Serious Question about Global Warming

I've got two points:

1.) Our carbon emissions are so bad here on earth that we're even heating up the other planets in our solar system.

2.) There is a statistical correlation between the rise in average global temperature and the increase in RF energy released in the atmosphere. This is absolutely as valid an argument as that stating "increased carbon emissions" being the cause of the warming.

Think about it...

Then buy a stroker crank and a couple more carbs for yer Buick!!!

 

Quote:1.) Our carbon emissions are so bad here on earth that we're even heating up the other planets in our solar system.

Are they complaining.

Tony. p

 

I guess my point is that to classify the second most common element on earth by weight (after Oxygen) as a "pollutant" is a stroke of pure politcal genius independent of global warming cause/effect.

As I understand the argument (now accepted as absolute immutable undebatable truth), increased carbon in the atmosphere increases the "thermo-refractive coefficient" of the air. This sounds like a scientific fact, but stay tuned for a bit. The next thing you will generally hear is that the carbon concentration in the atmoshpere has risen a whopping 400% over the last 100 years due to human activity (more on the "human activity" thing in a moment). While this alarming number is true, the carbon concentration by weight went from "nearly nonexistant" to "almost unmeasurable", something like .01% to .04%. Also, no one has measured and quantified the cause and effect of the so named "thermo-refractive coefficient". In other words air with .01% and .04% diffused carbon molecules behave identically in laboratory conditions.

The thermo-refractive coefficient is a statistically derived number to link the two conditions -- increasing temperature and increased carbon concentration. It makes the math work. That's why I think they should investigate radio waves as well. There has to be just as strong a correlation, not that Rf energy has anything to do with the observed increase in earth's average temperature.

You make carbon compounds if you do anything, even when you breathe. I've heard, however, that natural sources and not human activity (burning of fossil fuels) are actually the greatest carbon emmitters to the atmosphere. I'm referring to the decomposition of organic matter in soils, or the "humus" source. The environmentalists would be quick to point out that this is only a problem (net source instead of net sink) due to widespread deforestation.

Bottom line, the genius involved in this is where the Gummint can tax your "carbon footprint" and people feel guilty about not paying more to help "save the world". If needed you can buy "carbon offsets" to ameliorate all of the horrible things you've been doing like breathing excessively and driving an old musclecar occasionally.

So what does this have to do with old Buicks with V8s in 'em? Plenty. If you own an old Buick -- which some bureaucrat will arbitrarily decide has a gigantic carbon footprint compared to, say a late model Honda -- then you can expect to pay some kind of a tax to offset your footprint and keep driving your old car.

 

Another article I found

 

Has anyone considered that warming could be the Best thing to happen.
We are overdue for another Ice Age.
If you look at where the ice sheets extended to on the last one,then people might start to actually welcome global warming.:beer

Tony.

 

Not to worry. The IPCC and most of the world's scientists have determined that current temperatures are ideal.


Have they...? o No:

 

Global ?... As in George?

E :3gears:

 

One planet so far... Mars. It is an interesting study, and an even more interesting theory. Though the study addresses warm epochs more than the idea of current global warming. Remember, regardless of whether one believes global warming is occurring and/or caused by humans, a correlation is not the same as a cause-effect relationship.

Hmm... I wonder if there is a correlation between RF and "carbon emissions." What creates the RF? Yes, that's a rhetorical question (and has been addressed a few posts up).
Oh, and a correlation...

 

An interesting article on rising sea levels:

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf

 

\


I'm not closed minded and I'm open to all views and I do try my best to make a difference!

 

Who can tell me what the worst polluter in the state of Washington is???

(I already know the answer, just wondering who else knows)

 

I would guess its a Volcano................ although Im also guessing that the trees of washington emit quite a bit of co2 as well.

 

My understanding is that it's good old Mount St Helens.

 

They should just plug it
Hey, they think they can keep the Mississippi from changing course again, so why not.

