You don't know that. You show me for certain, or at least beyond a reasonable doubt, that we will keep warming at the current level of a degree every hundred years or so...I'm with ya'. No doubt, in 200-500 years the earth would be in dire straights. Just show me that evidence longer term. Not some wild eyed extrapolation from short term data.
wtf why don't you explain about your baseline - then discuss why your assumptions could be faulty. The baseline measurement were suspect as well. Nevertheless I granted you that we probably have a rising level of CO2. The issue then is what comes first warming or CO2. and if man is contributing to warming does it even matter given that the earth might be in a warming trend. You can not answer the questions with facts. Accept it. I do. Your best argument is what someone called the risk management argument. I agree. So lets mitigate the risk in an intelligent manner. Not some half assed transfer of our liberty and our treasure. Lets spend the money on things like electric cars or public transport. Let spend the money on infrastructure. Which will serve a public and private purpose. As Bush wasted his mandate - Obama wasted his - he could have come in told congress to spend all that money on infrastructure and intelligent green investments - instead pelosi and reid gave him porkulous and Obama has not really had a chance to make real change ever since. He could have come in there and instead of tarp and fed trillions he could have let wall street know who was boss. Instead Pelosi Reid Goldman and Wall street and Hartford are chowing down.
What we've learned is that the scammers will never give it up, even when it's been proven beyond any doubt that the lead scientists of the entire fraud hid their data and models from all but a few other 'true believing' scientists conspired to break laws regarding disclosing their data completely perverted the peer review process until it is entirely worthless 'hid the decline' in temperatures, to camouflage what really happened ..and now that we've proven they're theory is a hoax, they put their fingers in their ears and say lalalalalalalalalala... except to stop for a few minutes here and there to accuse those who live in the reality based world of being prejudiced
Antartica is cooling? It is getting larger? dramatically? How the heck can that be if CO2 caused warming? Is the Arctic ice cap melting? So we are told. But what harm has befallen mankind other than to have a Northwest Passage opened up to maritime traffic in the summer? The Antarctic ice sheet is nine times as large as the Arctic, and here is what the British Antarctic Survey wrote last April: "(D)uring the winter freeze in Antarctica this ice cover expands to an area roughly twice the size of Europe. Ranging in thickness from less than a metre to several metres, the ice insulates the warm ocean from the frigid atmosphere above. Satellite images show that since the 1970s the extent of Antarctic sea ice has increased at a rate of 100,000 square kilometres a decade." One hundred thousand square kilometers a decade? This would mean Antarctic sea ice expanded by 300,000 square kilometers since the 1970s, or 116,000 square miles, which is an area larger than all of New England. How can the Antarctic ice cap grow for three decades as the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has steadily increased, unless carbon dioxide has little or nothing to do with global warming? Unlike the Arctic, Antarctica is a continent, and while chunks of ice are cracking off in Western Antarctica, in Eastern Antarctica, four times larger, the ice sheet is thickening and expanding. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research reported last April that the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades." In April 1992, as the alarm over the Earth's end times began, scientists worldwide issued what was called the Heidelberg Appeal, aimed at just the kind of hysteria we are witnessing now in Copenhagen. "We are ... worried ... at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development," said the scientists. "We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look towards the past, does not exist and has probably never existed since man's first appearance in the biosphere. ... (H)umanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing Nature to its needs and not the reverse. "We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data." Since then, 4,000 scientists and 72 Nobel Prize winners have signed on. Again, it needs be said: Global warming is cyclical, and has been stagnant for a decade. There is no conclusive proof it is manmade, no conclusive proof it is harmful to the planet. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34896 this was just posted on another thread.
its funny because it's true ... and nearly over. tar and feathering will soon commence. Inhofe will bring these evil-bastards to justice. Me thinks, when Gore is called back to Congress, he may not be able to decide whom does the questioning. As for arguing with the fools on this board... I'd rather pick the lint out of the asscracks of bums then "debate" this "settled issued" with them. Stupid Is, As Stupid Does. (Or at least repeats, over, and over, and over again ...)
Yeah, no. There is no possible debate about CO2 causing warming, as the energy absorption of CO2 can easily been seen from any gas chromatograph. You're confusing natural CO2 emissions lagging warming, but these emissions aren't natural. So, no. Just because you're not aware of these things doesn't affect the weight of any argument. This approach is just silly. If the Earth is warming and you don't want flooding you don't exacerbate the warming with additional CO2. Done, and done. And no, the best argument isn't damage mitigation, although it's a strong argument as well. We're only debating the facts here, not the potential outcomes.
Because it isn't, at least according to the gravitational measurements from the GRACE satellite which show diminishing volumes of ice. Larger area =/= larger mass. Additionally, antarctica is not the globe and point sources are not generalizable planet wide -- you need multiple sources across the globe for that.
Yeah, the Heidelberg appeal doesn't argue against climate change, although it's often presented as though it does.
--- this in from researchers in october.... WAGN researchers do not yet know how large the overestimation was. A more definitive correction will be conducted by other researchers who specialize in interpreting GRACE data. Previous estimates of postglacial rebound were made with theoretical models. Assimilation of the direct GPS results into new models will therefore produce significant improvements in estimations of ice mass loss. The results will appear in "Geodetic Measurements of Vertical Crustal Velocity in West Antarctica and the Implications for Ice Mass Balance" (M. Bevis et al., 2009), published in the electronic journal Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems of the American Geophysical Union and the American Geochemical Society. [View the paper online.] A team from The University of Texas at Austin's Jackson School of Geosciences (Ian Dalziel, lead principal investigator), The Ohio State University's School of Earth Sciences (Michael Bevis), and The University of Memphis' Center for Earthquake Research and Information (Robert Smalley, Jr.) performed the WAGN project. The network consists of 18 GPS stations installed on bedrock outcrops across West Antarctica. Precise, millimeter level, three-dimensional locations of the stations, which are bolted into the bedrock, were determined during measurements made from 2001 to 2003 and from 2004 to 2006, the two measurements being at least three years apart. The difference in the positions during the two time periods indicates the motion of the bedrock.
you are missing the basic point. If the earth is naturally in a warming trend. And the warming precedes CO2 rise. Then man's contribution to an already established feedback loop could be inconsequential.