How much pollution does a car produce?

[Baron Hohenzollern]

We agree. I’ll also concede that the “validity of the majority” argument is not always valid, especially in the light of the examples you posted.

That is hardly a majority, or do you think the world has about 18,000 scientists? another preposterous notion.

Secondly why are they wrong? because you say so? hardly factual my friend. The tides change, at one point in time they all agreed that climate change is as a result of man...it's becoming far too embarrassing to propagate that claim because there isn't sufficient evidence to hold it.

The rest of your post is irrelevant drivel...and assumptions. Playing on the actual meaning of the thread topic while neglecting it's direct link with alleged "global warming as a result of emissions from greenhouse gasses" as is provided on the very first source in the opening post of this thread.

Irrelevant nonsense.

As for the large amounts of "factual evidence" there aren't any.

 

[Claymore]

Maybe the answer can be found here... Have a look...

Gasoline

It seems to me it depends on the weight of the atoms C, H and O
Maybe Claymore should ask his chemics wife, she should be able to produce the answer without doubt...

Umm...well done. You can google! (And the link seems correct too, even better).

 

[BCO]

That is hardly a majority, or do you think the world has about 18,000 scientists? another preposterous notion.

Secondly why are they wrong? because you say so? hardly factual my friend. The tides change, at one point in time they all agreed that climate change is as a result of man...it's becoming far too embarrassing to propagate that claim because there isn't sufficient evidence to hold it.

The rest of your post is irrelevant drivel...and assumptions. Playing on the actual meaning of the thread topic while neglecting it's direct link with alleged "global warming as a result of emissions from greenhouse gasses" as is provided on the very first source in the opening post of this thread.

Irrelevant nonsense.

As for the large amounts of "factual evidence" there aren't any.

OK, so I guess what you're saying is that you're not willing to engage in meaningful debate, and would rather just play at **** slinging. Frankly, I'm struggling to comprehend what you even said in this post, but what is clear is that you're not willing to answer my question directly.

 

[BCO]

In the absence of an explicit statement of the Baron’s views on climate change, I’ll just respond directly to the claims he's made and the links he's posted in this thread.


Global warming being experienced at the moment is part of a natural cycle.

Rebuttal.

While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural -- or even mostly natural -- have two challenges.
First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause.
Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?
The mainstream climate science community has provided a well-developed, internally consistent theory that accounts for the effects we are now observing. It provides explanations and makes predictions. Where is the skeptic community's model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing, like the Milankovich cycles that controlled the ice ages (a fine historical example of a dramatic and regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic)?

 

[BCO]

Mars is warming too, so climate change is not man-made.

Simple version.

Warming on another planet would be an interesting coincidence, but it would not necessarily be driven by the same causes.
The only relevant factor the earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming were real and related, that would be the logical place to look. As it happens, the sun is being watched and measured carefully back here on earth, and it is not the primary cause of current climate change.

More complicated article.

Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data….

Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth.

 

[BCO]

The Baron then linked some stuff about The Great Global Warming Swindle.

I linked 2 rebuttals, but I’ll do it again with some text, because he neglected to comment. While the article contains counter-arguments to the claims made in The Great Global Warming Swindle, the part that I find most interesting about The Great Global Warming Swindle is the rather dodgy tactics of the show’s producers.

Swindled!

We were hoping for important revelations and final proof that we have all been hornswoggled by the climate Illuminati, but it just repeated the usual specious claims we hear all the time. We feel swindled. Indeed we are not the only ones: Carl Wunsch (who was a surprise addition to the cast) was apparently misled into thinking this was going to be a balanced look at the issues (the producers have a history of doing this), but who found himself put into a very different context indeed [Update: a full letter from Wunsch appears as comment 109 on this post

In case you don’t want to read the full article or read Dr. Wunsch’s letter, let me quote from it:

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why
many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples,
it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one:
a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only
a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to
infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning
meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases
are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director
not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.

