Rational Look at Global Warming

Rational Look at Global Warming

There are 22 comments on the Wall Street Journal story from Jan 11, 2013, titled Rational Look at Global Warming. In it, Wall Street Journal reports that:

In your Jan. 5 editorial "The Kyoto Scorecard" you notes the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol, which sought to limit carbon-dioxide emissions in order to stop increases in global temperature allegedly caused by human activity.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Wall Street Journal.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#1 Jan 11, 2013
Actually, this is another denier opinion. Don't waste your time on it.

Otherwise the denier's lies with bad grammar and irrationality and lack of science and mathematics will contaminate your mind.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#2 Jan 11, 2013
I'll follow your advice. Thanks for the shortcut.
ObamaSUX

Calgary, Canada

#3 Jan 12, 2013
QUOTE:

"In your Jan. 5 editorial "The Kyoto Scorecard" you notes the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol, which sought to limit carbon-dioxide emissions in order to stop increases in global temperature allegedly caused by human activity.

Unfortunately, you cite various increases in such emissions in contravention of the protocol while neglecting to cite figures on the actual amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the percentage of increase caused by human sources.

Citing the former, including increases of 20% in the Netherlands, 24% in Canada and 10.3% in the U.S.(which declined to sign the protocol), will only add to the hysteria of calling for carbon taxes and other economically ruinous measures. However, citing the latter will add much-needed rationality to the debate on climate change.

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas currently occupying less than 4/100ths of 1% of atmospheric volume. Although atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may have doubled since 1950, less than 5% of this increase is attributable to burning of fossil fuels by humankind. This human-caused increase amounts to less than 1/1,000th of 1% of atmospheric volume. The oceans and the so-called "biosphere"—the amalgam of respiration and decay of living organisms—account for the overwhelming remainder of this increase.

Clearly, the national debate on climate change should contemplate these facts and the likely cause of increased carbon emissions from sources other than human consumption of fossil fuels. This likely cause is increased solar activity, which is simultaneously increasing the temperature on Mars. Unless there is an advanced Martian civilization burning vast amounts of coal and oil, global-warming alarmism needs some serious re-evaluation.

Robert M. Petrusak

Fairfax, Va."
----------
ABSOLUTELY TRUE!!!

Only the AGW CULT REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE FACTS.

If you AGW IDIOTS think that the COLD ATMOSHERE can HEAT-UP a WARMER EARTH then WHY DON'T YOU POST:

- Even ONE Law of Science that supports the Fantasy "Greenhouse Effect ?
- Even ONE Measurement, EVER DONE, that shows that a Colder Atmosphere can HEAT UP a Warmer Earth ?

YOU CAN'T.....BUT, WHY NOT?

ANS: In fact, every Measurement, EVER DONE, PROVES that Colder Atmosphere CANNOT HEAT UP a Warmer Earth.

Isn't that RIGHT and the TRUTH, you AGW A-HOLE?

COME ON, ADMIT IT!
----------
That's some QUACK AGW "science" you worship in your CULT.

What a HOOT!
PHD

Overton, TX

#4 Jan 12, 2013
Wow the contaminated trying to protect the contaminated precious.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#5 Jan 12, 2013
LOL, it is scared of gored.

Also, irrational and incompetent, it is.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
PHD

Overton, TX

#6 Jan 12, 2013
HA-HA the irrational trying to call the rest irrational. Precious.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#7 Jan 12, 2013
PHD wrote:
HA-HA the irrational trying to call the rest irrational. Precious.
You could be related to gored:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
PHD

Overton, TX

#8 Jan 12, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>I could be related to gored:
Your issue not mine.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#9 Jan 20, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
Carbon dioxide is a trace gas currently occupying less than 4/100ths of 1% of atmospheric volume. Although atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may have doubled since 1950, less than 5% of this increase is attributable to burning of fossil fuels by humankind. This human-caused increase amounts to less than 1/1,000th of 1% of atmospheric volume. The oceans and the so-called "biosphere"—the amalgam of respiration and decay of living organisms—account for the overwhelming remainder of this increase.
Gee can anyone tell Rupert Murdoch of FOX fame bought out Wall Street Journal?

Here is the lie:

#1 From NewScientist's Global Warming Guide for the Perplexed
<<It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks".

The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.

Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up slightly more.
Ocean sinks

Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007 Disturbances to the land - through deforestation and agriculture, for instance - also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.

About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.>>

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-c...

#2 Global warming gases ( water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, the chlorofluorocarbons) make up about 1% of the atmosphere, but are responsible for warming the earth roughly 60 degrees F.

--Water is a major greenhouse gas too, but its level in the atmosphere depends on temperature. Excess water vapor rains out in days.

--Excess CO2 accumulates, warming the atmosphere, which raises water vapor levels and causes further warming. CO2 lasts hundreds of years.

#3 it is not the DIRECT increase in CO2 that worries the climatologists the most, but how it triggers other warming!

