Global Warming Debate

[jrd22]

I'm curious Greg, can you really look at all the evidence here in this thread and readily available on the internet and completely dismiss any possibility that GM is not man caused? Or did you just take as gospel every "fact" in Gore's movie, and your mind is closed to any opposing theory? Are you able to just throw out the opinions of all the PHD's on the Cato Institute's statement that Cam posted as nonsense? If so, how? The basic concept of "science" is realizing that your theory is just that, a theory, until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is a fact that can be demonstrated time and time again. The theory of man made GW is hardly in that class, actually, quite the opposite.

[erps]

6. PAST AND FUTURE WARMING FROM ANTHROPOGENIC CO2
Archibald (2007) illustrated the logarithmic warming effect of carbon dioxide. The
first 20 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has a greater warming effect than the
following 400 ppm (Figure 11). The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentration from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm to the current level of 384 ppm
is calculated to have resulted in a 0.1° C rise in atmospheric temperature. If the
atmospheric carbon dioxide level increases to 600 ppm, a further 0.3° C increase in
temperature is projected due to this factor."

Cam or anyone else,

Were you able to digest the information from the link you posted earlier about the physics involved in the greenhouse effect of gases? I followed the link, but frankly, it was beyond my education level. I wasn't quite sure if the previous link (below) indicated that there was no green house gas effect, or there was no calculation for it.

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))

[CGMojo]

How much carbon did the recent volcanic activity in Alaska dump into the atmosphere? How long has this activity been going on around the world? How can we can control it? Aren't we, in the big picture that includes volcanic eruptions and solar activity, just along for the ride?

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by erps

Cam or anyone else,

Were you able to digest the information from the link you posted earlier about the physics involved in the greenhouse effect of gases? I followed the link, but frankly, it was beyond my education level. I wasn't quite sure if the previous link (below) indicated that there was no green house gas effect, or there was no calculation for it.

Ray...I am no way equipped to deal with all the math either! BUT...I am pretty good at deciphering the rest of it and push myself to read and understand it.
Since it is peer reviewed science, I would expect that the math is reviewed by those who CAN make head or tail of it and we would not be even seeing the article if something that basic was wrong.
So...on the one hand I've presented an article by a physicist saying the whole concept of the global warming greenhouse effect is wrong. On the other hand, I posted research by a geologist crediting the SUN (heat, UV, solar wind,etc.) with controlling our climate and saying that, IF you believe the greenhouse effect, that a near doubling of CO2 to 600ppm will only result in a fraction of a degree increase in temperature.
So...I don't really see any conflict between the two papers. What all the real science is showing is that the RANGE of human impact global warming varies from nothing to fractions of a degree that will not impact us in any significant way. I don't think we know enough yet but the one thing I am increasingly sure of is that the alarmism is political in nature rather than scientific AND that much of the claimed science has been politicized by those who want to use it to further their own political and environmental agendas.

[SailorGregS]

Since the Global Warming is a scientific, multinational issue, it's probably best to consider where the SCIENCE comes from. Who funds the so-called Science people are reading.

My sources are typically non-profit organizations that do not have the funding from special interest groups who have the desire to debunk the Global Warming issue. These political groups don't like to have initiatives to add a layer of cost to their constituents - they vote. If you tell them they will pay more due to the cost of global warming they may not vote for you.

Lobbyist are a good and bad thing. As is the interpretation of science, statistical analysis, and manipulative data in general.

If you can master any or all of the above, then you can change public opinion and perspective in general. This has happen to some of you here.

[erps]

Sound science should stand up to and welcome scrutiny.

[camaraderie]

CMojo...right you are...but you forgot about the dust kicked up by the huge asteroid Nostradomus predicted for 2014!

On a more serious note...there ARE things man does that can change the earth and environment. It is important that we understand those processes and clean up our messes and reduce or eliminate the underlying causes.
So...my position is not that man CAN'T change the climate...just that CO2 released by man is not doing it...or at least to any significant or detrimental effect.

[SailorGregS]

erps you are 100% correct.

It's good to have a stance or position on issues and or topics, it' best to be on the one that is correct versus one based upon ignorance.

[jrd22]

Sailorgreg- you must have missed my questions?

Cam- really appreciate all the info. you dig up and post here, and everyone else too. Thanks.

[camaraderie]

Thanks JRD...BTW...I don't think Greg CAN respond to your questions!

With Cap and Trade set to become law before the fall this is now going from the realm of "which theory is right?" to .... about a $3000 indirect tax on EVERY American family in the prices they will pay for their electricity and for products and services that use electricity. ALL to support a theory which is quite simply...WRONG.
Some people enjoy the science. Some people just listen to the nightly news and Al Gore. Once word gets out about how much Global Warming Theory is going to cost EVERY American....I expect that more people will become skeptics!
For those less than familiar with Cap and Trade...here's a short study:

What Obama's Cap-And-Trade Plan Will Cost You

March 03, 2009 08:07 AM ET | James Pethokoukis | Permanent Link | Print

A study from the George C. Marshall Institute tries to quantify the costs of a cap-and-trade plan to reduce carbon emissions. They're not small, to say the least: And although this study uses 2008 as a baseline, the Obama plan would hit in 2012 and could come in combo with a hike in investment and income taxes for wealthier Americans and the creation of a special healthcare tax:

The authors find that the constraints posed by the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade approach is equivalent to a constant (in percentage terms) consumption decrease of about 1% each year, continuing to 2050. Put another way, the cap-and-trade approach is the equivalent of a permanent tax increase for the average American household, which was estimated to be $1,100 in 2008, would rise to $1,437 by 2015, to $1,979 in 2030, and $2,979 in 2050. (Annually in todays dollars!)

Reviewing a host of recent studies, Buckley and Mityakov show that estimates of job losses attributable to cap-and-trade range in the hundreds of thousands. The price for energy paid by the American consumer also will rise. The studies reviewed showed electricity prices jumping 5-15% by 2015, natural gas prices up 12-50% by 2015, and gasoline prices up 9-145% by 2015. As an illustration, gasoline would suffer a 16 cent price increase per gallon at the low end of the estimates to a $2.58 penalty at the high end (using the January 2009 reported retail price of $1.78 per gallon)."

What Obama's Cap-And-Trade Plan Will Cost You - Capital Commerce (usnews.com)