Here’s the other rebuttal I linked previously which remained uncommented on by the Baron.

The Great Global Warming Swindler's List

Again, this article features scientific rebuttals to the movie’s claims, but again, it sheds some light on the unscrupulous nature of the filmmakers.

The writer/director of the film, Martin Durkin, admits to changing the C4 graph. The original had data up to 1980s which new data refutes and Durkin said that he extended the time line to 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said. Fluff indeed. The charts from NASA’s website show greater warming since 1975 than in the period between 1900 to 1940. Another thing pointed out in the article by Steve Connor in The Independent is:

“The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention....

"....Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which was first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument. Mr Durkin also used a schematic graph of temperatures over the past 1,000 years that was at least 16 years old. This graph gave the impression that today's temperatures are cooler than during the medieval warm period. If he had used a more recent, and widely available, composite graph it would have shown average temperatures far exceed the past 1,000 years.”

 

[BCO]

Volcanoes and the oceans emit more CO2 than all the world’s cars.

O rly?

Not only is this false, it couldn't possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of spikes -- one for each eruption. Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.

And some more.

One point that is also worth making is that although volcanoes release some CO2 into the atmosphere, this is completely negligable compared to anthropogenic emissions (about 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources) . However, over very long times scales (millions of years), variations in vulcanism are important for the eventual balance of the carbon cycle, and may have helped kick the planet out of a 'Snowball Earth' state in the Neo-proterozoic 750 million years ago.

Regarding the oceans, they ABSORB CO2, not emit it.

From National Geographic.

Scientists who undertook the first comprehensive look at ocean storage of carbon dioxide found that the world's oceans serve as a massive sink that traps the greenhouse gas.
The researchers say the oceans' removal of the carbon dioxide from Earth's atmosphere has slowed global warming.
But in a second, related study, scientists say the sink effect is now changing ocean chemistry. The resulting change has slowed growth of plankton, corals, and other invertebrates that serve as the most basic level of the ocean food chain. The impacts on marine life could be severe, scientists say.

From Harvard Magazine. The oceans currently absorb man-made C02, but may release it in about 500 years’ time.

Of all the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted into the atmosphere, one quarter is taken up by land plants, another quarter by the oceans. Understanding these natural mechanisms is important in forecasting the rise of atmospheric CO2 because even though plants and bodies of water now absorb surplus greenhouse gas, they could become new trouble spots. The ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere in an attempt to reach equilibrium by direct air-to-sea exchange.

 

[BCO]

There is a growing body of scientists who dispute anthropogenic climate change.

Here’s an interesting article that highlights a lot of the misinformation that’s going around regarding this point. They specifically speak about the Hudson Institute “study” featured on WorldNet Daily.

I downloaded the PDF of the study and took a quick scan of who these 500 scientists were. A few familiar names popped up. The first of which is the weather channels Heidi Cullen from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO). She is listed as publishing skeptical material which is kind of peculiar since she made newspaper headlines for chastising skeptics on her blog..

Obviously there are some pretty major flaws with the Hudson's consensus debunking study. Despite this, I kept on scanning the document. Apparently almost half of the contributors to realclimate.org are skeptics:

Gavin A. Schmidt, University of Virginia
Michael E. Mann, University of Massachusetts
Thibeault De Garidel-Thoron, Rutgers University
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany
The Hudson Institute did have a curious disclaimer though:
The List of More Than 500 Scientists Documenting Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares**
**Citation of the work of the following scientists does not imply that they necessarily support our conclusions.
At this point I'm literally left speechless. This report is claiming that some of the ardent supporters of the consensus on climate change are publishing consensus debunking work.

