Here's a cool NASA link:

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd14jul97_1.htm

 

The rest is correspondance with a friend:

The global warming guy was an idiot. He was a smart guy presenting flawed

arguments. Did you ever watch bowling for columbine? After it you

absorbed all of this propaganda at once, but you cannot disprove it yet,

and the more time you have to think, the more and more you start noticing

the arguments presented were bad.

 

The pro global warming adovocate said man is DEFINITELY changing world

termperature. His evidence was:

1. The earth according to surface temperature since the year 1800 went up

a big 1 degree celsius.

2. He drilled 4 holes in the earth and using an unproven temperature

taking method said the world went up .5 degrees celsius in the last 200

years.

3. He analyzed the amount of CO2 gas and oxygen isotopes trapped his

glacial ice and determined throughout history as temperature went up, CO2

did.

 

Pertaining to 3, if man didn't have indusrial capabilities until 150 years

ago, then how did the co2 level change? It appears that is global

temperature that effects global co2, not the other way around. His very

own graph proves this, because throughout history global CO2 was in a

certain proportion with heat, and then all of the sudden man comes around,

releases 4 times the CO2 there was before, but global temperature does not

rise according to the CO2 proportion. I'll tell you why, natural CO2 has

also probably rised because for unrelated reasons, global temperature has

risen making some CO2 go up, and because we introduced so much CO2 and

global temperature appears indifferent to the current proportion, that

only means that global temperature CANNOT be affected significantly by

CO2, otherwise it would follow previous proportions in the past.

 

4. Global water levels have risen since the year 1700, but one the ice

age has been over for 12000 years, stuff is going to melt and two the

methods of measuring water level at the year 1700 were poor at best.

 

What a load of bologna. 4 holes that contradict with surface temperature

and are most probably not accounting for true temperature change, flawed

surface readings, flawed glacial readings, and flawed ocean level readings

don't prove anything! It doesn't take a PHD in geophysics to know that.

 

Oh well, when I said that anartica has more ice now than in 1975, he said,

"Oh that's because of global warming", yet he lied throughout his

presentation and said that the global ices caps were getting smaller. So

wait, if it getting thicker would be the result of global warming, by that

logic them getting smaller would be the result of global cooling? Am I

the only person on earth that doesn't feel this is ridiculous?

 

They stopped questions after mine, before I was able to argue about the

previous points and tropospheric satellite readings.

Global Warming is not a lie, it is a reality. Whether some people want to deny its existance, CO2 is on the rise again and if you know what this means, you know it does have an effect in the atmosphere.

 

Scientists on Hawaii's Mauna Loa, two miles above the Pacific Ocean, have recorded a steady increase in the global concentration of CO2 since 1958. The zigzag pattern reflects the seasonal growth and dieback of plants, which soak up prodigious amounts of CO2 during spring and summer. A century ago CO2 measured 280 parts per million, according human activities such as burning fossil fuels. Most believe the rising CO2 Level will lead to higher global temperatures and significant climate change.

LINK

 

One thing that people don't understand is that this "Global Warming Catastrophe" will not happen in our lifetimes, but that doesn't mean it is ok for us to continue to contaminate the environment with CO2 so future generations can inherit a dead planet.

 

There are certain things some scientists are starting to find out, which is helping to slow the global warming process and it is the reason why the scientists in the 70's were wrong by so many years. The ocean and the trees are soaking up a big chunk of the "extra" CO2 we are producing. However, they contend that it is uncertain for how long and how much can nature adjust to our continuous efforts to pollute it.

 

This is why, even if global warming is not and "imminent" threat, it doesn't mean it is ok to continue polluting the earth. It is a fact, that "acid Rain" is a direct effect of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions. Also, our water is completely contaminated with DDT and other pollutants, this is FACT.

 

If you feel ok because you will not suffer the consequences of your actions, then continue your usual polluting activities... I just have too much of a social conscience I guess...

There are certain things some scientists are starting to find out, which is helping to slow the global warming process and it is the reason why the scientists in the 70's were wrong by so many years. The ocean and the trees are soaking up a big chunk of the "extra" CO2 we are producing. However, they contend that it is uncertain for how long and how much can nature adjust to our continuous efforts to pollute it.

