Humans contribute .28% in greenhouse gases

[fellowtraveller]

The OPs link is unusual in that it has no information about the website itself.

No contact info, no backgrounder.....

[jbg]

Also, where there is water vapor, it does have a greenhouse effect, i.e. would tend, even if not increasing, to foster an increase in temperature. The glass on a greenhouse doesn't get thicker, but the temperature will continuously increase during daytime in a greenhouse, and the heat will shed slowly at night.

No your right, the glass in a greenhouse does not get thicker by itself unless of course you add additional panels of glass.

But water vapor due to UV radiation increases and additional BTU's to existing water vapour increases temperature due to its own insulating effect by creating extra warm air volume in the upper atmosphere.

This in turn increases the thickness of water vapour blanket around the earth with the end result being less heat dissipated during the evening hours adding further heat during the daylight hours.

It is an apparent vicious cycle that will be next to impossible to stop especially with increases in population.

So cutting GHG's has next to no effect on temperatures, basically.

[Leafless]

So cutting GHG's has next to no effect on temperatures, basically.

As far as I am concerned, no, although it could have a partial effect years down the road on items affecting other environmental concerns like acid rain, smog and possibly help prevent thinning of the ozone layer.

But at this point I am more inclined to agree with Harper's proposed plan concerning improving air quality in cities.

But even that plan has serious limitations as a country has no way of controlling air in its atmosphere as winds import other countries air pollution, possibly worse than ours.

[jbg]

But even that plan has serious limitations as a country has no way of controlling air in its atmosphere as winds import other countries air pollution, possibly worse than ours.

Ever the problem with multilateral treaties. there is never sufficient compliance by countries whose ox is gored by a treaty.

[JerrySeinfeld]

BY MARK STEYN

Quoting Mark Steyn is the equivalent of me quoting Michael Moore.....

This persistent Ad Hominem response to Mark Steyn by the left simply magnifies your inability to respond to his arguments, so you are reduced to attacking the source.

No matter what you say, you cannot dispute that the famous "hockey stick" graph was used by climate change "scientists" and has since been debunked as complete bullshit. Based upon this fact alone we should all be questionning the objectivity of the research put forth. It is a healthy and necessary part of the scientific process. The harder you people work to try to shut up those who question the "science" of climate change, the more questionable you become.

As well, you cannot deny that many scientists in the 1970's were postulating a theory of global COOLING predicated upon the slight cooling of temperature that occured throughout the world from about 1940 to 1970.

So aside from attacking the messenger, why don't you speak to these facts first.

As a side note, take a look at the eastern seaboard where they're buried under 13 feet of snow and temperatures well below average.

Although I'm sure THAT TOO is evidence of global warming. That's another problem with the theory: everything is evidence of it. Doesn't sound very scientific to me.

[jbg]

As well, you cannot deny that many scientists in the 1970's were postulating a theory of global COOLING predicated upon the slight cooling of temperature that occured throughout the world from about 1940 to 1970.

Ah yes. The crew that wanted to spread carbon black on Arctic Ocean ice to retard global cooling. I remember it well.

Those people, and the Kyoto Gang, might want to try an experimental Russian Roulette game (hope for thier sake all the chambers are empty). At least their adventures won't be lethal or wasteful to the rest of us. Experiments of the Kyoto variety could be very wasteful, useless or dangerous.

[gc1765]

Those people, and the Kyoto Gang, might want to try an experimental Russian Roulette game (hope for thier sake all the chambers are empty). At least their adventures won't be lethal or wasteful to the rest of us. Experiments of the Kyoto variety could be very wasteful, useless or dangerous.

Hopefully, scientists have learned their lesson about meddling with nature (look at cane toads). The important difference is that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not meddling with nature in the same way as spreading carbon on ice. In fact, it's all about trying to STOP meddling with nature.

[geoffrey]

look at cane toads

I've got to say, those people had it coming to them:

All stages of the Cane Toad's life-cycle are poisonous. The venom produced by the parotoid glands acts principally on the heart. No humans have died in Australia from Cane Toad poison but overseas, people have died after eating toads and even soup made from boiled toad eggs.

Source: http://www.amonline.net.au/factsheets/canetoad.htm

I really question somedays whether the average human is brighter than the average Chimp?

[Catchme]

Scientists Sound Alarm Over Melting Antarctic Ice Sheets

by Steve Connor, Science Editor in San Francisco

The long-term stability of the massive ice sheets of Antarctica, which have the potential to raise sea levels by hundreds of meters, has been called into question with the discovery of fast-moving rivers of water sliding beneath their base.

Scientists analyzing satellite data were astonished to discover the size of the vast lakes and river systems flowing beneath the Antarctic ice sheets, which may lubricate the movement of these glaciers as they flow into the surrounding sea.

The discovery raises fresh questions about the speed at which sea levels might rise in a warmer world due to the rate at which parts of the ice sheets slide from the land into the ocean, scientists said at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco.

"We've found that there are substantial subglacial lakes under ice that's moving a couple of meters per day. It's really ripping along. It's the fast-moving ice that determines how the ice sheet responds to climate change on a short timescale," said Robert Bindschadler, a Nasa scientist at the Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, one of the study's co-authors.

One wonders if the CPC ever read scientific reports?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0216-03.htm

[Argus]

Thanks, but I'll stick with what the scientists at the UN said the other day.....

Actually, the scientists have not yet said anything. What you got the other day was the "Summary" of the report, not the report itself.

The summary was written by "policy makers", not the scientists.

Now the report will be "adjusted" to match the summary. You'll get it in a few months after the massaging is done.

[Catchme]

How do you know the summary was written by the policy makers?

