United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: 10 Global Warming Doomsday Predictions
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://rightwingnews.com/2009/12/10 ... -warming-doomsday-predictions/
Published: Dec 20, 2010
Author: John Hawkins
Post Date: 2010-12-20 16:55:22 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 19340
Comments: 34
Have you ever seen one of those wild-eyed people with a sandwich board around his neck standing on the corner, screeching incoherently about how the end of the world is coming? Now, what if those people were insisting that you were really the crazy one? What if the newspapers agreed with them and the politicians wanted to pass taxes and spend hundreds of billions to implement their ideas? Sound too unbelievable to be true? Well, guess what? It's happening. Global warming alarmists are regularly prophesying about doomsday scenarios -- except they're doing it in newspapers and from the stages of swanky resorts where they've flown in their private jets. Unlike the old school soothsayers, the Al Gore's of the world have figured out how to turn doom-mongering into a multi-billion dollar industry. As you read these global warming predictions, visions, prophecies, fantasies, whatever you want to call them, ask yourself a question: if this is based on science, why do we have these huge differences in scenarios and dates? It's almost as if these people are all just pulling numbers out of their hats and putting them out there instead of basing their projections on any sort of real scientific evidence. 1) At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” 2) The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age. -- Kenneth Watt, Ecologist 3) A high-priority government report warns of climate change that will lead to floods and starvation. ‘Leading climatologists’ speak of a ‘detrimental global climatic change,’ threatening ‘the stability of most nations.’ The scenario is eerily familiar although the document — never made public before — dates from 1974. But here’s the difference: it was written to respond to the threat of global cooling, not warming. And yes, it even mentions a ‘consensus’ among scientists. -- Maurizio Morabito Whoops! Those were all about global cooling, not global warming. My mistake. You see, that was the fashionable doomsday story for alarmists to go on about back in the early seventies and it essentially worked the same way. Mankind is causing the earth to cool and scientists agree we're all going to die! Now, it's mankind is causing earth to warm and scientists agree we're all going to die! See? It's very easy to get those two confused. Now, back to your regularly scheduled doomsday prophecies: 4) According to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, we only have 96 months left to save the planet. I'm impressed. 96 months. Not 95. Not 97. July 2017. Put it in your diary. Usually the warm-mongers stick to the same old drone that we only have 10 years left to save the planet. Nice round number. Former Vice President Al Gore said we only have 10 years left 3 1/2 years ago, which makes him technically more of a pessimist than the Prince of Wales. Al's betting Armageddon kicks in January 2016 -- unless he's just peddling glib generalities. -- Mark Steyn 5) ABC Science Show presenter Robyn Williams panics about global warming: Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres [of sea level rises] in the next century...do you really think that? Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes. It is possible, no, actually. Now Glaciologist Nikolai Osokin of the Russian Academy of Science reassures Williams about global warming: If all ice on the earth melted, the level of the oceans would rise by 64 meters. Many coastal cities would be under water, and so would the Netherlands, a significant part of which lies below sea level. However, the Dutch and the rest of the planet may rest assured: this hypothetical catastrophe could not take place anytime within the next thousand years 6) The UK faces a "catastrophe" of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree to a deal on climate change, the prime minister has warned. Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse." He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world's biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was "no plan B". -- October 19, 2009 7) Meanwhile, the Director of the Goddard Institute, James Hansen, recently sent a letter to President Obama saying that Obama has “only four years left to save the earth” from “runaway warming.” He told the London Observer in February that “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.” Hansen maintains that recent warming has pushed the planet close to a “tipping point” for runaway warming. What recent warming? Three hundredths of a degree C over 30 years, with temperatures still declining, doesn’t seem worth ruining the world’s economies. -- April 20, 2009 8) While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met (James) Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record. Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.” Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.” When did he say this will happen? Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989. -- Author Rob Reiss talks with Salon's Suzy Hansen 9) A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years. They believe global warming is melting Arctic ice so rapidly that the region is beginning to absorb more heat from the sun, causing the ice to melt still further and so reinforcing a vicious cycle of melting and heating. The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a "tipping point" beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically. -- Friday, 16 September 2005 10) According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the 1989 article, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” So, wait a second: are we in the middle of an ice age or is the globe afire? Are we passing the point of no return now, is it happening in 2017, did it happen in 2005, or was the UN right that it happened in 1999? Why is there a difference? How did they come up with these numbers in the first place? Do the global warming alarmists, some of whom used to be global cooling alarmists, understand why they were wrong before? Maybe a little less uncritical acceptance of what these people are saying and a lot more skepticism might be in order at this point.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
if you are going to use the "some folks predicted terrible things that never occurred, therefore all predictions are wrong" line of idiocy then how about we start discussing all those predictions of the cost of going to war in Iraq as justification to dismiss any Republican claim about anything related to foreign policy. Agreed?
