AGW-Anthrogenic Global Warming

[IH3444]

Read a book several years ago given to me by a senior scientist. It was about Krakatoa. A seriously big eruption.......but not the biggest on earth.http://www.amazon.com/Krakatoa-World-Exploded-August-1883/dp/0066212855



Krakatoa

The Skies Change

In the weeks following the eruption, fine fragments of tephra and dust that were propelled kilometers into the stratosphere began to make a ring around the equator. They would remain suspended there for years causing remarkable solar effects and atmospheric hazing as they bent the incoming light. Also the enormous volumes of sulfur dioxide gas molecules that were ejected into the atmosphere combined with water to make sulfuric acid. These acidic aerosols sufficiently blocked enough sunlight to drop the Earth's temperature by several degrees for a few years. There presence in the atmosphere also created spectacular effects over 70% of the Earth's surface. Effects such as halos around the sun and moon, and amazing sunsets and sunrises were seen. For years these particles would remain suspended in the atmosphere being the final reminder of the massive and fatal blast that occurred in Sundra Straits. At least for a time...

 

[Chuck52]

Volcanoes sure are big, but..........

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man.html


Just one of many reasonable responses to a favorite argument about man vs nature. The major point is that whatever we are adding is on top of what seems to have achieved a more-or-less stable, though oscillating, balance.

Chuck

 

[rich_ncal]

Carbon Tax- How about a new world government to enforce the carbon tax on the United States and other developed countries.

Watch the video

YouTube - Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?

 

[EddieWalker]

Forgot about this thread.

I gotta admit that I'm really enjoying all the details that are coming out with ClimateGate. While I never believed that man was causing the planet to heat or cool, I have to admit that I'm still shocked that the scientist involved were actually falsifying the numbers to create a warming trend. They only had one tree that was used to justify the "hockey stick" and the ignored the eveidence from all the other trees. Only one tree in the world gave them the reading they were looking for!! hahaha

I now doubt everything that they have to say. I was believing that it was warming in the 90's and that 98 was the warmest year on record. Now that it's been admited that they destroyed the original documents and NASA has changed the hottest year three times, I don't believe anything that they have to say.

How many more years will it take NASA to come up with their documentation?

The list goes on and on......

Eddie

 

[keegs]

Forgot about this thread.

I gotta admit that I'm really enjoying all the details that are coming out with ClimateGate. While I never believed that man was causing the planet to heat or cool, I have to admit that I'm still shocked that the scientist involved were actually falsifying the numbers to create a warming trend. They only had one tree that was used to justify the "hockey stick" and the ignored the eveidence from all the other trees. Only one tree in the world gave them the reading they were looking for!! hahaha

I now doubt everything that they have to say. I was believing that it was warming in the 90's and that 98 was the warmest year on record. Now that it's been admited that they destroyed the original documents and NASA has changed the hottest year three times, I don't believe anything that they have to say.

How many more years will it take NASA to come up with their documentation?

The list goes on and on......

Eddie

Eddie,

What do you suppose would motivate the vast majority of the world's climate scientists to engage in a conspiracy such as the one you describe?

 

[kenstrac]

Eddie,

What do you suppose would motivate the vast majority of the world's climate scientists to engage in a conspiracy such as the one you describe?

5 minutes of fame.

 

[IH3444]

Keegs......it's all to simple to understand. Funding. Follow the money, and the rapid ramp up in funding to the scientists who support GW.

It's a very sad day when scientists stray from the truth, and destroy data.

It's been called "dry benching", generating data to prove a flawed theory.

1934 still stands as the hottest year on record. What caused that?

 

[biggerten]

5 minutes of fame.

Billions of research dollars. Power. Fame. Control of other's lives. Other than that, they seem pure in heart and deed.

 

[Redneck in training]

Climate on the earth was never constant. Higher level of CO2 made plants to proliferate and absorb it and store it in biomass. Consequent higher levels of O2 made wild fires more prevalent releasing the carbon back to the environment etc. The climate oscillated around certain curve. Then there is a carbon that was locked in oil and coal. Now people are releasing carbon back to the nature and in the same time cut down plants that absorb it. The climate will oscillate but along different curve. It will change to the climate present on earth when oil and coal was created having atmosphere hot and humid with high levels of CO2. Countries like Canada or Russia might benefit.
It is still many generations in the future therefore I am saying screw global warming lets have some fun while is still possible and let our children deal with the consequences.

 

[keegs]

Keegs......it's all to simple to understand. Funding. Follow the money, and the rapid ramp up in funding to the scientists who support GW.

It's a very sad day when scientists stray from the truth, and destroy data.

It's been called "dry benching", generating data to prove a flawed theory.

1934 still stands as the hottest year on record. What caused that?

IH...the notion that the world's climate scientist have formed a cabal to pursue fame a fortune sounds a little odd to me.

Now I'm not a climate scientist and my guess is neither are you but I think we both know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And I also think we know that over the last century +, man has been involved in releasing copious amounts of CO2 (carbon) into the atmosphere that had been stored (sequestered) in the earth over millions of years at a rate that would not otherwise naturally occur. That on its face gets my attention.

I'm with Dick Cheney on the one percent doctrine IH. Even if there's a one percent chance that we might be frying the planet, I'm for turning down the flame.