Global Warming

[Ghost of Jaco]

Like I said, you can't fix stupid.  The overwhelming empirical evidence clearly supports my position despite your inability to understand it or your choice to remain willfully ignorant.

Ridicule neither makes you appear smart nor bolsters your argument,  but it does make appear a boorish ass. If you cannot disagree without being disagreeable, then it is YOU who afflicted with the stupid that cannot be fixed.

Trotting out the same old, tired, inane arguments doesn't help your assertions either. 

You are doing the same, and it doesn't help your assertions either.

The so-called ice age predicted in the 70's was never generally accepted by the scientific community nor did anyone ever suggest that acid rain would 'destroy' the planet...

Turnabout being fair play, please provide peer-reviewed citations for the above assertions.
Aside to Henry: I bet he/she/it cannot provide such.

Additionally, I no more care about a biologist's opinion on global warming than I would want the advice of a proctologist to treat a brain tumor although I will admit that the latter would seem appropriate in your case.

What a coincidence: I feel the same about your opinion.

Now the ball's in your court...do you choose to continue to deny the obvious and paint yourself as uninformed or are you willing to read the information at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm ?  If history is any indication, my guess is you'll stick with ignorance.

There's nothing "obvious" about the cause of global warming or if it is even occurring; nor is it obvious what it may mean for the climate of the planet. Indeed, even among climatologists there is not universal agreement on the subject.
There is interesting material at the the link that you provided. Of course, the material is provided by people who make their living providing global warming "evidence". I imagine the buggy-whip makers had pretty good arguments for their cause when the age of the automobile began.


Some things I consider when contemplating global warming:
The temperature (and climate) of the earth is "controlled" by the the nearest star to the earth, the sun. Solar activity and the distance between the earth and the sun are by FAR the biggest contributors to "climate change". Don't believe that? Then tell me: what causes the changing seasons on this planet?

The earth's orbit around the sun is not static. It varies, plus the earth "wobbles" a bit on it's axis, causing different parts of the earth to receive more or less sunlight during a given period. And then there's precession (go look it up, there's not enough space here to explain it adequately).

Climatologists are not astronomers nor cosmologists, so their understanding of the above may be inadequate.

"Big Al the environment's pal" is making a KILLING off of the global warming panic (and so are a lot of other people). There's less altruism in this cause that one might assume. Oh, and Big All is not a climatologist either, btw.

A single volcano eruption produces more CO2 then ALL of the cars, boats, planes, trains, etc. that humans have built.
Thanks to Bo for correcting my misunderstanding. -GoJ

Carbon, whether "footprinted" or contained in a gas such as CO2, is not inherently bad. In fact it is the most common element in the known universe and required for life of any kind to exist on this planet. 
Henry has discovered that the same wiki awol uses to refute this assertion reports both carbon and hydrogen as being the most abundant element in the known universe - GoJ
According to this sources found by Bo, carbon either doesn't exist because there is only hydrogen and helium in the universe, or carbon is the 6th most abundant element relative to silicon(?). Since the matter is in dispute, I will strike this assertion as well.-GoJ

The earth has been around some 4.5 billion years and has undergone and continues to undergo climate changes in cycles or patterns, and linearly, too, for that matter. So I am certain that the climate of the earth is indeed changing: a perfectly natural process that has been occurring for billions of years and we most likely cannot do anything about.
Does that mean that I think we should "trash" the planet? Nope, not at  all. Neither should we give up our freedoms (and our incomes) in a blind panic.


I welcome your thoughts on the above as long as you can discuss them like an adult rather than a petulant twelve-year-old.
Otherwise, don't bother; just continue to be confused as to why it's dark all around you and smells like your bathroom.

-GoJ

[Ghost of Jaco]

so, you agree that the gov't needs money for "programs", military, and infrastructure.  these things cost a predictable ammount of money each year.  so if the gov't takes in less money...?

(i ignored the rest of your post, as it is nothing but a false dichotomy)

Of course I agree that the gov't needs money for necessary things ("Provide for the common defence...").
I'm not getting your point, awol, perhaps you could clarify it for me?

False dichotomy? How so?

[Bo D]

A single volcano eruption produces more CO2 then ALL of the cars, boats, planes, trains, etc. that humans have built.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

"Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"

Volcanoes = 255 million tons annually
Humans = 30 BILLION tons

"Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea"

[Ghost of Jaco]

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

"Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"

Volcanoes = 255 million tons annually
Humans = 30 BILLION tons

"Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea"

Ok, I withdraw that assertion. Thanks for doing the research and correcting me, Bo. I may have been thinking about the explosion of Krakatoa, as I remembered that (non-)factoid from a discussion that particular historical event.