Hmmm.... are you referring to the entire global The cooling scam was in the 70's. The "population bomb" was in the 60's. Now we have the global warming scam, which has already been proven to be non-existent, at least with regard to human-influenced warming or cooling... The following chart is simple enough, for even a fool like you to comprehend: Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
So you're admitting that you believe global warming is no more settled science than any claims about Iraq? Republican claims about foreign policy? "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Uh no, but it is idiotic to argue that because some predictions are wrong, all predictions are wrong. Again, if you want to use that tactic, then you must thing Republicans shouldn't be believed when it comes to foreign policy and the economy: “I want to predict here tonight that if we adopt this bill the American economy is going to get weaker and not stronger, the deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today and not lower… When all is said and done, people will pay more taxes, the economy will create fewer jobs, Government will spend more money, and the American people will be worse off.” [Senator Phil Gramm, Congressional Record, 8/5/93] “I am concerned about what this plan will do to our economy. I am concerned about what it will do to jobs. I am concerned about what it will do to our families, our communities, and to our children’s future.” [Senator William Roth, Congressional Record, 8/6/93] “The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit.” [Rep. Newt Gingrich, Atlanta Journal Constitution, 8/6/93] “I believe this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machine’s recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable.” [Rep. Newt Gingrich, GOP Press Conference, House TV Gallery, 8/5/93] “It will not cut the deficit. It will not create jobs. And it will not cut spending.” [Rep. Jim Bunning, Congressional Record 8/5/93] “These new taxes will stifle economic growth, destroy jobs, reduce revenues and increase the deficit.” [Rep. Jim Ramstad, Congressional Record, 3/17/93] “This is really the Dr. Kevorkian plan for our economy. It will kill jobs, kill businesses, and yes, kill even the higher tax revenues that these suicidal tax increasers hope to gain.” [Rep. Christopher Cox, Congressional Record, 5/27/93] “This plan is not a recipe for more jobs… It is a recipe for disaster… Taxes will go up. The economy will sputter along. Dreams will be put off, and all this for the hollow promise of deficit reduction and magical theories of lower interest rates.” [Rep. Dick Armey, 1993 CQ Almanac] “The budget proposal offered by the Democrats is a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster.” [Rep. Phil Crane, Congressional Record, 3/18/93] “In summary, the plan has a fatal flaw -- it does not reduce the deficit.” [Rep. Wayne Allard, Congressional Record, 8/5/93] "There has been a good deal of comment — some of it quite outlandish — about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army — hard to imagine." House Budget Committee testimony on Iraq (February 27, 2003) "There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." Congressional Testimony, March 27, 2003
Yes, that chart is entirely accurate. Water vapor is indeed the largest greenhouse gas. But...... http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/03/Tax-Cuts-Not-the-Clinton-Tax-Hike-Produced-the-1990s-Boom Conclusion Proponents of tax increases often reference the Clinton 1993 tax increase and the subsequent period of economic growth as evidence that deficit reduction through tax hikes is a pro-growth policy. What these proponents ignore, however, is that the tax increases occurred at a time when the economy was recovering from recession and strong growth was to be expected. They also ignore that the real acceleration in the economy began in 1997, when economic growth should have cooled. This acceleration in growth coincided with a powerful pro-growth tax cut. The evidence is persuasive that the tax increase probably slowed the economy compared to the growth it would have achieved and that the subsequent tax cuts of 1997, not the tax increases, were the source of the acceleration in real growth in the latter half of the decade. As taxes are now above their historical average as a share of the economy, and are rising, Congress should look to enact additional tax relief to keep the economy strong.