Furthermore, smog and volcanic eruptions technically block sunlight, which makes global cooling, or so the theory says.

 

Anyway, in response to the findings in hawaii, all that it proves that increased co2 is true, but it doesn't prove CO2 actually is the main global warming agent. My response to this:

He analyzed the amount of CO2 gas and oxygen isotopes trapped his

glacial ice and determined throughout history as temperature went up, CO2

did.

 

Pertaining to 3, if man didn't have indusrial capabilities until 150 years

ago, then how did the co2 level change? It appears that is global

temperature that effects global co2, not the other way around. His very

own graph proves this, because throughout history global CO2 was in a

certain proportion with heat, and then all of the sudden man comes around,

releases 4 times the CO2 there was before, but global temperature does not

rise according to the CO2 proportion. I'll tell you why, natural CO2 has

also probably rised because for unrelated reasons, global temperature has

risen making some CO2 go up, and because we introduced so much CO2 and

global temperature appears indifferent to the current proportion, that

only means that global temperature CANNOT be affected significantly by

CO2, otherwise it would follow previous proportions in the past.

 

According to the data available, it is far more likely it is temperature that is not related to cO2 than CO2 not related to temperature. This means that though man is increasing the amount of CO2 drastically, temperature change is NOT drastic or proportional with past CO2 heat change correlations. This means that CO2 cannot be the main global warming culprit.

 

Is there another culprit? I'm no scientist, but from what I have heard there is evidence that changes in the sun create warmings and ice ages. So if it is not the amount of CO2 having a proportional and predicatable effect on global temperature, it is the sun.

 

Furthermore, NASA data indicates with all the increase in CO2, there has been in reality almost NO increase in temperature in the troposphere.

 

So man made global warming cannot be real in my honest opinion.

Correction. CO2 is the main agent responsible for the greenhouse effect.

 

CO2 causes the atmosphere to trap heat, preventing it from radiating into space. This is a scientific fact. Therefore, climate changes are in fact a consequence of greenhouse gases trapping heat in the atmosphere.

No, but the data is against what you just dogmatically asserted. if CO2 is the chief agent, how come it is debatable there has been NO temperature change and even models that do show temperature change show that the proportion of

CO2 would make the temperature FAR hOTTer than it is when compared to the historical record. Simple, co2 cannot be the chief agent. did you even read a word that I said?

No, but the data is against what you just dogmatically asserted. if CO2 is the chief agent, how come it is debatable there has been NO temperature change and even models that do show temperature change show that the proportion of

CO2 would make the temperature FAR hOTTer than it is when compared to the historical record. Simple, co2 cannot be the chief agent. did you even read a word that I said?

Because of what I stated above hon... This is something we owe to nature and the oceans. We may not live long enough to see it happen. CO2 does cause the greenhouse effect, we have just been lucky that at the rate this gas has been increasing the plants and the seas are trying (really hard btw) to pick it up... Just because we are not experiencing those changes right away, doesn't mean it is not happening. Read the must recent National Geographic Magazine (the one with two polar bears on the cover) they have a very interesting article on this whole issue, that proves your theory completely wrong.

I'm sure it doesn't because I jsut totally disproved the dean of the university of Utah's theory wrong.

 

Hon, it is a matter of simple proportions. The historical record shows very clear proportions of global warmth and CO2. For "some reason" since the industrial revolution, the proportion just got thrown out the window. Why? The only logical reason is that global temperature cannot be chiefly affected by CO2 concentration. It is impossible.

 

Furthermore, why don't you check non-biased satellite data which measures the temeprature of every square inch of the planet and THEN tell me if the earth is any warm. It's all hogwash. Again, this is the third time I reiterated the same thing, presented the same logical discrephancy(sp) for the whole global warming theory, and all I am told "well, cO2 does call global warming." Fine believe that and believe the ocean and what not counters some of it. However, this has been going on proportionally for years until the industrial revolution ebcause we're burning so much fossil fuels. Yet, the proportion I'm talking about totally disporves the idea that warming is directly the result of global warming concerntration.

