sunsettommy

GROAN! I can see why since it provides the TOTAL emission into the atmosphere facts you are deliberately avoiding. That Nature is EMITTING far more CO2 than Man is. The Ocean is adding 70.6 into the atmosphere.Far more than Man addition of a measely 5.9 into the atmosphere. Hey at least you noticed that 55.5 of CO2 from plants and soil is emitted into the atmosphere! That is more than mans tiny contribution of 5.9 All along I have been talking about emissions. EMISSIONS My original question you keep avoiding: See the key words fella? Try reading harder next time will ya. You need to stop deflecting on the irrefutable fact as shown that nature emits far more CO2 into the atmosphere than mankind does. Not once have I talked about NET contribution of CO2 after all the mathematical variables are accounted for. It is clear that you are not reading very hard since all I talked about was EMISSIONS (meaning what is released into the air).

I'm sorry that was too elaborate for you to understand. I'll try to remember to make it easier in the future. Again, the point was that you only provided anecdotal evidence that since some smokers live into old age, smoking isn't as dangerous as some unnamed people claim. My analogy was that since some soldiers live into old age, by your logic, war must not be dangerous. If you don't understand, just post a few more smiley faces and I'll try to explain it to you again. Since you press the point, please provide valid clinical studies to back your assertion that smoking is safer than we have been lead to believe. Please don't tell me about your Aunt Grace who smoked from age 13 and lived until she was 93. I await your links, although I won't be holding my breath. I see that you are going to persist on going way off topic. I will pass on this because it is well off topic. Here are the smilies you love.

The IPCC is even more clear when they have as Chart A) The natural carbon cycle and then chart Human perterbations. What do you say about them saying that the human perterbation (chart level is ............. 5.9 A small number as compared to the numbers they used for (chart A).

Shoggoth why are you persisting in your deflection to my question? Here is my QUESTION: Why not answer it this time? Shoggoth: "The last sentence would only be true if man's contribution to rising co2 levels was less than nature's contribution. But man's contribution is actually near 100% for rising co2 levels. The contribution to co2 accumulation in the atmosphere is based on amount emitted minus amount absorbed, ie the net flux. Not just emissions alone. The diagram you posted in your first link demonstrates this: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/gcc.html" Oh my! When will you take note of this section in the link? my emphasis The link clearly shows that Nature is by far the biggest emitter of CO2. They go on to state: my emphasis Now compare that with this: 55.5 is a lot bigger than 5.9 Look at the Oceans emission totals. 70.6 versus 20. Nature wins easily.

More confirmation of what the temperature graphs already show. Which is, a slight cooling in the average temperature since 1998. The global warming gods will soon have to start claiming that CO2 is the cause of global cooling. No Max it is a slowed down warming trend. Lobos Motl was making his point that since 1998 no year has been as warm as the big el-ninyo year of 1998. Go look at the charts again max.Lobos clearly knows there is warming since 1998. I showed you ALL the charts in another thread that irrefutably shows overall warming since 1998. Why do you still persist in insisting there is a cooling trend since 1998?

What are you talking about? You sure you posted in the right thread?

America never deposed the Vietnamese government and or win the war.This after 12 years. America deposed the Hussein government and won the war.This after a few weeks. Quite a difference to me. The problem are those few fanatics who blow up Iraqi civilians and coalition troops and a few Iraqi police.They have not accepted the "will of the voters" government and its constitution. It is folly to make tortured comments over two very different wars.

That's like referring to a veteran who joined up in '39 and fought through the end of World War II without an injury and then making the claim that "war isn't as dangerous as people make it out to be." lol, Making an analogy between a man and a cigarette. It is obvious that you can not rebute the fact that many long time smokers live a long life.

Lets look at Woods Hole: http://www.whrc.org/carbon/images/GlobalCarbonCycleLG.gif

From the IPCC: Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm Again Nature emits most of the yearly CO2 total.

