Comments on: U.N. Chief: Act Now On Global Warming

Gore Addresses Delegates; Bush Skips Summit, Attends Separate Dinner

[clestes-2009]

CO2Max,

OK, whatever. I am not going to debate you on this any longer. Waste of my time.

[co2max]

celestes-
You remark that physicists are not climate scientists. In the strict sense, you may be right, but a qualified climatologist had better have a good grasp of physics, as well as other science disciplines. As I a geologist myself, I have to straddle several realms to stay current.

The rise of carbon dioxide in modern times within the atmosphere is a coincidental action. The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and not an especially powerful one in trace quantities, has been vastly overplayed in the climate-change discussion. Carbon dioxide increases are symptomatic of increasing human population on this planet, but it does not automatically equate to higher temperatures just by virtue of its characteristic of being linked to higher temperatures. Carbon dioxide levels are just as equally a result of higher overall temperatures. You can review the plotted values of carbon dioxide on a seasonal basis over recent years and see that the curve is a jagged line reflected slightly higher, then slightly lower values as summer and winter intervene to affect how much CO2 is aborbed by vegetation as the seasons go by (on a hemisphere basis).

[erasmus6]

didntinhale

puff puff, cough cough, puff puff, cough cough:)

[clestes-2009]

Michael Crighton is a writer of fiction! He has NO DEGREES in climate science.

Anyone who can write about time travel (TimeLine) or alien visits (Sphere) can make up ANYTHING.

Hey, I love to read his books, but I don''t believe everything he writes! I suggest you check out a qualified climate scientist and get his/her take on climate change.

[abbe91]

"AND most of all, if you have seen Gore''''s film and are still not convinced that global warming is happening and caused by man, there is nothing I can say to convince you different except to advise you to read what climate sciences say."

Well, I saw it, I saw also "The great global warming swindle". There are quite a few inacuracies in both of them, but the biggest one in Gore''s movie is about the
temperature/CO2 correlation in deep ice I was referring to earlier (the gap of 800 years the wrong way). Did you notice there was basically no interview of a scientist in Gore''s movie ?

I really recommend Michael Crighton''s speech.

[clestes-2009]

abbe91,

The thought never crossed my mind. Inhofe is a complete moron of no education and less sense.

CO2Max,

Take the difference between the level of CO2 taken 100 years ago and the one taken today .

The take the CO2 exhaust from an average car, say 4 door sedan and multiply that by 300 days. Then multiple that by 100.

Then take the CO2 from 1 coal plant for a year. Multiply that by 100. Add it to the CO2 level from 100 years ago.

I bet you will fine that the difference between the 2 levels will match the CO2 from made made devices.

And remember, China is putting a new coal plant on line every week.

AND most of all, if you have seen Gore''s film and are still not convinced that global warming is happening and caused by man, there is nothing I can say to convince you different except to advise you to read what climate sciences say.

Physics scientist are not climate experts. Of course the field in young. does not mean they are wrong.

[abbe91]

OK guys ... Interesting discussion.
Lunch timee, I guess.

[abbe91]

Climate depends on a very complex system, with many possible feedbacks.

I''ll give an example. Somebody mentioned the problem of feeding the planet. An increased CO2 level, if not proven to increase the temperature might have its benefits too. A CO2 higher level help plants grow (this is: if we don''t deforest Brazil to produce bio-fuels). However, these plants, in turn catch more CO2 ... who said it was simple ?

[abbe91]

"Here we go again.....I''''ll keep this very simple. Yes...the earth is warming....we cannot debate that."

Well, the question is still : is it significant compared to the last 1000 years or is it a mere fluctuation.

"What is appalling is the liberals who''''s main intent is to persuade everyone that it is man-made."

I guess you could call me a liberal, but also a scientist.

"Have you been here for the past 10,000 years. Can you prove, as CO2Max has said, that this warming is man-made. The answer to that is......NO"

Correct. Climate depends on a very complex system, with many possible feedbacks.
The main greenhouse gas is not CO2, but water vapour and there is room for more absorption from it. If you look at the CO2 absorption spectrum, you''ll find it almost saturated at the current CO2 level.


Posted by mango79 at 11:19 AM : Sep 25, 2007

[abbe91]

"abbe91,

Since you seem to be educated about earth''''''''s history you realize that the earth is 4.5 billion years old."

Don''t confuse me with Inhofe, will you ? ;-)