[...]The emission of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels is the leading cause of the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which many people believe is the main culprit behind an increase in Earth's temperatures.

 

For a long time, scientists have known that forests, crops, soils, and other organic matter soak up some of that carbon, thereby slowing down the rate of global warming. Yet their calculations of how much carbon is absorbed have differed, in some cases significantly.

 

A team of scientists led by Stephen Pacala, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University in New Jersey, set out to resolve this discrepancy in calculations. Their research is reported in the June 22 issue of Science.[...]

National Geographic Society - The Carbon Sink

 

Try looking for unbiased info yourself...

Dude, can you read? The amount of carbon doesn't mean anything!

 

Proof from NASA:

 

 

Temperature is stable or down. CO2 is up. Use your imagination.

Unfortunately, you are not listening... I said, the greenhouse effect may take years to be noticed...

 

The Case of the Missing Carbon - National Geographic Magazine Feb 2004 issue

Well, a comet may hit the earth too. it's possible. However, no evidence as of yet proves what you are saying, you have the historical record against you. In reality, that mass icnrease of CO2 in theory should made the world FAR hotter, not coler like it is today.

Well, a comet may hit the earth too. it's possible. However, no evidence as of yet proves what you are saying, you have the historical record against you. In reality, that mass icnrease of CO2 in theory should made the world FAR hotter, not coler like it is today.

Okay I am tired of your endless bulls***. Grow up and take the facts without getting all personal about it.

 

Did you even hit the link? No you did not. Because you are afraid that you just may find out that you are wrong.

 

It is a fact, that CO2 is the cause of the greenhouse effect. It is happening as we speak. It is not like we are talking about a comet crashing earth some time that we don't know.... NO, we know it is happening. However, you fail to see that the scientists (real ones) are working day and night to figure out how long we have before this actually changes the face of the earth forever...

 

As I already explained, and linked before, plants and oceans are helping to delay the effect of this extra CO2... Read and drop the attitude, you just may learn something.

cyberlina, before you look foolish with yet another ad hominem argument, I don't care if trees are sucking up 700 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere. The fact remains that CO2 is still up EVERYWHERE on earth and the amount of CO2 that remains (because not all of it can be as you put it "recycled") should technically be causing a proportion of global warming that it is CERTAINLY NOT CAUSING.

 

All you do is reiterate that co2 does cause a greenhouse effect, but all unbiased data indicates that there hasn't been a greenhouse effect yet and your assumption is as good as a guess, and therefore I will not accept it.

 

There is almost no global temperature change according to satellite data, if not a COOLING of temperature. CO2 in the atmosphere after "recycling" is still HIGHER every year. Obviously, the correlation does not exist and you cannot prove that is does because it would be a contradiction.

 

I suggest you grow up and learn to read the writing on the wall.

 

NO, we know it is happening. However, you fail to see that the scientists (real ones) are working day and night to figure out how long we have before this actually changes the face of the earth forever...

Yeah, people from NASA aren't scientist. And what are you then?

Now seriously, look very closely at the following graph, from a pro-global warming webstie:

 

CO2 is definitely up, this is undeniable.

 

Now look at the earth's temperature at the same time:

 

 

Now are you telling me that 1. CO2 is not up and 2. That the amount of the CO2 directly effects global warming?

 

Absolutely ridiculous.

All you do is reiterate that co2 does cause a greenhouse effect, but all unbiased data indicates that there hasn't been a greenhouse effect yet and your assumption is as good as a guess, and therefore I will not accept it.

You see this is where I know you have no idea of what you are talking about...

 

The greenhouse effect does exist. Why? Simple, if it didn't exist, earth would be as cold or colder than the glaciers. The greenhouse effect is what makes the earth keep the heat that it needs... The problem is that an excess of the greenhouse gases can trap more heat than necessary and cause the global temperature to increase over time... Once again, you just pick a side and stick to it, no matter how idiotic or wrong it is.

this thread is stupid

I suggest you grow up and learn to read the writing on the wall.

yeah because obviously YOU did also right?