Amazon Vehicles Beauty STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Wickedly Prime Handmade Wedding Shop Shop Popular Services americangods americangods americangods  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire HD 8, starting at $79.99 Kindle Oasis Trade it in. Fund the next. National Bike Month on Amazon Ellen
Customer Discussions > Science Fiction forum

Global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 650 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 1:34:27 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2012, 1:41:33 PM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 1:37:03 PM PST
Truthseeker says:
Ah Robert, but read the OP please.
You see 97% of climate scientists do not think AGW is proven, have documented a large number of caveats.
But you see - the IPCC lied and said that the scientists have proven AGW.

The climategate emails which reveal the real dialog of the climate scientists without political whitewash, prove this.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2012, 1:46:21 PM PST
Truthseeker says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Feb 19, 2012, 2:11:18 PM PST
R Monroe says:
In 1994, according to a leaked memo, the Republican strategist Frank Luntz advised members of the Republican Party, with regard to climate change, that "you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue" and "challenge the science" by "recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view." In 2006, Luntz stated that he still believes "back '97, '98, the science was uncertain", but he now agrees with the scientific consensus.

Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe.

Posted on Feb 19, 2012, 2:12:55 PM PST
R Monroe says:
this is a good place for Truthseeker to behave herself. Lets see if that can pan out?

Posted on Feb 19, 2012, 7:12:26 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2012, 7:14:08 PM PST
PapaSmurerf says:
You can look at this way...
http://www.klimaatgek.nl/klimaatimg/co2%20log.jpg

...or this way.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RAYQNSAWCHA/TJvvOimBSxI/AAAAAAAAAEo/AJfaJAF5EXk/s1600/co2greenhouse-X2.png

CO2 is self limiting in its warming effect to elevate the temperature of the atmosphere.

A doubling of CO2 from 280ppmv should only be scary to Chicken Little.

"Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest."
~ Peter Thorne, Hadley Centre
- http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1889


Since the presence or absence of clouds has a larger impact than CO2 and clouds are poorly modeled...

"Basic problem is that all models are wrong - not got enough middle and low level
clouds. Problem will be with us for years, according to Richard Jones."
~ Phil Jones, CRU UAE
- http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4443.txt&search=models+are+wrong

...the myth of the CO2 sky dragon drags on.

Posted on Feb 19, 2012, 7:39:21 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2012, 7:47:41 PM PST
PapaSmurerf says:
"...land use change is the dominant driver of warming."

"...cities are warming at more than twice the rate of the planet as a whole..."

"...50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes..."


"The influence of land use on climate is most pronounced at the scale of urbanized regions. Characterized as the "urban heat island effect", alterations in surface energy and moisture fluxes, combined with anthropogenic heat emissions, can enhance near-surface air temperatures by several degrees Celsius relative to proximate rural areas (13). Recent work has found the conversion of land from forest or cropland to urban uses to be associated with a greater average increase in minimum and maximum temperatures than rural land conversions (14). Further, cities have been found not only to exhibit higher temperatures than proximate rural areas but also to be warming over recent decades at a significantly higher rate (11, 15-17). While urbanized land accounts for only a modest fraction of the global land surface, a rapidly expanding urban populations now accounting for the majority of the global population (18)-- is increasingly vulnerable to rates of warming exceeding that of the planet as a whole."
~ Brian Stone
- http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.urbanclimate.gatech.edu%2Fpubs%2FLand_use_as_climate_change_mitigation.pdf&ei=L7xBT92sFcTSgQeZn6ShCA&usg=AFQjCNFL-vnj2YxcKS2ZDGocab4DYds_1w


If CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, why aren't rural areas warming at the same rate as urban landscapes? Why would CO2 be warming concrete jungles more than green spaces?


"Across the U.S. as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases," said Stone. "Most large U.S. cities, including Atlanta, are warming at more than twice the rate of the planet as a whole - a rate that is mostly attributable to land use change. As a result, emissions reduction programs - like the cap and trade program under consideration by the U.S. Congress - may not sufficiently slow climate change in large cities where most people live and where land use change is the dominant driver of warming."
~ Brian Stone
http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html?nid=47354

Posted on Feb 19, 2012, 7:52:02 PM PST
the guy who wrote the original comment must be a narrow minded republican

Posted on Feb 20, 2012, 12:49:57 AM PST
R Monroe says:
pages 185-186 of Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming
(by Mark Bowen)..........

