selling and you can se what type of audience they are expecting to get. That's all I'm saying.
Members chris-dax Posted August 21, 2007 Author Members Posted August 21, 2007 www.worldnetdaily.com No thanks. Why not just post a link to a Rush Limbaugh segment? 50cal - are you a Bristish scientist, by any chance...? I ask because a few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global warming thing is a farce, a group of British scientists concluded that the real global warming won't start until 2009. WND is reporting on, not conducting, the research. The project, called "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System," was authored by Brookhaven National lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. Geologist Robert Giegengack, chairman of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, said he doesn't even consider global warming among the top 10 environmental problems. A United Nations scientist, Jim Renwick, recently conceded that climate models do not account for the variability in nature, and so are not reliable.
Members takeout Posted August 21, 2007 Members Posted August 21, 2007 All I am saying is that www.worldnewsdaily.net is hardly a non-biased site. Indeed. Interesting that dax used a wrestling metaphor, since WND is to news what wrestling is to sports...
Members chris-dax Posted August 21, 2007 Author Members Posted August 21, 2007 I'm no scientist. All I am saying is that www.worldnewsdaily.net is hardly a non-biased site. Hell just look at the ad space they are selling and you can se what type of audience they are expecting to get. That's all I'm saying. Fair enough....and I assume you feel the same about the NYT which is equally as biased, if not more so...?
Members hi.flyer Posted August 21, 2007 Members Posted August 21, 2007 Fair enough....and I assume you feel the same about the NYT which is equally as biased, if not more so...?
Members hawkhuff Posted August 21, 2007 Members Posted August 21, 2007 Fair enough....and I assume you feel the same about the NYT which is equally as biased, if not more so...? DAX! You're attacking their religion. How would expect them to react? Global warming has been settled, haven't you heard? Don't you understand?
Moderators isaac42 Posted August 21, 2007 Moderators Posted August 21, 2007 The article says it's a peer-reviewed paper, but doesn't say in what peer-reviewed journal (if any) it was published, as far as I could tell. I'd like to know that.
Members Emprov Posted August 21, 2007 Members Posted August 21, 2007 If I laid out a technical manual for a 2006 Suzuki GSX-R 100 before you would probably say that it isn't very clear to read, however to me I can read it just fine, now as far as climatology and all that I don't think anyone on this bored is truly qualified to understand said charts graphs and other studies of god-knows what. Give me a mid 90's CBR 600, I'd get that one much more easily. We're not talking about hardcore science here though. Anyone with a grade school understanding of how a chart works is able to tell which line leads and which one follows.
Members lug Posted August 21, 2007 Members Posted August 21, 2007 The article says it's a peer-reviewed paper, but doesn't say in what peer-reviewed journal (if any) it was published, as far as I could tell. I'd like to know that. And I want to know if the advertisments in the journal are peer reviewed as well!
Members hawkhuff Posted August 21, 2007 Members Posted August 21, 2007 Give me a mid 90's CBR 600, I'd get that one much more easily. We're not talking about hardcore science here though. Anyone with a grade school understanding of how a chart works is able to tell which line leads and which one follows. Yeah....true. But that avatar.
Members lug Posted August 21, 2007 Members Posted August 21, 2007 Yeah....true. But that avatar. But the good news is the cooling in my loins after seeing that avatar will likely offset any global warming for about 2 years.
Members Jazz Ad Posted August 21, 2007 Members Posted August 21, 2007 If the scientific community was a 100-story building, scientists denying global warming today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor.See ? I too can make stupid analogies. I still don't see how it matters how why the whole thing is an issue anyway.Ok, let's admit that we don't participate at all in global warming. I'd be fine with it.So what ? Does it mean that we can keep on polluting however we want and uselessly spend ressources ?I don't agree with that. I don't care about global warming. It's just another brick in the wall.I was already fighting and demonstrating for my planet 20 years ago.I didn't wait for temperature to rise.
Members 50calexplorer Posted August 21, 2007 Members Posted August 21, 2007 Fair enough....and I assume you feel the same about the NYT which is equally as biased, if not more so...? I was gonna agree that both are biased, but saying the NYT is more so.... That is worthy of you not being taken seriously ever. Just look at their front page.... Tuesday, August 21, 2007 Morning Edition FREE News Flashes HEAT OF THE MOMENTWorldNetDailySizzling study concludes:Global warming 'hot air' 'You can spit, have same effectas doubling the carbon dioxide' --WND -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. to blame for warming, says India leader Says it's strange Americans who created heat now advising others --Economic Times Claim: Islands emerge as Arctic ice shrinks 'Reductions of snow and ice are happening at an alarming rate' --Reuters BETWEEN THE LINESThe marketing of hot lies Exclusive: Joseph Farah rips media for polar bear global warming canard --WND WND POLLYou give me fever What do you think about claims of catastrophic man-made global warming? --WND -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SPECIAL OFFERStunning 2-DVD Fed fraud expos
Members 50calexplorer Posted August 21, 2007 Members Posted August 21, 2007 I love how their ads are placed so that you think they are real stories as well.
Members Bonoman Posted August 21, 2007 Members Posted August 21, 2007 If the scientific community was a 100-story building, scientists denying global warming today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor. See ? I too can make stupid analogies. I still don't see how it matters how why the whole thing is an issue anyway. Ok, let's admit that we don't participate at all in global warming. I'd be fine with it. So what ? Does it mean that we can keep on polluting however we want and uselessly spend ressources ? I don't agree with that. I don't care about global warming. It's just another brick in the wall. I was already fighting and demonstrating for my planet 20 years ago. I didn't wait for temperature to rise. BINGO! Well said, Jazzy!
Moderators isaac42 Posted August 21, 2007 Moderators Posted August 21, 2007 And I want to know if the advertisments in the journal are peer reviewed as well! I don't think peer-reviewed journals have advertisements. Of course, I could be wrong...
Moderators isaac42 Posted August 21, 2007 Moderators Posted August 21, 2007 If the scientific community was a 100-story building, scientists denying global warming today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor.See ? I too can make stupid analogies.I still don't see how it matters how why the whole thing is an issue anyway.Ok, let's admit that we don't participate at all in global warming. I'd be fine with it.So what ? Does it mean that we can keep on polluting however we want and uselessly spend ressources ?I don't agree with that. I don't care about global warming. It's just another brick in the wall.I was already fighting and demonstrating for my planet 20 years ago.I didn't wait for temperature to rise. No, it does not mean that we can keep on polluting however we want and uselessly spend resources? We only get to do that if we also make lots of money.
Members misterhinkydink Posted August 21, 2007 Members Posted August 21, 2007 The article says it's a peer-reviewed paper, but doesn't say in what peer-reviewed journal (if any) it was published, as far as I could tell. I'd like to know that. Schwartz's paper was accepted for publication which implies peer review. It's just the WND "story" refers to it completely out of its context.
Moderators isaac42 Posted August 21, 2007 Moderators Posted August 21, 2007 Schwartz's paper was accepted for publication which implies peer review. It's just the WND "story" refers to it completely out of its context. Accepted for publication in what journal?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.