 

Who is the proverbial "they"? the current administration?
A little history on the mississippi.During the Carter "do nothing" and inflation rampant years,not to mention the helicopter landing experiment in Iran attempt,the US Army Corp of Engineers had plans to improve the levees and create better and more areas for floodwaters, a multi $100 million project.One would think this to be a good thing.But, the watchers and tellers of what is good for us ,namely the leftist tree huggers,and environmental clubs/organizations,three-toed salimander protectors , owl guardians,and Indiana bat rescuers ,sued to stop the project as being too invasive.After several years of hearings,bickering, etc. the Corp dropped the project and victory was declared by all.
One wonders if those improvements were in place if most of the damage and life loss could've been prevented or at least lessened.We'll never know.I haven't heard anything from any of those souls after the catastrophy in NO,maybe they're laying low,or forgot,or figure other people forgot and its easy to place the blame on the Federal Government.I think New Orleans had a "dog in this fight too"but I don't see much fingerpointing their way.
I went off the topic,sorry .

 

Don't read too much into it... "they" are the people who try to fight nature - think of it in a general sense.
I could say the politicians, the people who want things to stay the way they are, the Army Corps of Engineers, etc. I could have just as easily said "we," but if interpreted as people of the United States, that would leave out things like the super damn that China is building.

Perhaps the term "humans" would have been better, as humans always do these sorts of things, regardless of impetus.

In mentioning the Mississippi, I was not referring to any disaster - just the fact that it changes course. There are 3 (I believe) major courses it seems to settle in over the millennia - it meanders back and forth, and the 20th century has seen efforts to keep it from doing this. The river will win.

 

Truz
I agree,mother nature changes things over long periods of time,and we are a mere blip on the screen,so when we see a change we must have caused it,hense the global warming scare.Is there warming? it appears so, as data indicates it as such,but is it a natural cycle in the long term or not,no one seems to know.But its politically correct to jump on the bandwagon and do something about it.As I "pontificated" early in this thread,in the 1920's the Washington Post declared an emergency that we were warming up,then in the 70's Life magazine warned of the coming ice age,in 30 some years we've gone full circle again???So you can understand my skepticizm.
Who are we,mere mortals ,to think in such a short period of time we could change the earth that has been an ever changing ecosphere for eons.
Truz,I apologize if I seemed to target your comment,it wasn't intentional,I was irked relating to always placing the blame for anything that happens on the government,whether its democratic or republican or independent,it doesn't matter ,politics has nothing to do with it.
gary
There,I was back on the thread.whew.

 

So, a question for those who believe men can control the global temperaturess: Would you prefer that the planet be warming or cooling? It's been doing both as far back as people can identify historical temperatures.

Or, would you prefer to control the temperature of the planet outside of what nature has done for at least thousands of years? And if that is the case, at what temperature should it be kept?

Hm, ever worked or lived someplace where people fought over the thermostat setting?

 

No problem, I wasn't offended, I was just clarifying. I should have put in a few smilies.



As for the past "scares" - The Washington Post and New York Times are not what I'd call scientific. Perhaps in the 20s scientists were concerned with warming, but by the 70s they knew enough not to jerk their knees that easily. It was the media reporting, and often misunderstanding science.

I don't dislike the media (I have a degree in journalism, and have worked in the field), wish most media outlets knew enough about science to cover it correctly.

Although there is dissent in the scientific community about global warming, maybe we should apply the same logic that we apply to other things. School shootings, terrorist attacks, lead in toys, etc. All are bad, and we put a lot of effort into avoiding these things despite the low probabilities.

Should we be careful just in case we are contributing to global warming, or turn a blind eye and hope it is not happening?

 

Let's think about what kind of poverty "being careful" will create. As usual, all of this stuff will hit the poorest the worst via higher energy prices, and of course inflate all other costs too. beside that, even the alarmists' experts agree that anything that is done at this point will not change temperatures hardly at all.

Maybe we should stop all this unfounded man-made global warming hysteria and look at it with the proper scientific method if not for us, then "for the children." Think of the children who will be impoverished in this decade alone because of speculative hysteria.