Prove that it was written by the policy makers.

Prove that the report will be, or is being, "massaged" to fit the summary.

A summary is just that a summary of what the findings were.

Main Entry: 1sum·ma·ry

Pronunciation: 's&-m&-rE also 's&m-rE or -"mer-E

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin summarius, from Latin summa sum

1 : COMPREHENSIVE; especially : covering the main points succinctly

2 a : done without delay or formality : quickly executed

[geoffrey]

I think your second definition of summary is closer to what happened.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I think your second definition of summary is closer to what happened.

These mooks at the IPCC are not to be trusted. ANYONE who tries to shut up alternative opinions a la David Suzuki is an econazi.

[Eldrick Woods]

Science is not partisian right or left it just is saying other is in fact being partisian.

Except when, if there wasn't a problem, the "science" and thus the "scientist" wouldn't be funded. That creates a lot of pressure to find a problem to solve. There's lots of money to be made in finding a "crisis" hear, even though it has the look and feel of a science fictio novel. Which is perhaps why Michael Chrichton, a sci-fi writer himself, recognizes "man-made global warming" as fantasy.

There's a whole lot more money for energy companies to make if we continue down th fossil fuel road. Which source do you trust? The Scientist claiming GW is a man made problem and needs to be addressed by creating cleaner burning fuels and more energy efficient products?

OR

the energy companies saying. There's no such thing as GW. Let's just keep doing what we're doing. We need to make that 100 trillion dollars!!!! What about our stock holders?? doesn't anyone care about them?

[Eldrick Woods]

I think your second definition of summary is closer to what happened.

These mooks at the IPCC are not to be trusted. ANYONE who tries to shut up alternative opinions a la David Suzuki is an econazi.

There's nothing wrong with an opinion. There's a million of them. Opinions disguised as facts are my problem.

This is history repeating itself. The energy companies have a ton to lose here. They're not prepared for a world without fossil fuels. It's in THEIR interest People like you question the affects of global warming. It's a PR campaign.

In HS. I wrote a paper and convinced 8 of the 30 students in my class that the holocaust was fictional. It was based on Hyperbole and Theory. Very few facts. it was historically inaccurate but the correct story teller can convince you of anything. The energy companies have launched a massive campaign to stop this threat to their business. Just understand what you're reading.

This notion that these scientist are creating a problem to get some funding is foolish. There's way more money in attempting to prove GW is a hoax. Follow the money!

[jbg]

There's nothing wrong with an opinion. There's a million of them. Opinions disguised as facts are my problem.

This is history repeating itself. The energy companies have a ton to lose here. They're not prepared for a world without fossil fuels. It's in THEIR interest People like you question the affects of global warming. It's a PR campaign.

And it's opinion that the Vikings farmed in Iceland and were able to live in Greenland? You fantasize about a world without fossil fuels. What does that do to workers who cannot afford to live in the center cities where they work?

[WestViking]

There's a whole lot more money for energy companies to make if we continue down th fossil fuel road. Which source do you trust? The Scientist claiming GW is a man made problem and needs to be addressed by creating cleaner burning fuels and more energy efficient products?

OR

the energy companies saying. There's no such thing as GW. Let's just keep doing what we're doing. We need to make that 100 trillion dollars!!!! What about our stock holders?? doesn't anyone care about them?

You don't even have the argument right. The question is whether or not global warming is man-made or even significantly affected by man. The earth has gone through several cycles of warming and cooling, some long before man made any significant GHG contributions.

Your unsupported theory about oil dependency driven by oil companies is suspect - unless you would care to explain how oil companies manages to gather people into urban centers in huge nations where travel is imperative and the only efficient source of power has been the internal combustion engine.

How do you explain that the much-hyped Kyoto Protocol only addresses GHG emissions from some industrialized nations and does not address the alleged GW crises every nation contributes to? There is much to question respecting the 'science' of global warming and in particular the half-vast plans to address this alleged crisis.

[B. Max]

OR

the energy companies saying. There's no such thing as GW. Let's just keep doing what we're doing. We need to make that 100 trillion dollars!!!! What about our stock holders?? doesn't anyone care about them?

I will trust the science which says C02 has never in the short past or proxy records been the driver of temperature or climate. The climate alarmists have no science to the contrary. What they have are climate models which start with a false assumption and arrive at a false conclusion.

[Frankie]

I never looked into this issue, and I haven't made my mind on what I think is going on, because I'm not just gonna take some scientist word for it. But I can see many possibilities, and one thing i know for sure, is that the earth has had climate change patterns in the past. And this could be one of those things where we have no control. Even if that was the case, the human race still lives very ineffeciently. So even if we have nothing to do with the problem it gives people a very good excuse to start living more effeciently.

[Rue]

There appears to be no answer to global warming.

Humans only contribute a total of, 28% in greenhouse gasses that are thought to be responsible responsible for global warming.

H20 is the major problem.

Kyoto is barking up the wrong tree.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Well its nice to know the entire scientific world is wrong and you are right. where you came up with this .28% number from is anyone's guess. Maybe you should stick to your anti-gay tirades.

[geoffrey]

Well its nice to know the entire scientific world is wrong and you are right. where you came up with this .28% number from is anyone's guess. Maybe you should stick to your anti-gay tirades.

The .28% is easily found, you won't find a scientist that disagrees. Take a look for yourself sometime.

[jbg]

Well its nice to know the entire scientific world is wrong and you are right. where you came up with this .28% number from is anyone's guess. Maybe you should stick to your anti-gay tirades.

The .28% is easily found, you won't find a scientist that disagrees. Take a look for yourself sometime.

Al Gore would.