Global Warming is NOT caused by CO2!

[Destiny's Soldier]

Go into a room and have it filled with only Oxygen, or only Nitrogen, ... you wont live. Did the US supreme court classify Oxygen or Nitrogen as a pollutant?

Monbiot is stating the official IPCC line so Im not surprised by him at all. Its just rhetoric.

By the way: there are 90,000 published readings of atmospheric CO2 levels dating back to 1800, taken by the worlds most accomplised scientists, from all around the globle with atmospheric CO2 levels in the region of up to 490ppm. Some readings are more, some are less. Todays reading is 380ppm.

If someone is trying to tell me that a fractional increase (IPCC figures) of CO2 in the atmosphere of 1 in 10,000 is causing a crisis , then I am obliged to say no. I do not buy it.

Notice how much colder it feels when the Sun is obscured by clouds? With less cloud the planet will heat up. (We have less cloud) The oceans are up 1 deg Celcius in the last 30 years. Going up 1 deg will cause the Ocean to release about 60ppm of CO2 into the atmoshere. That explains where the rise in CO2 is coming from. What Humans do is irrelevant. 8 billion tonnes of CO2 go into the atmosphere annually from humans. 150 billion tonnes annually come from plants decaying the oceans, natural events such as volcanoes.

Im not the one to be pitied.

[corkman2007]

The people who want to propagate the myth that CO2 is driving climate change so that they can tax us must be ecstatic with masses lapping up the propaganda of Live Earth this weekend.

I can't believe people are so retarded.
There is no mechanism for CO2 to heat the planet the way it is claimed. It is simply a total and utter fraud.

95% of infra red heat energy trapped in the atmosphere is from H20 Vapour.
5% at an absolute max is from CO2.
5% of the 5% from CO2 is caused by Humans.
With CO2 at levels of 380ppm it is impossible to have any affect.

It is the increased irradiance of the Nuclear reactor in the sky called the Sun which is having an immediate affect on the planet.

Conserve energy, cut down on chemical emmissions yes. But CO2 itself is not a pollutant. It is essential for life. CO2 is a Plant Fertilizer for God sake!

The IPCC report is a fraud on scientific logic. It has become totally politicised to make the science fit the desired agenda. And anyone who asks too many questions or challenges their theory is labelled a type of Holocaust denier.

Oh Tax me my Government. I kneel before the alter of Kyoto and say we're not worthy. .. We I say NEVER. NEVER .NEVER! I will not lie down and listen to the lies.
You may herd the masses of the partially educated but you will not defeat Science.

I challenge anyone to put before us all here, the actual mechanism of CO2 heating the planet. Tell us Exactly how many extra milliwatts of enery is dissipated into the atmosphere by human contributions of CO2.

Guess who's been watching Channel 4? The Great Global Warming Swindle on which many flat-earthers, oops sorry anti-global warming swindlers, seem to rely has been discredited.

The only 'partially educated' people here are you and anybody who believes this nonsense.

Edit: rubbish deleted.

[Pidge]

Wingnut is an insult as is accusing him of lying. If he's wrong, demonstrate that.

Ah, I'm bored enough to wade in.

The people who want to propagate the myth that CO2 is driving climate change so that they can tax us must be ecstatic with masses lapping up the propaganda of Live Earth this weekend.

I'm not, it seems a little tokenistic.

I can't believe people are so retarded.

Charming.

There is no mechanism for CO2 to heat the planet the way it is claimed. It is simply a total and utter fraud.

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here. Let's go back to basics. The Earth keeps warm due the greenhouse effect. (I'm open to correction on any of this, by the by.) This effect - explained as simply as I know - is that certain gases in the atmosphere emit infared radiation when they come in contact with solar radiation (which comes from the Sun). This is why the Earth is kept warm. There are a variety of these gases (called "greenhouse gases"), one of which is carbon dioxide. This forms a very small part of the atmosphere (less than .5%). When humans emit carbon dioxide in huge quantities, they increase the amount of greenhouse gas. This, in turn, increases the infared radiation coming from the gases (because there are more gases). This infared heats up the Earth, causing global warming or climate change. As I said, I'm open to correction on the exact mechanics.

95% of infra red heat energy trapped in the atmosphere is from H20 Vapour.

I don't quite follow what you mean with this remarkably round number. Could you explanin? If you're referring to radiative forcing, if my reading of this paper is correct, it's about 60%.

5% at an absolute max is from CO2.

Again, I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you're referring to radiative forcing again, then it's 26%.

5% of the 5% from CO2 is caused by Humans.

I really don't get what you mean. Could you perhaps clarify, or, even better, provide a source?

With CO2 at levels of 380ppm it is impossible to have any affect.

The levels are slightly higher than that, but you'd have to explain why such a change is "impossible". Even if you did that, you'd have to explain why global warming would be impossible at higher levels (since we're increasing those levels).

It is the increased irradiance of the Nuclear reactor in the sky called the Sun which is having an immediate affect on the planet.

I presume that you're referring to the fuss created by a poorly-researched Telegraph article on the topic. It quoted a study done by some scientists in the Max Planck Society as evidence of the Sun being responsible for global warming. This press release ("solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming") by the scientists should clear that up.