Thanks for admitting that those who predicted gloom and doom (Armey, Gingrich, etc.) had absolutely no idea what they were talking about. At least we can finally agree on something!
CO2 = HEAT Staedy State to 1780 was 280 ppm of CO2 Now, it's 392 ppm. With Ice core/earth ash layers, it can/has been determined that when the atmosphere gets to 450 ppm (and 392 ppm is ever rising to that with Now runaway methane carbon sinks being turned in to carbon hoses;} You have 2 degrees C baked in. No collapse of CO2 ppm and you get 3.5 ppm. But 9/10's of humans won't see that. So not to worry. 8D And of course, like a sloshing bathtub (guess the baby in it;}, the Tipping Point could bring on an Ice Age. Any other questions answered. Promptly. Thanx for your attention. 8D
you'll confuse him with facts.
And of course facts are irrelevant, history is yesterday. much like yeast. As long as they can, they will. 8D Other methods are slightly more refined. Assange won the readers' poll as Time magazine's Person of the Year. But the editors could not possibly have the guts to respect public opinion and infuriate the emperor even more. So they gave the prize to an autistic geek who invented Facebook because his girlfriend dumped him."
Really? That's interesting and not surprising.
Freddy, I get the feeling that you don't know what to believe about anything.
Long live the Taliban Freedom Fighters!
Ask me about Army recruiting pencil neck.
He's a rapist and a spy. He should be taken into the basement of some dark prison and summarily executed.
But...... Nothing. There IS no "but" about this. But thanks for playing.
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
CO2 =
If you want to ignore the impact that CO2 has on water vapor, be my guest. But again, ignoring things you don't like doesn't make them any less true.
The effect is minute. But thanks for playing!
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
No, it's not. http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
Yeah. Fire's a great thing. But you don't want to live in it. 8D
You are clueless. 20:1 was the TIME poll for Assange. that it's boss put in a Jew Billionaire in place of.
Really? That's interesting and not surprising. "Bill Keller, the chief editor of The New York Times, had the gall to write: "We agree wholeheartedly that transparency is not an absolute good. Freedom of the press includes freedom not to publish, and that is a freedom we exercise with some regularity". Keller, a so-called journalist, in practice wishes he didn't have to publish "cablegate". He has made it plain that the New York Times sees the role of mass media as upholding government secrecy. In ancient Soviet times there was Pravda; now Pravda lives in New York and is written in English. And to top it off we have Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama's administration pulling out all stops in its extra-judicial blitzkrieg on WikiLeaks. The fact that WikiLeaks broke no US law is of course irrelevant."
Yeah. Fire's a great thing. Ever heard of photosynthesis?
You bet. Hear that the Amazon's being ravaged? Tipping Point to Drought/fire underway? How much Forest can be decimated? How much acidification can the oceans stand? Knock Humans down to o say 400 million and ALL kinds of Ecosystem problems get solved. 8D
Higher CO2 levels is beneficial to forest recovery.
You are clueless.
Julian Assange, Rapist 90% of Rapes in Sweden go unreported. Swede's refuse to give Any evidence of same to Britain. Said Rapist deleting web pp's. At least she tried. Lived with her rapist weeks after. No complaints. Broken condom? Refuse to pull out? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA All men are(use out of context insert here;} rapists then. 8D
The USEmpire? How about that Undeclared war we got going on in Yemen? Any Military rapes in Iraq lately? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA 8D And under the Infamous 1917 (why are we getting into WWI) Espionage Act. Apologists for Empire. Cheney-Ordered NORAD to STAND DOWN on 9-11. Nigeria paid off $250 million to drop Cheney Bribery charges. Must be nice. 8D Like bringing charges against some one 100 years from now on the Patriot Act.
Only to a point. And we past that point about 30 years ago. See Russia Burns for details. ;}
Hey, bubba..... ***PSSSSSSST.*** Your scam is OVER. Wishful thinking on your part, will change this not at all. Ignoring all the information I've posted, which proves it's a scam, will not make those facts go away, much as you try to hide your eyes from reality. LOL.
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
Only when it starts cooling. Meanwhile, you offer no explanation for observable warming global average temperatures. When you can explain WHY it is warming, let me know.
