Al Gore Lies About Gloabl Warming Scandal

[MrSheepish]

PLC1 wrote -

Yep, what is more interesting is to answer to the following question.

How much of CO2 in the atmosphere is due to man (anthropogenic)?

Wow, the answer really varies depending on where you look.

from 100%
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/prtm320/commons/carbon3.html

to 43%
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-...f-anthropogenic-CO2-emissions-increasing.html

to 3% elsewhere


Needless to say if this question can't be answered precisely, then Global Warming science is far from settled.

Asur, this question is answered precisely, you are misinterpretting your own link. Everyone agrees that the dramatic increase in CO2 is due to human activity. The 43% number is not "how much of this increase is due to humans", it's "how much of man-made CO2 is going into the air versus the oceans".

 

[asur]

Mr Sheepish wrote -

Everyone agrees that the dramatic increase in CO2 is due to human activity.

Never say everybody.

It is likely that is natural sources that are causing any CO2 increase, not man.

We state that based strictly on probability theory.

Let's consider the fraction of total CO2 that is due to man.



http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

about 0.28% if water vapor is taken into account, about 5.33% otherwise.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_CO2_emissions_are_caused_by_commercial_airliners

A: 6% is caused by man total! (NB. Wiki is a bogus source of scientific facts)


We see even global warming alarmists(wiki) state the man-made component is a very small component of total CO2.


Is it man-made CO2 or natural CO2 that is more likely the problem?

 

[MrSheepish]

Mr Sheepish wrote -

Never say everybody.

It is likely that is natural sources that are causing any CO2 increase, not man.

We state that based strictly on probability theory.

Let's consider the fraction of total CO2 that is due to man.



http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

about 0.28% if water vapor is taken into account, about 5.33% otherwise.

Are you reading these before you post them? Once again they don't way what you say they say. Besides being wrong, these numbers aren't even talking about CO2 fractions.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_CO2_emissions_are_caused_by_commercial_airliners

A: 6% is caused by man total! (NB. Wiki is a bogus source of scientific facts)

Well of course it's a small number! Nature is capable of absorbing what nature emits. That's why CO2 levels were about constant throughout the history of civilization before humans started producing large amounts of CO2. Now humans are making enough CO2 so that the total emissions are a little bit more than nature can absorb, which is why over decades the excess starts to build up. If humans produced a large fraction of the total CO2 emissions then we would have swamped the atmosphere with CO2 long ago.

We see even global warming alarmists(wiki) state the man-made component is a very small component of total CO2.

A small component of the total emitted CO2, but all of the total excess CO2 after natural absorption is subtracted off. Do you honestly think that this is something the scientists are confused about?

Is it man-made CO2 or natural CO2 that is more likely the problem?

Seeing as how CO2 levels were about constant as far back as matters for humans before the industrial revolution began, but have been increasing constantly ever since, I would pick the man-made option.

 

[asur]

MrSheepish wrote -

Do you honestly think that this is something the scientists are confused about?

No, but they don't try hard to make it known on the Global Warming side.
Research and see how few alarmists report it.

Wiki is posting a figure higher than reality. It's probably less but it served the purpose. Why is the liberal sources always error on the Global Warming side?
Well Wikipedia was edited by at least one Global Warming Wacko, as we covered earlier.

But here is the point.

Just for sake of argument, forget about whatever you may know about CO2.

Using common sense, you would not expect a warming problem to be associated with the measly 6% or less. You would assume it's associated with the 94%. Correct?

Remember, the simplest answer is usually the best answer.

 

[asur]

More Proof of Global Warming Hoaxing on a large scale:

News from today 1/20/2010

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6995890.ece

The IPCC admits it fibbed. It claimed that Himalayan glaciers were very likely to vanish by 2035.


Most glaciologists believe the melting would take hundreds of years and some doubt that it will ever happen, pointing to evidence of glaciers advancing in the neighbouring Karakoram mountain range.

The IPCC reports underpin every country’s decisions about climate change. If the panel cannot be trusted, it becomes much more difficult tobelieve anything they now say.

It is alarming that none of the 2,500 scientists who contributed to its 2007 report spotted the error until questioned by independent scientists.

 

[dogtowner]

More Proof of Global Warming Hoaxing on a large scale:

News from today 1/20/2010

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6995890.ece

The IPCC admits it fibbed. It claimed that Himalayan glaciers were very likely to vanish by 2035.


Most glaciologists believe the melting would take hundreds of years and some doubt that it will ever happen, pointing to evidence of glaciers advancing in the neighbouring Karakoram mountain range.