See also, "Carbon, whether "footprinted" or contained in a gas such as CO2, is not inherently bad. In fact it is the most common element in the known universe and required for life of any kind to exist on this planet."

[Bo D]

Ok, I withdraw that assertion. Thanks for doing the research and correcting me, Bo. I may have been thinking about the explosion of Krakatoa, as I remembered that (non-)factoid from a discussion that particular historical event.

See also, "Carbon, whether "footprinted" or contained in a gas such as CO2, is not inherently bad. In fact it is the most common element in the known universe and required for life of any kind to exist on this planet."

Just keepin' it honest, Dude!

[Bo D]

Ok, I withdraw that assertion. Thanks for doing the research and correcting me, Bo. I may have been thinking about the explosion of Krakatoa, as I remembered that (non-)factoid from a discussion that particular historical event.

See also, "Carbon, whether "footprinted" or contained in a gas such as CO2, is not inherently bad. In fact it is the most common element in the known universe and required for life of any kind to exist on this planet."

BTW... thanks for withdrawing..."somebody" on here a few days ago tried to debunk global warming by saying it is so cold in England that they can't grow grapes there...

didn't show your class by backing off their assertion though....

[awol]

See also, "Carbon, whether "footprinted" or contained in a gas such as CO2, is not inherently bad. In fact it is the most common element in the known universe and required for life of any kind to exist on this planet."

do you check anything before you post it?  how do you "decide" these things are "true"?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/The_most_common_element_in_the_universe_is

[Ghost of Jaco]

do you check anything before you post it?  how do you "decide" these things are "true"?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/The_most_common_element_in_the_universe_is

From a book written by a noted astronomer! I am surprised that that wiki has a different answer.
Hooray! Yet another thing you and I can disagree on!

[Henry Hawk]

do you check anything before you post it?  how do you "decide" these things are "true"?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/The_most_common_element_in_the_universe_is

Do you check anything before YOU decide what is or isn't true....
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_most_abundant_element_in_the_universe_carbon_or_hydrogen

from the same wiki source?.........which one do you go with?....

[Palehorse]

. . . Yet another thing you and I can disagree on!

Which pretty much summarizes the whole gloabl warming deabte; doesn't it. . . 
Both sides can manipulate the data to support theri opposing perspectives. Both sides think the other is wrong. Somebody is right, but perhaps not necessarily either side of the current argument?

[Ghost of Jaco]

Do you check anything before YOU decide what is or isn't true....
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_most_abundant_element_in_the_universe_carbon_or_hydrogen

from the same wiki source?.........which one do you go with?....

HAHAHAHAHAHAhahaha!! Thanks, Henry! You crack me up, sometimes!

[Henry Hawk]

Which pretty much summarizes the whole gloabl warming deabte; doesn't it. . . 
Both sides can manipulate the data to support theri opposing perspectives. Both sides think the other is wrong. Somebody is right, but perhaps not necessarily either side of the current argument?

you are very correct.....but, the whole point to my side of the arguement has ALWAYS been, and always will be, it the alamists such as the AL Gore crowd, who believes the only solution is to bring corporate america to a halt by regulating and taxing them out of existence......

but, this is almost like the abortion debates.......neither side is wrong.

[Bo D]

Do you check anything before YOU decide what is or isn't true....
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_most_abundant_element_in_the_universe_carbon_or_hydrogen

from the same wiki source?.........which one do you go with?....

Perhaps if you go to something besides Wiki ....

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/f/blabundant.htm
"Answer: The most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen, which makes up about 3/4 of all matter! Helium makes up most of the remaining 25%. Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe. All of the other elements are relatively rare. "

Where is carbon?

http://education.jlab.org/glossary/abund_uni.html

The 10 Most Abundant Elements in the Universe

Source: Exploring Chemical Elements and their Compounds; David L. Heiserman, 1992

Element Abundance
measured relative to silicon
Hydrogen 40,000
Helium 3,100
Oxygen 22
Neon 8.6
Nitrogen 6.6
Carbon 3.5
Silicon 1
Magnesium 0.91
Iron 0.6
Sulfur 0.38

Ah...there is is ... #6!

[Bo D]

but, this is almost like the abortion debates.......neither side is wrong.

But when someone says you can't grow grapes in England becasue it is too cold there...when someone asserts "A single volcano eruption produces more CO2 then ALL of the cars, boats, planes, trains, etc. that humans have built." ...when someone writes ""Carbon...is the most common element in the known universe"

Then they are wrong.

[Ghost of Jaco]

BTW... thanks for withdrawing..."somebody" on here a few days ago tried to debunk global warming by saying it is so cold in England that they can't grow grapes there...

didn't show your class by backing off their assertion though....

Thanks. I tend to respond to people in the same tone that they use with me, but I am all for reasoned discourse.
People can disagree without being disagreeable.