John Coleman on Global Warming

[The Noob Avenger]

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

Its lengthy, but its a good read.

Its too long for me to post on here, too.

[GoldenArm9]

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

Its lengthy, but its a good read.

Its too long for me to post on here, too.
Noob could you post the link bro? Thanks ....never mind got it ....:thumbsup:

[EatonFan]

I've read many, many articles on Global Warming and at MOST even if Global Warming is real (which I believe we can't really come to any conclusion yet as we simply do not have enough long term data... climate changes occur over hundreds of years and we have only about 50-60 years of decent data) humans have an effect of at most 5-10% of the change and I would tend to revise this downward. The other 90-95% (and likely higher) is completely natural. The cause and effect just isn't there.

While this article is a bit short on cold hard facts, it is pretty accurate. The one fact it gives is indisputable. 38 parts per 100,000 can not create this kind of effect. The sun heats the ground, the ground heats the air, and no 38 parts per 100,000 gas is going to blanket that in.

Cloud cover will easily hold in more heat than a 38 parts per 100,000 gas. How many times have you heard a meteorologist say that a clear night will radiate the heat out more quickly while cloud cover acts like a blanket?

[warsteiner138]

Well the planet is getting hotter; so is Jupiter and there are no cars there.

We may or may not be causing some of it. But I do not see any problem with trying to make the planet cleaner and less polluted.

I am against any ruse like a carbon tax. But I see no reason why not to go after as many different cleaner and better ways to make energy.


I remember in the 80's the whole world got together and help stop the destruction of the ozone.



Are planet now and even more so in the future will be put in a very dangerous situation.

They are many people on the planet and less and less resources. We need to make some changes for the future.

Because there will not be enough resources(food included) on the planet for 8, 9, and possible 10 billion people in the future.

Renewable energy(solar, wind, water) is obvious the safest and potential cheapest way for this.

It could help the economy as well because it will create new jobs and cost a lot of money.

It is not all about oil; that actually is an easier problem than livestock.

Livestock is very deadly to the planet. That is going to be the one people really do not want to here about.

But if you want a better world for future generations of people; you might want think about eating meat only once a day or twice a week.

[jamiethelanky]

Why is the Accrington Stanley manager qualified to comment on it?

[tbone77]

He's a local news weatherman, not a climate scientist.

He predicts the local weather. Climate scientists study the earth's climate.

He has zero peer reviewed publications on the topic.

He provides zero links or references.

Next.

[BigSmelly420]

He's a local news weatherman, not a climate scientist.

He predicts the local weather. Climate scientists study the earth's climate.

He has zero peer reviewed publications on the topic.

He provides zero links or references.

Next.

So, what about all the other points that have been brought up in this thread?

What I dislike most about Global Warming advocates is their dismissiveness of the opposing view. I never hear COUNTER arguments, just dismissals.

Why is Jupiter warming, too? What about the "38 parts per 100,000"?

[tbone77]

When it comes to matters relating to the environment and atmosphere, most of us are totally desensitized and ignorant of the scientific data that exists. People who have a private financial stake in the status-quo of fossil fuel combustion are especially adverse to any notion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions may contribute significantly to rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere as seen in the scientific data since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

Outdoor CO2 concentration of 38 parts per 100,000 = 380 parts per million (ppm) = 0.03811% is not something that you should dismiss, considering how much higher that concentration is today than it was just 40 years ago (~320 ppm).

Just to put it in perspective for you, typical CO2 concentration outside is now roughly 380 ppm. Typical CO2 concentration inside is roughly 700 ppm. When inside CO2 concentrations reach 1200 ppm, that is considered poor indoor air quality for humans and pets (and moreso for canaries). CO2 can be directly toxic to humans in higher concentrations. Concentrations higher than 1,000 ppm will cause discomfort in some people. At 2,000 ppm a majority of people will develop nausea and headaches.

Carbon dioxide is relatively abundant compared to most other gases in the atmosphere, behind O2, N2 and Ar:
Nitrogen 78.0842%
Oxygen 20.9463%
Argon 0.93422%
Carbon dioxide 0.03811%
Water vapor about 1%
Other 0.002%

This Was Written in 1996.... (http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html)
>From its preindustrial level of about 280 ppmv (parts per million
by volume) around the year 1800, atmospheric carbon dioxide rose to
315 ppmv in 1958 and to about 358 ppmv in 1994. All the signs are that the CO2 rise is
human-made:

* Ice cores show that during the past 1000 years until about the year
1800, atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable at levels between 270 and
290 ppmv. The 1994 value of 358 ppmv is higher than any CO2 level
observed over the past 220,000 years. In the Vostok and Byrd ice
cores, CO2 does not exceed 300 ppmv. A more detailed record from
peat suggests a temporary peak of ~315 ppmv about 4,700 years ago,
but this needs further confirmation.

* The rise of atmospheric CO2 closely parallels the emissions history
from fossil fuels and land use changes.

* The rise of airborne CO2 falls short of the human-made CO2 emissions.
Taken together, the ocean and the terrestrial vegetation and soils
must currently be a net sink of CO2 rather than a source.