 

[BCO]

I’d also like to ask you, Baron about the ideological motivations of the climate science community who advocate anthropgenic climate change. Why would they want to create this conspiracy?
A Digg comment I read sums it up nicely, I think:

OK, it's time to come clean. I'm actually a climate scientist, and I have to confess that there is no evidence for global warming. We made the whole thing up. One day, a bunch of us scientists were hanging out in our mansions, drinking champagne, and discussing ways to undermine capitalism. The evolution scam was going better than anyone had expected, and we were on top of the world. Perhaps we got greedy. Someone suggested this whole "global warming" thing and we just decided to go with it. The international union of scientists sent out a memo to every scientist in every country of the world that said we're all gonna pretend the Earth is warming and scare the public into giving us even more funding. It sounded pretty funny, nobody thought it would work, but people actually bought it! That is, except for a small group of uneducated right wingers who were able to see through our nefarious plan from the beginning. So far it's been going pretty well, I myself have just bought my second yacht. The democrats were on board from the beginning, they thought this was an excellent way to finally destroy America, but those damn republicans said there was no way they would support lying to the American public for political and monetary gain. I'm sorry everybody, there's no global warming, there's no reason to change the way you live or even think about using less gas. We were just lying, for research funding, which for some reason actually goes into our pockets and isn't used to fund research at all. I'm sorry Goracle, I can't do this anymore.

Looking at your links, it’s pretty clear who really has idealogical agendas here.
Worldnet Daily is a known US conservative publication, and it’s no secret that American Neocons have huge vested interests in the fossil fuel industry.
This vaunted publication’s had a lot of quality reporting in the past, like the story about how eating soy turns boys gay, or the column that tried to advocate that only whites should be allowed into the USA as immigrants.
The studies mentioned in the WND articles you linked are equally dubious. The one study was funded by the Hudson Institute, conservative think tank. The Hudson Institute gets its funding mostly from corporate giants like Exxon Mobil and DuPont – not likely that they’re going to be critical of anthropogenic climate change.
Extensively cited in your WND article, is S. Fred Singer.

In 1994 Singer was Chief Reviewer of the published report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution… the report attacked the United States Environmental Protection Agency for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking and called it "junk science"

Clearly, this Singer’s a top-class scientist.

Finally, let me mention the article that was part of the anti-Kyoto agreement petition the Baron linked. Go here for some info on the shortcomings of this paper. It's worth mentioning that the paper was published in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons, a very non-standard venue for climate science papers, and also with strong conservative ties.

I hope you actually take some time to read all this, Baron Hohenzollern, before you label it as “irrelevant drivel,” “assumptions” and “nonsense.” Maybe you need to re-examine who’s “flocking with the sheep” and who’s capable of looking at things “from a more clinical point of view.”

If you'd like to learn more, look here and here. I doubt you'll find any argument that's skeptical of man-made climate change that isn't thouroughly dealt with in these two pages.

 

[Baron Hohenzollern]

Volcanoes and the oceans emit more CO2 than all the world’s cars.

1. I did comment on the "rebuttle" you linked, which really isn't a rebuttle at all.

2. I said greenhouse gasses, not CO2. You forgot it's omissions of.

The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H20), followed by carbon dioxide (C02) and sulfur dioxide (S02). Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He).

Perhaps if you stop being a tv jockey, you'd distinguish between the CO2 and Greenhouse gasses.

It's funny that one should lecture us on the use of greenhouse gas and yet not know what it is.

Regarding the oceans, they ABSORB CO2, not emit it.

Again GREENHOUSE GAS!

Your a clown, and because you don't know what exactly it is you're fighting for, there is no need in my bothering to even answer the next post.

Interesting...it seems Pluto is also on a Global Warming scale.

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists

Oh no, Jupiter too?

New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change

Darn humans! heating up all the planetary systems at the same time!

 

[BCO]

1. I did comment on the "rebuttle" you linked, which really isn't a rebuttle at all.

2. I said greenhouse gasses, not CO2. You forgot it's omissions of.


Perhaps if you stop being a tv jockey, you'd distinguish between the CO2 and Greenhouse gasses.

It's funny that one should lecture us on the use of greenhouse gas and yet not know what it is.




Again GREENHOUSE GAS!

Your a clown, and because you don't know what exactly it is you're fighting for, there is no need in my bothering to even answer the next post.

