Posted on 11/11/2007 7:28:52 PM PST by kathsua
Why do they buy the nonsense about alleged greenhouse gases causing dangerous global warming? The claim about the power of greenhouse gases sounds like magic and the evidence for “global warming” is of little value.
Those who talk about global warming claim a 0.5 C (1 F) increase in what they call the global average temperature indicates the earth is getting warmer. You don’t have to be a mathematician or physicist to recognize that one temperature cannot represent every place on earth from frigid polar regions to blazing deserts. Nor can a single temperature represent year round conditions in temperate regions where temperatures can range from -18 C (0 F) in the winter to 35 C (100 F) in the summer.
The claim that a 0.5 C (1 F) increase is significant ignores the fact that the number represents only a 0.17% change over a century. (Note: Per cent changes in temperature must be calculated using the Kelvin scale because of the arbitrary zero points of the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales.) Scientists might be able to obtain an accuracy within 0.17% in laboratory conditions, but not in the real world. Inadequate maintenance of equipment can reduce accuracy. Changes in the area near the site of the reading can affect temperatures.
Carbon dioxide constitutes less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. How can anyone believe that an increase from 0.036% to 0.037%, for example, could possibly increase air temperature?
One of the oldest scams in physics involves the perpetual motion machine. Such machines supposedly operate with little or not energy. The inventor may claim that his machine may produce nearly as much energy as it consumes. Claims about greenhouse gases imply they cause the atmosphere to function as a perpetual motion machine.
The idea that individual CO2 molecules can actually radiate enough energy to heat anything sounds so ridiculous that it’s hard to understand how any logical person could believe it.
Police will tell you that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Scam artists tend to oversell whatever they are peddling. The people who claim global warming, are overselling claims about climate change and gullible journalists are buying what they are selling.
Usually, but not necessarily, and not if the errors are systematic rather than random.
Weather stations have been, and still are, located in cities and at airports. The airports were originally located away from their cities because that's where the vacant land was. As these cities have grown larger, and particularly as the cities with airports have grown out to and around those airports, "heat islands" have been created due to more paved surfaces, more concrete, more buildings (which are heated) and fewer trees and vegetation to absorb solar radiation. You know what I mean. The weatherman on the TV says the low tonight will be 40 degrees, down to 36 in the outlying areas. That's because of this "heat island" effect. So the recorded temperatures for those locations are going to rise, but that will be a local phenomenon, not necessarily "global warming." It may happen systematically in many cities though, for the same reason.
Of course, GW may still be happening on top of the "heat island" effect, but teasing the data apart becomes difficult. I have seen this problem addressed only once in an article, and that was only in passing.
They are not “gullible.” LOL. The scum know full well what they are doing. The slime are a product of liberal schools. What do you expect?
http://newsbusters.org/issues/media-bias-debate
If a particle of atmosphere was as big as a 1/4 inch square, a million ppm would equal 20,833 lin. ft. 400ppm of CO2 would equal 8.3 lin ft or 1 CO2 particle ever 2,510 lin ft. 40,000 ppm of water vapor would equal 883 lin. ft or one ever 25 ft.
Even on the molecular level, that is a huge distance between ppm's of “greenhouse” gases
And you want me to buy into CO2 drives the climate theory?
Once the CO2 is in balance with the incoming heat energy, it is emitting as much heat energy as it is receiving.
Huh?
Think in three dimensions, and note that emission occurs both up and back down at the earth.
If a particle of atmosphere was as big as a 1/4 inch square, a million ppm would equal 20,833 lin. ft.
You're mixing volume, area, and distance...all while dealing with a three-dimensional (volumetric) system. What are you doing?
they are lazy
All we have to do now is move continents to offset the CO2.
3.225% of 380 ppm = 12 ppm. An increase of 12 molecules of CO2 out of every million molecules of atmosphere. Yet, by your figures, there has been an increase of 102 ppm CO2 since 1750. But if we are increasing it by 12 ppm every year now it should take less than ten years to increase it 102 ppm overall. Where did all that CO2 that man is creating go?