* Most "new" CO2 comes from the Northern Hemisphere. Measurements
in Antarctica show that Southern Hemisphere CO2 level lags behind
by 1 to 2 years, which reflects the interhemispheric mixing time.
The ppmv-amount of the lag at a given time has increased according
to increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

[Old White Guy]

When it comes to matters relating to the environment and atmosphere, most of us are totally desensitized and ignorant of the scientific data that exists. People who have a private financial stake in the status-quo of fossil fuel combustion are especially adverse to any notion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions may contribute significantly to rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere as seen in the scientific data since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

Outdoor CO2 concentration of 38 parts per 100,000 = 380 parts per million (ppm) = 0.03811% is not something that you should dismiss, considering how much higher that concentration is today than it was just 40 years ago (~320 ppm).

Just to put it in perspective for you, typical CO2 concentration outside is now roughly 380 ppm. Typical CO2 concentration inside is roughly 700 ppm. When inside CO2 concentrations reach 1200 ppm, that is considered poor indoor air quality for humans and pets (and moreso for canaries). CO2 can be directly toxic to humans in higher concentrations. Concentrations higher than 1,000 ppm will cause discomfort in some people. At 2,000 ppm a majority of people will develop nausea and headaches.

Carbon dioxide is relatively abundant compared to most other gases in the atmosphere, behind O2, N2 and Ar:
Nitrogen 78.0842%
Oxygen 20.9463%
Argon 0.93422%
Carbon dioxide 0.03811%
Water vapor about 1%
Other 0.002%

This Was Written in 1996.... (http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html)

?? Could you explain this in layman terms. It sounds interesting but confusing.

[philhos]

When it comes to matters relating to the environment and atmosphere, most of us are totally desensitized and ignorant of the scientific data that exists. People who have a private financial stake in the status-quo of fossil fuel combustion are especially adverse to any notion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions may contribute significantly to rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere as seen in the scientific data since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

And what about those (like Al Gore) with a vested financial interest in carbon credits or cabon taxes, etc?

And what about the 31,000+ scientists who have signed the petition stating that there is no man made global warming?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/18/31-000-scientists-rejecting-global-warming-theory-be-named-monday
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
http://www.petitionproject.org/

And what about the fact that when I was growing up in the late 70s, early 80s all the talk was about global cooling? Now it's global warming.

[barryllium]

And what about those (like Al Gore) with a vested financial interest in carbon credits or cabon taxes, etc?

And what about the 31,000+ scientists who have signed the petition stating that there is no man made global warming?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/18/31-000-scientists-rejecting-global-warming-theory-be-named-monday
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
http://www.petitionproject.org/

And what about the fact that when I was growing up in the late 70s, early 80s all the talk was about global cooling? Now it's global warming.

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/What-About-Bob-Poster-C10134431.jpeg

[philhos]

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/What-About-Bob-Poster-C10134431.jpeg

I can't believe I forgot to ask that question!!1 :rolleyes:

:thumbsup:

[HearUsRoar]

And what about those (like Al Gore) with a vested financial interest in carbon credits or cabon taxes, etc?

And what about the 31,000+ scientists who have signed the petition stating that there is no man made global warming?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/18/31-000-scientists-rejecting-global-warming-theory-be-named-monday
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
http://www.petitionproject.org/

And what about the fact that when I was growing up in the late 70s, early 80s all the talk was about global cooling? Now it's global warming.

:Clap:

Now THAT is a good example of some inconvenient truths!

[VCU Rams]

And what about those (like Al Gore) with a vested financial interest in carbon credits or cabon taxes, etc?

And what about the 31,000+ scientists who have signed the petition stating that there is no man made global warming?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/18/31-000-scientists-rejecting-global-warming-theory-be-named-monday
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
http://www.petitionproject.org/

And what about the fact that when I was growing up in the late 70s, early 80s all the talk was about global cooling? Now it's global warming.

I just read up on this American study and figured I would post their findings here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4495463.stm

The Earth is absorbing more energy from the Sun than it is giving back into space, according to a new study by climate scientists in the US. They base their findings on computer models of climate, and on measurements of temperature in the oceans.
The group describes its results as "the smoking gun that we were looking for", removing any doubt that human activities are warming the planet.


"This is almost unprecedented," said Gavin Schmidt. "The normal state of the atmosphere is that pretty much the same amount of energy that comes in leaves; and only when there are very large changes is that going to change. "Historically, those changes have happened very slowly; but what we are doing now is we are changing that imbalance at a rate which appears to be unprecedented over at least a thousand years and possibly longer."


Granted this does not provide really any proof, read the skeptical view portion at the bottom of the article.

I think the study still proves without a doubt that the atmosphere is out of balance and serious environmental changes are happening much more rapidly now than ever before.

[philhos]

I just read up on this American study and figured I would post their findings here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4495463.stm





Granted this does not provide really any proof, read the skeptical view portion at the bottom of the article.

I think the study still proves without a doubt that the atmosphere is out of balance and serious environmental changes are happening much more rapidly now than ever before.

The fact that they're looking for a "smoking gun" should show that they have an agenda and nothing they say or do should be trusted.