Interesting...it seems Pluto is also on a Global Warming scale.

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists

Oh no, Jupiter too?

New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change

Darn humans! heating up all the planetary systems at the same time!

Wow, is that the best you can do... a little more name-calling, a half-assed little squirm as you attempt to wiggle out of the corner you're in and that's about it.

Regarding greenhouse gases and volcanoes, only CO2 and water vapour are greenhouses gases emitted by volcanoes. Water vapour is the most common greenhouse gas, and yes there's more water vapour released into the atmosphere from the oceans than there are anthropogenic greenhouse gases, but that's no argument at all against anthropogenic climate change. The earth requires greenhouse gases to sustain life, the natural occurance of water vapour and CO2 are good, but the point is that all the extra greenhouse gases people emit (specifically CO2 and methane), are tipping the balance of acceptable greenhouse gas limits and raising temperatures.

WRT the post about Mars, if you clicked the links I posted, you'll see the one article discusses Pluto as well, while there are discussions about Jupiter in the comments of both articles. The point is this - it's completely plausible that climate change is occuring on other planets. This doesn't mean the reasons are the same for each planet.

Next time before you start calling names, how about you provide at least one decent answer?

Where's your answer about the info on The Great Global Warming Swindle's dishonest filmmakers?

Where's you retort about the misinformation posted by the Right Wing media you referred to?

How do you explain how an independant scientific community allegedly has an agenda, while the scientists you refer to are on Big Oil's payroll?

Fact is, unless you can actually say something intelligent, I suggest you keep quiet - you're just embarrassing youself.

 

[Baron Hohenzollern]

Wow, is that the best you can do... a little more name-calling, a half-assed little squirm as you attempt to wiggle out of the corner you're in and that's about it.

You talk good BlueCollar, but talk is cheap, you may theorize on the possibilities, but here are the facts.

Mars - Hotter
Pluto - Hotter
Jupiter - Hotter

We've established all three of these facts.

Global Warming Detected on Triton

Study says sun getting hotter

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame


We've now added Triton to the list and the Sun itself...Theorize on emissions and man made disasters all you want, these are the facts. Explain these minor coincidences that happen in sync with Earth itself.

I care little for your theories. Because that's all that Man Made climate change is. It's all hot air from a buffoon.

I have my facts, I have various planetary systems heating up in sync with that of Earth. You have nothing but hot air, baseless assumptions and theoretical hogwash.

The point is this - it's completely plausible that climate change is occuring on other planets. This doesn't mean the reasons are the same for each planet.

You think so do you? That's a particularly strange argument to make, do explain how Earth is not effected by events occuring in the Solar system? I would like to know, no....THE READERS HERE...would like to know, how Earth is exempt from Solar occurances? How is it that Earth is not effected by occurances in the Solar system.

 

[BCO]

You talk good BlueCollar, but talk is cheap, you may theorize on the possibilities, but here are the facts.

Mars - Hotter
Pluto - Hotter
Jupiter - Hotter

We've established all three of these facts.

Global Warming Detected on Triton

Study says sun getting hotter

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame


We've now added Triton to the list and the Sun itself...Theorize on emissions and man made disasters all you want, these are the facts. Explain these minor coincidences that happen in sync with Earth itself.

I care little for your theories. Because that's all that Man Made climate change is. It's all hot air from a buffoon.

I have my facts, I have various planetary systems heating up in sync with that of Earth. You have nothing but hot air, baseless assumptions and theoretical hogwash.



You think so do you? That's a particularly strange argument to make, do explain how Earth is not effected by events occuring in the Solar system? I would like to know, no....THE READERS HERE...would like to know, how Earth is exempt from Solar occurances? How is it that Earth is not effected by occurances in the Solar system.

You haven't read what I posted, have you? My post #45 - in the first quote there's a link that goes here. On that page are links to here and here
.

According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.

From your own article.

Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.

He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.

"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said.