‘Propagandists might be a better term than journalists.’
Yep.
And its worth repeating study after study has shown fully 80% of the ‘media’ is registered as Democrats.
Given that, its not surprising they march lemming like to Al Gore’s insanity.
The so-called schools of journalism are run by Marxists and Stalinists. So what would make you think that they are falling for propaganda? I think they are knowingly participating in a propaganda campaign.
“They are socialists.”
Yes, but they are also: On average, 1. not terribly bright, 2. not intellectually curious, 3. poorly educated, 4. narcissistic, and 5. careerist/conformists
No it's not. The source of the graphic you posted even admits that's not true.
Where did all that CO2 that man is creating go?
Read the source you cited. Follow the source it uses, an October 2000 Department of Energy report.
That report has been updated--in 2006--and guess what...it supports what I was saying. Atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 100 ppmv. Radiative forcing (that is, the difference since AD 1750) is nearly 2 W/m2 through 2005. Nowhere in that report does it say that there are natural sources of CO2 increase three times as high as the man-made ones.
Remember that there are the land mass and oceans to consider when you look at carbon dioxide levels. Since both the oceans and land biomass have increased concentrations of carbon, it can't be coming from there, and the atmonspheric concentration was relatively constant in the recent history before 1750. This confirms that it's mainly from our activities.
BTW, where in the DoE report does it claim that 68.52 ppmv is from "natural sources"?
Why Are Reporters So Gullible?
All I know is you had better work hard at school, earn good grades and get an education or you’ll get stuck at a newspaper job!
Or married to a woman who smells like ketchup.
;-)
And, by the way, this applies just as much to the anti-AGW True Believers who often post on this site.
Talked to a young journalist about this. He said a reporter has to make a name for himself and that is done by finding startling news about something or someone. They are trying to predict what will be and if they are right they will have a career; if wrong they can work as a car mechanic in Des Moines. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
Odd then that the graph says that and the text below it does too. The site I got that graph at does say natural additions to CO2 are 68 ppmv.
Greenhouse Gas Concentrations: Natural vs man-made (anthropogenic)
I would post the graph but it doesn't work with the HTML I know. It is on the page linked above. Below you will find your assertion that CO2 was stable before 1750 only holds true if you limit how much history you take into account. There has been a consistent and steady rise for 18,000 years.
2. CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks ( Figure 1). Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases.
In Post 47 above, you said that CO2 is "at its lowest in earth's history."
Now, you say: "There has been a consistent and steady rise for 18,000 years."
Which is it?
Journalists are essentially stupid...
They don’t know anything about science, economics, or politics.
They go to school to study journalism....Writing to change the world...
And my point is, WHAT'S THE SOURCE of that number? The source they cite at the top of the table does NOT say anything about natural versus man-made emissions. It seems to be a spurious (and totally bizarre) number that I don't find anywhere else. Where do you (they) claim all this natural CO2 comes from? Certainly not volcanoes, which are far, far lower (145-255 million tons per annum)than human contribution (30 billion tons per annum) [Source: USGS]. I believe that diffuse seepage is not insignificant, but still, it doesn't make up the missing 99%. Bottom line, humans are the big CO2 releasers, and the graph you posted is unsupported and bogus.
As for "CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years," sure it has. But at a very slow rate, relative to the past 250 years. Clearly, we are pumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. Look at the far, far right of this graph...
While the "pre-industrial baseline" fluctuated +/-10 ppm over several centuries, we've seen a huge increase from even the high point of that "baseline." 
If you wanted to match your graph to mine, we'd have to stretch yours W-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-Y out (on my screen estimate, your graph covers 50000 years in the distance mine covers 125; the vertical scale is only about 6:1 differet), and your "increase" line would look a LOT flatter. You would see relatively flat for the last 18000 years, with a sharp upward spike for the last 200-250 years.
Because they're not very smart.
Sad. But true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.