We need people (and I know they're out there) who are only looking for the truth. Not trying to find proof that man is causing global climate change or proof that man is NOT causing global climate change.

[barryllium]

The fact that they're looking for a "smoking gun" should show that they have an agenda and nothing they say or do should be trusted.

We need people (and I know they're out there) who are only looking for the truth. Not trying to find proof that man is causing global climate change or proof that man is NOT causing global climate change.

What are you talking about, Philhos? We have those people - GoldenArm9 and Sloppy Lombardi Slaps - they only give facts, and only want to find the truth. :sarcasm:

[philhos]

What are you talking about, Philhos? We have those people - GoldenArm9 and Sloppy Lombardi Slaps - they only give facts, and only want to find the truth. :sarcasm:

Yeah, how could I ever forget them? <_<

:lol:

[tbone77]

And what about those (like Al Gore) with a vested financial interest in carbon credits or cabon taxes, etc?

And what about the 31,000+ scientists who have signed the petition stating that there is no man made global warming?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/18/31-000-scientists-rejecting-global-warming-theory-be-named-monday
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
http://www.petitionproject.org/

And what about the fact that when I was growing up in the late 70s, early 80s all the talk was about global cooling? Now it's global warming.

What about them?

How many of them have published on the topic of climate science and climate modeling in the peer reviewed literature????

Yea right global cooling was huge in 1980. Like global warming & climate change today, industrialized nations were ready to seriously do something about it back then :sarcasm:

[jamiethelanky]

Even if there is no change, why not be safe and try to cool the world a little bit by using less greenhouse gases (that inevitably warm up the world, in turn proving man-made global warming). This is on the proviso that if not, the lakes of Siberia, currently frozen, will melt further (there has already been a 3 degree C rise in temperature this past decade) and the absolute masses of Methane underneath, a greenhouse gas 300x more insulating than CO2 will be released into the atmosphere.

Then we'd have nature finishing the job we'd started - world destruction.

[philhos]

What about them?

How many of them have published on the topic of climate science and climate modeling in the peer reviewed literature????

Truthfully, I don't know, but I could care less how much of their work was published and I care more about how much research they've actually done.

Are you as critical of those in support of global warming?

Yea right global cooling was huge in 1980. Like global warming & climate change today, industrialized nations were ready to seriously do something about it back then :sarcasm:

I can't say it was huge, but it was big enough to be mentioned constantly in one of the 1st Earth days I remember. There was a special on TV with Robin Williams and Whoopie Goldberg and other celebrities (and no, I'm not talking about that Comic Relief thing, either) and that was the biggest thing they mentioned, how there was global cooling and something needed to be done.

Now, I hear how there's global warming and something needs to be done (yet, I also hear that global temperatures have actualy decreased ever so slightly in the past 10 years, hmmm :hmm:).

Should global climate change be researched? No doubt.
Should the effect humanity has on climate change, if any be researched? No doubt.
Should laws be passed forcing changes on the populace without the benefit of mountains of research and some kind of overwhelming consensus? No.

[tbone77]

Truthfully, I don't know, but I could care less how much of their work was published and I care more about how much research they've actually done.

Are you as critical of those in support of global warming?

Absolutely. The only reasons I pay any attention to it is because there is a scientific consensus (the white house even acknowledges it nowadays). The scientific consensus is based on detailed climate studies published in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Newsweek, Newsmax, the Quarterly, don't qualify as scientific peer reviewed scientific literature. The consensus is also based on the reproducibility of studies by different scientists and their agreement on what's going on, what their climate models say, what the uncertainty is, etc.


I can't say it was huge, but it was big enough to be mentioned constantly in one of the 1st Earth days I remember. There was a special on TV with Robin Williams and Whoopie Goldberg and other celebrities (and no, I'm not talking about that Comic Relief thing, either) and that was the biggest thing they mentioned, how there was global cooling and something needed to be done.


Robin Williams and Whoopie Goldberg are comedians, not climate scientists.


Now, I hear how there's global warming and something needs to be done (yet, I also hear that global temperatures have actualy decreased ever so slightly in the past 10 years, hmmm :hmm:).


Their have been some minor peaks and valleys, but the trend since the industrial revolution is certainly (1) increasing mean global temperatures, (2) less ice (keep in mind it takes much more energy to melt a pound of ice than it does to warm a pound of water just 1 degree F, (3) significantly increasing CO2 concentrations throughout the climate and increased dissolved CO2 in the oceans.


Should global climate change be researched? No doubt.
Should the effect humanity has on climate change, if any be researched? No doubt.
Should laws be passed forcing changes on the populace without the benefit of mountains of research and some kind of overwhelming consensus? No.

I agree and we do have mountains of research and an overwhelming consensus. Even the Bush admin has pulled its head out of the sand on this topic. White House: Humans “Very Likely” Causing Warming (http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/29/white-house-humans-very-likely-causing-warming/).

However I will admit. Limbaugh and Hannity, however unscientific and uninformed on the topic as they are, are still far, far more influential than the overwhelming scientific consensus in the mind of U.S. citizens.