It also seems that Crichton is the only expert George W. Bush himself has personally consulted on the climate issue. In a refreshingly candid manifestation of the faith the president placed in fiction rather than fact, the two held a private meeting at the White House in 2005, arranged by Karl Rove, during which they reportedly "talked for an hour and were in total agreement" on climate "science."

The truth is that in the article in the Journal of Geophysical Research that formed the basis for Jim [Hansen]'s 1988 testimony and in the oral and written testimony itself, he presented three scenarios for future greenhouse emissions and their effect upon global temperatures. One he described as" on the high side of reality"; a second on the low side, since it is assumed "a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined", and a third, between the two (business as usual), that he characterized as "most plausible." Dr. Crichton (an M.D.) simply ignored the second and third scenarios and presented the scenario that Jim had labeled as implausibly high as his "prediction."

Crichton also chose to ignore the fact that with eighteen additional years of warming under our belts, Jim Hansen's business-as-usual scenario was proven to be spot-on.

Posted on Feb 20, 2012, 1:07:01 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 5, 2013, 10:23:22 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012, 2:38:02 AM PST
A customer says:
Let the record show that the poster now using the name "TruthSeeker" is in fact impersonating the person that had been using the name for some considerable time before this. The person complaining about impersonation stole their ID off the person "impersonating" them.

Draw your own conclusions about this individual.

Posted on Feb 20, 2012, 3:17:40 AM PST
R Monroe says:
Without the gases in the earth's atmosphere, the average temperature at the surface would be nearly 60°F colder and human civilization could not exist. Our planet would more closely resemble Mars, which barely has an atmosphere and whose temperature as a result varies from lows of about −125°F during the polar winters to highs of up to +23°F in summer.

Scientists have known since the 1820s that gases in the earth's atmosphere trap heat and reradiate it down to the surface, warming the globe enough to allow us to live here. In the 1860s, scientist John Tyndall discovered which gases do most of the absorbing: water vapor and carbon dioxide. These gases allow the sun's rays to pass through to the earth's surface nearly unimpeded, but then absorb the escaping heat waves and re-radiate their energy back down. We call this the greenhouse effect, a useful shorthand but actually a misnomer because in a greenhouse, the glass simply blocks the heat waves from escaping rather than interacting with them.

That atmospheric gases warm the surface of the earth is a fact of physics. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the warmer the earth.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012, 5:50:44 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012, 5:53:18 AM PST
PapaSmurerf says:
TH©: Without the gases in the earth's atmosphere, the average temperature at the surface would be nearly 60°F colder and human civilization could not exist.


http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS14/AllPlanetsT.jpg

"All planets with a substantial atmosphere show the same behavior, even Saturn's moon Titan. The atmosphere of Mars is just too vacuous to do the same. Once again, look at Jupiter's atmosphere, composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, which are not so-called "greenhouse gases." Notice where the heating begins, like clockwork."

"Is this profile due to "downwelling flux" from "back radiating" gases or simply due to the HEAT generated by mounting pressure? The theory of the greenhouse effect was concocted for the purpose of explaining why the earth is warmer than predicted. Yet every planet is warmer than predicted! Might something also be wrong with the prediction method, then?"

O'Sullivan, John; Schreuder, Hans; Johnson, Claes; Ball, Tim; Anderson, Charles; Siddons, Alan; Olson, Joseph A.; Hertzberg, Martin (2010-11-22). Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory (Kindle Locations 234-243). ebookpartnership.com. Kindle Edition.

Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012, 6:07:26 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012, 6:23:05 AM PST
PapaSmurerf says:
Ah, yes, the Myth of Redemptive Violence.

"Save the planet, kill yourself."

The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium

Somehow I doubt all those advocating this have made appointments with Dr. Jack Kevorkian.

Posted on Feb 20, 2012, 7:19:44 AM PST
Chris says:
"TruthSeeker says:
If you can take "State of Fear' by Michael Crichton as real science

like I do

then you can act as though man-made global warming is sci-fi

like I do

and you too can fabricate any lie that comes to mind

like I do"

LOL thanks dude, bored at work and needed a good laugh

Posted on Feb 20, 2012, 7:24:58 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012, 7:25:33 AM PST
Chris says:
if Mike Crichton was alive today, he would say State of Fear is science fiction based on an assumption and inconclusive evidence

...also, why admit "you can fabricate any lie that comes to mind"? Thats crazy talk son? Mr Santorum is a loon dude. Birds of a feather do flock together, but I think its time to reassess the mental fitness of your peers

=/

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012, 7:42:41 AM PST
A customer says:
For precisely that reason her "peers" are a narrow demographic.