 

[Mr TB]

You haven't read what I posted, have you? My post #45 - in the first quote there's a link that goes here. On that page are links to here and here
.


From your own article.

Apparently the excess gas the greens claims cause global heating is actually irrelevant...

The saying goes..."Ones animals are treated like humans, humans will be treated like animals"... Hitler's regime is a good example...
#38 Edit Fearisgood...... die maanlanding? wel ek betwyfel nie vir 'n oomblik dat die Amerikaners wel daarin geslaag het nie...
Ek glo egter dat sulke dinge deur swendelary betwyfel sal word in die toekoms, soos die "holocaust" bv...

 

[BCO]

Apparently the excess gas the greens claims cause global heating is actually irrelevant...

What are you talking about, exactly?

 

[Baron Hohenzollern]

You haven't read what I posted, have you? My post #45 - in the first quote there's a link that goes here. On that page are links to here and here
.


From your own article.

The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity,

Is that man made?

Using a source I gave you to indicate inconsistencies in your theory, doesn't make a difference, I am well aware of what the "sciences say about it" in the link I provided, do I care? no it's irrelevant.

His opinion that the sun does not effect global warming is grossly contradicted by the various planetary systems affected by this phenomena.

So unless you can give me a better explanation to this question

You think so do you? That's a particularly strange argument to make, do explain how Earth is not effected by events occuring in the Solar system? I would like to know, no....THE READERS HERE...would like to know, how Earth is exempt from Solar occurances? How is it that Earth is not effected by occurances in the Solar system.

I care very little.

 

[Baron Hohenzollern]

His opinion that the sun does not effect global warming is grossly contradicted by the various planetary systems affected by this phenomena..

Researchers have managed to replicate the effect of cosmic rays on the aerosols in the atmosphere that help to create clouds. Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist in Denmark, said the experiments suggested that man’s influence on global warming might be rather less than was supposed by the bulk of scientific opinion.

Cosmic rays — radiation, or particles of energy, from stars, which bombard the Earth — can create electrically charged ions in the atmosphere that act as a magnet for water vapour, causing clouds to form.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1368920.ece

I'd say the sun being historically hotter than it's been in the past 400 years, definitely effects the solar system. Since the sun is synonymous with cosmic rays.

 

[BCO]

Is that man made?

Using a source I gave you to indicate inconsistencies in your theory, doesn't make a difference, I am well aware of what the "sciences say about it" in the link I provided, do I care? no it's irrelevant.

His opinion that the sun does not effect global warming is grossly contradicted by the various planetary systems affected by this phenomena.

So unless you can give me a better explanation to this question



I care very little.

Keep ducking and diving buddy. Nobody said anything about the earth being exempt from solar occurances. The sun's impact on the earth is undeniable. The point is that since the 1950s we've had pretty reliable solar activity information (even more so since satellite monitoring came about in the late 70's) and there's been no change in solar activity despite temperature rises on earth and other planets.

*edit* some info on Svensmark

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...imatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

At RealClimate, we've often criticised press releases that we felt gave misleading impressions of the underlying work and lead to confused, and sometimes erroneous, headlines, but this example is by far the most blatant extrapolation-beyond-reasonableness that we've seen.

*edit*

 

[Mr TB]

Keep ducking and diving buddy. Nobody said anything about the earth being exempt from solar occurances. The sun's impact on the earth is undeniable. The point is that since the 1950s we've had pretty reliable solar activity information (even more so since satellite monitoring came about in the late 70's) and there's been no change in solar activity despite temperature rises on earth and other planets.

*edit* some info on Svensmark

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...imatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/

Did anyone refer to this article yet?
here

 

[Baron Hohenzollern]

there's been no change in solar activity

Seems to be one ongoing right now....

The Modern Maximum refers to the ongoing period of relatively high solar activity that began circa 1950. This period is a natural example of solar variation, and one of many that are known from proxy records of past solar variability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maximum

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/s/summaries/solarmwp.jsp

http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aa7704-07.pdf

So much for that theory.