Conserve energy, cut down on chemical emmissions yes. But CO2 itself is not a pollutant. It is essential for life. CO2 is a Plant Fertilizer for God sake!

There's little point in arguing whether something's a pollutant or not. It's equally pointless to say that CO2 brings life. Our increased CO2 emissions are causing atmospheric warming - that's a problem.

The IPCC report is a fraud on scientific logic. It has become totally politicised to make the science fit the desired agenda. And anyone who asks too many questions or challenges their theory is labelled a type of Holocaust denier.

Well, I don't think that the Holocaust denial label is entirely inaccurate (it is a bit sensationalist, however). Holocaust deniers tend to be people with an ulterior motive. Generally, they tend to dislike Jews. Similarly, scientists who doubt global warming generally like fossil fuel companies. Indeed, the only scientific society which doesn't accept the anthropogenic theory is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Figures.

Oh Tax me my Government. I kneel before the alter of Kyoto and say we're not worthy. .. We I say NEVER. NEVER .NEVER! I will not lie down and listen to the lies.

(Do I need to respond to this JC?)

You may herd the masses of the partially educated but you will not defeat Science.

I challenge anyone to put before us all here, the actual mechanism of CO2 heating the planet. Tell us Exactly how many extra milliwatts of enery is dissipated into the atmosphere by human contributions of CO2.

I hope that I've dealt with that above.

[SPN]

Go into a room and have it filled with only Oxygen, or only Nitrogen, ... you wont live. Did the US supreme court classify Oxygen or Nitrogen as a pollutant?

Monbiot is stating the official IPCC line so Im not surprised by him at all. Its just rhetoric.

By the way: there are 90,000 published readings of atmospheric CO2 levels dating back to 1800, taken by the worlds most accomplised scientists, from all around the globle with atmospheric CO2 levels in the region of up to 490ppm. Some readings are more, some are less. Todays reading is 380ppm.

If someone is trying to tell me that a fractional increase (IPCC figures) of CO2 in the atmosphere of 1 in 10,000 is causing a crisis , then I am obliged to say no. I do not buy it.

Notice how much colder it feels when the Sun is obscured by clouds? With less cloud the planet will heat up. (We have less cloud) The oceans are up 1 deg Celcius in the last 30 years. Going up 1 deg will cause the Ocean to release about 60ppm of CO2 into the atmoshere. That explains where the rise in CO2 is coming from. What Humans do is irrelevant. 8 billion tonnes of CO2 go into the atmosphere annually from humans. 150 billion tonnes annually come from plants decaying the oceans, natural events such as volcanoes.

Im not the one to be pitied.

Nope, you're the one to be laughed at!



(Just wait 'til Pax gets here 8) )

[JCSkinner]

Yeah, please do respond to that, Pidge. Just to be comprehensive, like.

[Destiny's Soldier]

Yes I watched the C4 documentary. Big deal. So I read a few books. So I did a Science Degree. So I know what an Infra Red Spectrum of the Air Looks like. Guess what? Its smothered in absorbtions from water vapour.

Yes those opposing the C4 documentary are going to discredit it. To be expected. It doesnt mean the C4 documentary is factually inaccurate in its central argument.

[Pidge]

Yes I watched the C4 documentary. Big deal. So I read a few books. So I did a Science Degree. So I know what an Infra Red Spectrum of the Air Looks like. Guess what? Its smothered in absorbtions from water vapour.

This post reads best if read in an Italian-American Mafioso accent and finished with "Quit breakin' my balls, Lou"

Yeah, please do respond to that, Pidge. Just to be comprehensive, like.

:P

[SPN]

It doesnt mean the C4 documentary is factually inaccurate in its central argument.

It is TOTALLY inaccurate in its "central argument"!

Total, utter and complete bo!!ocks is probably an understatement.




JC. The people peddling this line of twaddle are the same people who peddled the "Larnaca will be nuked in 45 minutes if we don't murder a few hundred thousand Iraqis" line of nonsense.

How many times does their selfserving WingNut bullsh!t have to be shown to be selfserving WingNut bullsh!t before you begin to relise that there is a pattern going on here?

[Odyessus]

It doesnt mean the C4 documentary is factually inaccurate in its central argument.

It is TOTALLY inaccurate in its "central argument"!

Total, utter and complete bo!!ocks is probably an understatement.




JC. The people peddling this line of twaddle are the same people who peddled the "Larnaca will be nuked in 45 minutes if we don't murder a few hundred thousand Iraqis" line of nonsense.

How many times does their selfserving WingNut bullsh!t have to be shown to be selfserving WingNut bullsh!t before you begin to relise that there is a pattern going on here?

There's a pattern all right. Every time adults try to debate the issue seriously, you jump in your idiotic "wingnut" nonsense. Please go to bed and leave the conversation to adults.

[Sidewinder]

Please go to bed and leave the conversation to adults.

Care to elaborate on why exactly you think spending a few trillion to eliminate the West's dependence on a finite mineral resource largely located in unstable regions of the planet by, ummm, switching to becoming dependent on a finite mineral resource largely located in unstable regions of the planet is such a good idea?