Posted on Feb 20, 2012, 8:22:19 AM PST
Mvargus says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Feb 20, 2012, 10:26:32 AM PST
No, far right Conservatives creating the slogan "Culture War" is a scare tactic. Rick Santorum saying that the Government wants to rule your life is a scare tactic. People like me are just smart enough not to subscribe because we know the true intention of these people.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012, 11:21:15 AM PST
Ronald Craig says:
Wrong forum.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012, 11:44:44 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2012, 11:47:27 AM PST
R Monroe says:
This little experiment idea would not prove anything. Greenhouse gases absorb the invisible-to-the-eye IR rays given off the Earth. The IR increases as an object is warmed.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012, 11:51:19 AM PST
R Monroe says:
As altitude increases the temp goes down. That's some proof that there is a cause which holds heat close to the Earths surface and that is greenhouse gases.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012, 11:58:47 AM PST
Mvargus says:
So you are saying a scientific experiment to prove that CO2 holds in heat better than the atmosphere is it is currently mixed won't work?

Why?

IR rays are otherwise known as "heat". So IR rays come from the sun, enter the earth. and are later radiated by the earth. greenhouse gases can catch the IR rays in or outbound, so the experiment which is to prove that CO2 somehow holds IR energy better can still be proved this way.

Something tells me you don't understand simple physics, which is why I demand this experiment. No gas is going to be visibly better than any other gas at holding heat. Heat is a measure of how fast the particles are moving. CO2 doesn't move faster than O2 or N2 or NO or O3 (ozone) or any other gas. Now water vapor would be a good method of holding in head as water is a bit of a thermal sink, but I notice no climate scientist pushes this meme.

And we have proof of the power of water vapor (aka humidity) A humid climate where there is lots of water vapor in the air tends to stay warm once the sun goes down, a desert which lacks the water vapor in the air to keep the heat in, quickly cools.

Funny, CO2 hasn't be observed to have the same effect.

So again. Try the experiment. It will likely prove that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, but that's why you won't do it. You don't want to be proved wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012, 12:08:05 PM PST
M. Helsdon says:
"Try the experiment. It will likely prove that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, but that's why you won't do it."

For a similar experiment, which more accurately reproduces actual conditions, see:

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

Conclusions:

'Due to the infrared radiation absorbed by the pure carbon dioxide this gas is heated by far stronger than the air consisting mainly from nitrogen and oxygen. The fraction of carbon dioxide in the air is acting as an greenhouse gas.'

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2012, 12:12:46 PM PST
R Monroe says:
What gives the CO2 molecule its ability to absorb and (as a consequence of physics) re-radiate radiation in infrared wavelengths that are important to the atmosphere and the climate is its number of atoms: three.' "More than two" is the crucial concept here, because the other important infrared-capturing gases in the atmosphere also have three or more atoms in their molecules. When a gas has three or more atoms, it has modes of vibration inherent in its shape that can resonate with the fi-equencies of climate-affecting infrared waves. The matching enables the greenhouse molecules to intercept those waves and absorb their energy. Single atoms and two-atom molecules do not have those particular resonant modes. Just a few examples of other greenhouse gases make the point, if you count their atoms: water vapor (H2O)1 methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (03)
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science Fiction forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Read fresh new science fiction stories - and help take them to the next level
13 May 9, 2016
Announcement
Important announcement from Amazon
190 Jul 2, 2014
Announcement
New Star Wars Release: The Jedi Path now available. Read the author's insider notes...
31 Sep 3, 2015
How about LitRPG (MMO-based virtual reality books)? 189 2 days ago
Noticed a price drop on these books... 126 4 days ago
SF is mostly slug-it-out: just HIGH-TECH CAVEMAN 3 4 days ago
It's May 2017. What sci-fi books are you reading? 8 4 days ago
lighthearted sci-fi without major character deaths or angst 72 13 days ago
Hard SF Novels With Strong Characterization 262 24 days ago
How To Rule The Universe And Punish Evil PDF Article 1 25 days ago
Generation Ships 27 26 days ago
Name of an Old Science Fiction Book from the 50's 2 28 days ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science Fiction forum
Participants:  103
Total posts:  650
Initial post:  Feb 19, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 21, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 13 customers