About 27 billion tons. Nature aborbs about 15 billion tons. So mankind release by percentage of the total net CO2 additions to the atmosphere yearly, about 100% I have no idea how you can come with this stuff.It is not even a coherent claim. NOAA does it much better and here is the link: They make it clear that we emit a small amount of CO2 compared to nature. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/gcc.html We actually emit about 3% of the CO2 yearly emission totals.Nature does the rest.

jdobbin: I do not accept Intelligent design and neither does a lot of climate skeptics (most actually say there is warming going on).I myself agree that there is warming going on. I am also an INDEPENDANT with some conservative positions. Ooops! There goes your silly broad charactarization of people you dislike. Second hand smoke dangers are wildly overblown and smoking itself is not a dangerous as claimed.There are scores of lifelong smokers who live beyond 80 years. Cancer rates are going down. Your attitude is very apparent when you to attempt to paint skeptics with a broad brush. Try instead sticking to debating the actual topic at hand. Lobos Motl was mocking Al Gore and his propagandists with his way of showing that while yes there is warming going on.It is less and less a warming trend since 1998.

August1991: Do you know how much mankind actually release by percentage of the total CO2 emissions yearly? That alone will reduce mankinds role to the observed warming to a small amount. Try considering other forcings such as the Sun,Land use changes,Cosmic Rays and so on. The real tragedy of the commons is to lie and distort about our role in the warming. As for Lobos's article.He was mocking the people who are arguing about a coming "tipping point".If you bothered to look at his graph he posted.There was actual warming every single year on it.But it is warming less and less since 1998. The very opposite of what Al Gore and other propagandists are talking about. There is ZERO evidence of accelerated warming. August1991 try this link and you will see what Lobos is talking about.It is from WMO website. http://www.wmo.ch/meteoworld/archive/en/feb2006/2005.htm

You don't know much about the pine beetle do you? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pine+...G=Google+Search Which pine beetle species are you talking about? In America they are much more active in public owned forests.The trees are more likely to be older and the underbrush much thicker providing hotter forest fires. The privately owned forest reserves are better cared for and the trees are younger and more vigorous.

It might be interesting if it gets cold enough to kill off the pine beetle. Until then it is just a blip in a long term trend.... A weak tree is more susceptible to pine bark beetles.Than the Beetles are susceptible to the cold. They seem to congregate in public owned forests.

Generally what you say is true except for one thing. Al Gore and select number of scientists and environmentalists have been talking about a "tipping point" to runaway warming.They seem to think it will happen in less than 10 years. So I posted this to show that the warming is SLOWING DOWN! This contradicts them big time. Gosh it might even turn into a COOLING trend.The Russians have actually made predictions of global cooling within 10 years.They base it on the changing suns output. 1998 was by far the warmest since 1979(according to the satellites) when the Pacific Ocean changed to a cooler weak phase.The warming is now weak. I hope you remember that this current warming is only 30 years long.That is about the length of a typical cycle.Before that it was cooling for about 30 years.Before that it was warming for about 35 years and then before that it was cooling for ........ LOL.

Gosh I thought B.Max would be glad to see this post. Oh well. Does anyone have anything to say?

From the BLOG of Lobos Motl, 2006: probably the coldest year in the last five years Excerpt: According to the most recent data from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the year 2006 is set to be colder than 2005 colder than 2004 colder than 2003 colder than 2002 ... and, most obviously, ... colder than 1998, despite the new El Nino that has been warming the Earth again for a couple of months at the end of 2006 and that will probably continue in 2007. Yes, right now it seems that 2006 will become the coldest year among the most recent five years, and it will belong to the colder half of the years in the last decade. http://motls.blogspot.com/search/label/climate

That reminds of a a looney tunes cartoon "Lets You and Him wrestle" I live in America and still see no evidence of a "police state".5 years and counting. The Democrats are rebounding and that alone vitates your nonsense. It is pitiful that from reading this thread that you dodge intelligent postings from Black Dog. I have seen this conspiracy bilge in other forums posted by someone similar as you and the debunkings were presented by actual scientists and engineers.It was gruesome to watch killtown be destroyed. You are lucky this forum does not have such a group of scientists to blast you. If I feel like it I may present some information that has as yet not been presented in this forum that will make fools of you.But like Killtown.You will just dodge it and look stupid instead hanging onto something that is not a provable conspiracy.He does it and so did a few others I have seen who swallow the conspiracy stuff in the forums. Wise is the man who drops it in face of overwhelming contrary evidence. Will you ever? If I feel like it.