--The CO2 warming allows more water vapor (clouds) to be held in the atmosphere. Water vapor is another global warming gas.

--As the ice melts, there is less reflection of sunlight from the earth therefore the Earth will heat up more.

--there are large methane deposits under the ice caps, which scientists fear will evaporate into the atmosphere. Methane is a more powerful global warming gas, than CO2.
Which is why ice cores show about a 95% correlation between Co2 and warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Peti...

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#10 Jan 20, 2013
ObamaSUX wrote:
QUOTE:

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas currently occupying less than 4/100ths of 1% of atmospheric volume. Although atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may have doubled since 1950, less than 5% of this increase is attributable to burning of fossil fuels by humankind. This human-caused increase amounts to less than 1/1,000th of 1% of atmospheric volume..
Gee, no surprises Rupert Murdoch of FOX bought out WSJ!

Here's the lie:

#1 From NewScientist's Global Warming Guide for the Perplexed

It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks".

The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.

Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up slightly more.

Ocean sinks
Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007 (pdf format). Disturbances to the land - through deforestation and agriculture, for instance - also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.

About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-c...

And of course WSJ ignored

#2 Global warming gases ( water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, the chlorofluorocarbons) make up about 1% of the atmosphere, but are responsible for warming the earth roughly 60 degrees F.
--Water is a major greenhouse gas too, but its level in the atmosphere depends on temperature. Excess water vapor rains out in days.
--Excess CO2 accumulates, warming the atmosphere, which raises water vapor levels and causes further warming. CO2 lasts hundreds of years.

#3 AND: it is not the DIRECT increase in CO2 that worries the climatologists the most, but how it triggers other warming!
--The CO2 warming allows more water vapor (clouds) to be held in the atmosphere . Water vapor is another global warming gas.
--As the ice melts, there is less reflection of sunlight from the earth (Ice has a high albedo effect), therefore the Earth will heat up more.
--there are large methane deposits under the ice caps, which scientists fear will evaporate into the atmosphere. Methane is a more powerful global warming gas, than CO2.

which is why ice cores show close to a 95% correlation between Co2 and warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Peti...

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#11 Jan 20, 2013
Sometimes my posts don't take, so I repeat them. I waited a few minutes on the first one -- guess I should wait even longer to verify. I have lost some posts here though too, so it's a guess.
PHD

Overton, TX

#13 Jan 21, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
Sometimes my posts don't take, so I repeat them. I waited a few minutes on the first one -- guess I should wait even longer to verify. I have lost some posts here though too, so it's a guess.
WOW you got that one right you guess and you really really don't know. Try some more cut and paste scientific science fiction. It works well for you.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#14 Jan 21, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text> Try some more cut and paste scientific science fiction. It works well for you.
Weren't you the guy who said all science was scientific science fiction.
ANSWER: Yes

That means I'm doing well, if I have to explain your own posts to you...
LOL
PHD

Overton, TX

#15 Jan 22, 2013
Wallop10commandertroll wrote:
<quoted text>
Weren't you the guy who said all science was scientific science fiction.
ANSWER: Yes
That means I'm doing well, if I have to explain your own posts to you...
LOL
No it only explains your state of mind useless babble cut and paste scientific science fiction.Now put on your big boy pamnts and show all your published work.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#16 Jan 22, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>No it only explains your state of mind useless babble cut and paste scientific science fiction.Now put on your big boy pamnts and show all your published work.
Here's your published work:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
PHD

Overton, TX

#17 Jan 22, 2013
SpacedoutBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Here's your published work:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
http://www.uselessbabble cut and paste scientific science fiction.com///
Your published work at its best.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#18 Jan 22, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text> http://www.us elessbabble cut and paste scientific science fiction.com///
Your published work at its best.
You are very busy this morning to respond to what you published during the night:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
PHD

Overton, TX

#19 Jan 22, 2013
SpacedoutBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You are very busy this morning to respond to what you published during the night:
How do you know what I do during the night? Are you stalking me again?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#20 Jan 22, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>How do you know what I do during the night? Are you stalking me again?
You stalk me everyday.

I don't know when your night is but I know per Topix that you published this and more

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

during the Presidential night. Topix knows what you publish.

Attacks on me won't delete or erase what you are and what you do.
PHD

Overton, TX

#21 Jan 22, 2013
SpacedoutBlues wrote:
<quoted text>I stalk you everyday.
I don't know when your night is but I know per Topix that you published this and more
during the Presidential night. Topix knows what you publish.
Attacks on me won't delete or erase what you are and what you do.
And you think topix doesn’t know what you publish? Attacks on me won't delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 22 min IBdaMann 53,971
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) 1 hr OzRitz 6,251
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 4 hr Brian_G 3,861
Poll Who Should Go to the Pole during Local Winter t... 4 hr Brian_G 1
News Who still takes global warming seriously? (Jan '10) 4 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 30,829
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 5 hr Brian_G 34,380
The Science of GHG 8 hr Earthling-1 123
More from around the web