The IPCC reports underpin every country’s decisions about climate change. If the panel cannot be trusted, it becomes much more difficult tobelieve anything they now say.

It is alarming that none of the 2,500 scientists who contributed to its 2007 report spotted the error until questioned by independent scientists.

CRU busted
NOAA busted
IPCC busted

how can anyone take these guys seriously ?

 

[always]

CRU busted
NOAA busted
IPCC busted

how can anyone take these guys seriously ?

they all "algored", THAT EXPLAINS ALL LIARS!

 

[PLC1]

One of those Glaciers in 1941

and in 2004

Another one in 1928

And again in 2000:

As you can see, the glaciers aren't really melting. They're just changing form from ice to water, that's all. No evidence of global warming here, nothing to see, folks, nothing at all.

 

[asur]

Even the Indians spotted this last Global Warming Scam

1/18/2010

Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh Monday questioned the findings of the 2007 report on the Himalayan glaciers.

"They are indeed receding and the rate is cause for great concern, Ramesh said of the glaciers, but he told reporters the 2035 forecast was "not based on an iota of scientific evidence."

How is is that out of 2500 wacko scientists, not even one challenged the bogus and unscientific claim?

I think we know the answer.

 

[Pidgey]

Follow the money!

As for glaciers, my favorite story is that one in that pass up in the Alps that when it melted, they found all those artifacts from the Medeival Warm Period. I get a real chuckle outa' that one... and Michael Mann probably cusses a blue streak!

 

[asur]

PLC1 - You are hiding something.


Ice seems to be growing in the
antartic over the past 10 winters.

 

[PLC1]

PLC1 - You are hiding something.


Ice seems to be growing in the
antartic over the past 10 winters.

I'm not sure just what your graph is supposed to show. It looks like there is more ice in the Antarctic winter than in the summer. What a surprise.

Here is the real info:

Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Rapidly

The Antarctic ice sheet is losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year in a trend that scientists link to global warming, according to a new paper that provides the first evidence that the sheet's total mass is shrinking significantly.

 

[MrSheepish]

MrSheepish wrote -

No, but they don't try hard to make it known on the Global Warming side.
Research and see how few alarmists report it.

Wiki is posting a figure higher than reality. It's probably less but it served the purpose. Why is the liberal sources always error on the Global Warming side?
Well Wikipedia was edited by at least one Global Warming Wacko, as we covered earlier.

But here is the point.

Just for sake of argument, forget about whatever you may know about CO2.

Using common sense, you would not expect a warming problem to be associated with the measly 6% or less. You would assume it's associated with the 94%. Correct?

My common sense says that you should understand something before you jump to conclusions, and it looks to me as though you are still confused. This 6% does not have anything to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It tells you how fast the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, because you are putting up roughly 6% more CO2 than nature has adapted to be able to absorb per year. Saying that a 6% rate of change can't possibly matter is like saying that a slowly accelerating car can't be dangerous. Even if someone is only stepping lightly on the gas, after a minute that car might be at 100 mph and be going fast enough to destroy a small building.

 

[MrSheepish]

More Proof of Global Warming Hoaxing on a large scale:

News from today 1/20/2010

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6995890.ece

The IPCC admits it fibbed. It claimed that Himalayan glaciers were very likely to vanish by 2035.


Most glaciologists believe the melting would take hundreds of years and some doubt that it will ever happen, pointing to evidence of glaciers advancing in the neighbouring Karakoram mountain range.

The IPCC reports underpin every country’s decisions about climate change. If the panel cannot be trusted, it becomes much more difficult tobelieve anything they now say.

It is alarming that none of the 2,500 scientists who contributed to its 2007 report spotted the error until questioned by independent scientists.

Please put this in context. This false statement was not in the IPCC summary for policy makers, nor was it mentioned in any prominent place. It was one fact that was wrong out of everything that was put in the >1000 page full report. Even if there are only ten facts per page (on average), then having one fact wrong out of >10,000 means the rate of mistakes might be less than 0.01%.

Having one fact wrong in an enormous document is not evidence of conspiracy. Having five on ten facts wrong, even if they all supported the warming side, would not be evidence of conspiracy. A conspiracy like you allege would lead to hundreds of facts being bent to the warming side, and they would not all be buried in the full, monstrous book that nobody reads.

 

[asur]

Mr Sheepish wrote -

This 6% does not have anything to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere

That is exactly what Wiki states. You are not reading it.
Wiki - Man produces roughly 6% of all global CO2 production.

Man-Made CO2 makes up a tiny fraction of the total atmosphere ~ 0 to 6%.

Think tiny and and you understand the man-made CO2 component.