Please tell us where she went wrong on those "tenuous facts".She spent most of the piece ranting about how small the Democrat landside was and conveniently forgot to mention the effect of gerrymandering on congressional districts. Gerrymanding has made it very difficult to unseat Republican incumbants in many districts so the fact that Democrats were still able to make in roads is a sign of a major shift in public opinion in the US. Gerrymandering has been going on for more than 100 years and both parties have done it. You will need to show more to support your claim.

I'm kinda on the fence about climate change -- even though I'm skeptical, I'm not sure what to believe -- but if "global warming" doesn't mean everywhere on earth warms up (which is obvious) then why do we put so much emphasis on data that comes from tree rings in the US and glaciers? Those samples are from specific geographical locations and they're supposed to determine the global mean? I mean, we've only been using thermometers globally for maybe 100 years and that data (which should be more reliable) actually showed a period of cooling within the last 100 years, over nearly 3 decades. I'm not denying the effects of CO2 in relation to trapping heat, but it is disputable what the temperatures will be in the future. There are many other variables besides CO2 that factor into global mean temperature. A good reasonable position to have. The Climate system is very complicated and has many variables to consider. That is why CO2 can not be the sole cause of warming.

My first response would be..."From the sky, where they keep most of the air"...However, 'global warming's effects' are abberant weather with a greater range of the extremes. Weird stuff, like snow in California and Kuwait, or 10 force 4 hurricanes in a season, stuff that could just never happen... Part of California is home to some of the snowiest region in the entire world. America had such a hurricane season before. Last year was a near perfect setting for hurricane development. The Bemuda High was weak. The shearing winds were nearly absent. The water surface was warmer than usual. This year the Bermuda high was much stronger. The Shearing winds were back and the surface waters in the relevant regions were COOLER. All along the surface water temperatures in large regions of the middle and southern atlantic is warm enough for hurricane development.It is those other factors that determine where they go and how well organized they can develop.

Instead a tornado hits London, England. The point is? Now to GUARDIAN UNLIMITED: Snip: Backstory Tornadoes are the result of warm and cold winds travelling at different speeds and in different directions in storm conditions, creating a build-up of energy like a pressure cooker. The weather fronts can come together to create a violent twisting vortex - similar to water swirling down a plughole - that drags along the ground at speeds of more than 100mph. The huge cloud, called a supercell, becomes much taller and more powerful than normal and lightning and hail from it are more ferocious. The UK has the largest number of reported tornadoes for its land area in the world as cold air from the Arctic meets warmer, tropical air from the equator. Around 70 tornadoes were reported across the UK in 2004 and 2005, with 40 this year. Alok Jha http://www.guardian.co.uk/weather/Story/0,,1967296,00.html What was your point?

reffric: Jerry seinfield: emphasis mine He was referring to the time BEFORE december 11. The planet warming up presents less and less possibility for such a super cold spell to appear. But you knew that.

Hmmm, it's rather interesting that you have attributed this to the "left", when the term "climate change" was practically invented by Frank Luntz, the republican strategist....hardly a "leftie" No it wasn't - it was invented by a bunch of granola scientists who used to write about the coming "global cooling" in the 1970's. Then when the world started warming in the 70's 80's and 90's they changed it to "global warming". But now that the world has started to cool again (granola scientists HATE good news), they just figure it's easier to refer to "climate change" Very few scientists were actually that alarmed by the cooling. It was mostly inspired by the media and environmentalists who blamed air pollution among other things. You tend to be overly dramatic over this.