Hey, dumbshit... You looked out your WINDOW lately? How fucking stupid ARE you???????????? ((((oh, that's right... you're a socialist, which means you're a fucking MORON.))))
Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
My window only shows me the area around my home, not global temperatures. Perhaps your window is better than mine?
It's okay, go56... We understand you... Getting tired of the bozoed calcon following me around on the 'net, wanting to discuss "tossing salad." Sorry, you sick rump-ranger. NOT interested.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#2. To: go65 (#1)
if you are going to use the "some folks predicted terrible things that never occurred, therefore all predictions are wrong" line of idiocy
cooling warming scam? 
#3. To: go65 (#1)
#4. To: no gnu taxes (#3)
So you're admitting that you believe global warming is no more settled science than any claims about Iraq?
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#5. To: Capitalist Eric (#2)
Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.
Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.
Water Vapour as a positive feedback
As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation. When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air to a higher, stabilized level. So the warming from CO2 has an amplified effect.
How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000).
Empirical observations of water vapour feedback and climate sensitivity The amplifying effect of water vapor has been observed in the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Soden 2001). The cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop. A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is also confirmed by numerous empirical studies examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).
Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007). Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system. Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#6. To: go65 (#4)
#7. To: no gnu taxes (#6)
(Edited)
What these proponents ignore, however, is that the tax increases occurred at a time when the economy was recovering from recession and strong growth was to be expected. They also ignore that the real acceleration in the economy began in 1997, when economic growth should have cooled. This acceleration in growth coincided with a powerful pro-growth tax cut.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#8. To: no gnu taxes, All (#0)
So, wait a second: are we in the middle of an ice age or is the globe afire? Are we passing the point of no return now, is it happening in 2017, did it happen in 2005, or was the UN right that it happened in 1999? Why is there a difference? How did they come up with these numbers in the first place? Do the global warming alarmists, some of whom used to be global cooling alarmists, understand why they were wrong before? Maybe a little less uncritical acceptance of what these people are saying and a lot more skepticism might be in order at this point.
#9. To: mcgowanjm (#8)
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#10. To: go65 (#9)
(Edited)
you'll confuse him with facts.
#11. To: mcgowanjm (#10)
Assange won the readers' poll as Time magazine's Person of the Year. But the editors could not possibly have the guts to respect public opinion and infuriate the emperor even more.
#12. To: Fred Mertz (#11)
#13. To: continental op (#12)
#14. To: mcgowanjm (#10)
Assange won the readers' poll as Time magazine's Person of the Year
#15. To: go65 (#5)
Yes, that chart is entirely accurate. Water vapor is indeed the largest greenhouse gas.
#16. To: mcgowanjm (#8)
HEAT necessary for the existence of life.
#17. To: Capitalist Eric (#15)
There IS no "but" about this.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#18. To: go65 (#17)
#19. To: Capitalist Eric (#18)
The effect is minute.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#20. To: no gnu taxes (#16)
CO2 = HEAT necessary for the existence of life.
#21. To: no gnu taxes (#14)
He's a rapist and a spy.
#22. To: Fred Mertz (#11)
Assange won the readers' poll as Time magazine's Person of the Year. But the editors could not possibly have the guts to respect public opinion and infuriate the emperor even more.
#23. To: mcgowanjm (#20)
CO2 = HEAT necessary for the existence of life.
#24. To: no gnu taxes (#23)
Ever heard of photosynthesis?
#25. To: mcgowanjm (#24)
How much Forest can be decimated?
#26. To: mcgowanjm (#21)
He's a rapist and a spy.
#27. To: no gnu taxes, All (#26)
You are clueless.
#28. To: no gnu taxes (#26)
Assange to face US spy charges
#29. To: no gnu taxes (#25)
Higher CO2 levels is beneficial to forest recovery.
#30. To: go65 (#19)
#31. To: Capitalist Eric (#30)
Your scam is OVER.
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#32. To: go65 (#31)
Only when it starts cooling.
#33. To: Capitalist Eric (#32)
You looked out your WINDOW lately?
On January 3, 2011 the GOP assumes responsibility for deficit spending.
#34. To: go65 (#33)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]