Pope To Decree Addressing Climate Change

[dairygirl4u2c]

just to be clear... i am aware it is only weak circumstantial evidence i was citing with the tipping point of ice. if the ice is reaching a tipping point, and if temperatures increase substantially some from cars etc, the cars etc might be causing the tipping that is occuring.
essentially, i could have cited anything that is resulting from warming.

iron has never cited studies for his volcano theories, as long as he's pushed his belief about global warming (he jsut believe it cause it's the conservative position, and he'll do whatever it takes to espouse it). the only article i've seen on it, in that limbaugh thread, showed that the volcano theorists are basing their evidence on volcanic activity from 700000 years ago. i am open to an actual cite for volcanic activity.

the real proof that it might be man made. look at that study i cited. it expressly stated that only a third of the warming within the last century is from solar cycle. where's the rest come from? should we assume the scientists are wrong and that emissions cause no warming? if it causes warming, how much? the ice and all the other effects of warming are occurring... would they be occuring without hte extra umpf of man made warming? how much temperature increase does it take to make the ice melt?
where are these alleged vocano studies? even if the volcanoes cause a lot, would emissions from man be a sufficient extra umpf? the norm of emissions is consrant, conceivably, after all, so man emissions would only add extra effects to it.

unless you can answer these questions, you have no business saying global warming is hoax. like other rational people, you have to be open to what science teaches us. the jury is out, the info is lacking. to absolutist here, is only exposing the personality of the person: they are absolutist too much. you can't apply religous certainty minds to politics, and especially science. i've gotten scores of upper 140s on IQ tests before. usually it's lower 130s maybe upper 120s. i doubt iron gets that consistently. whatever the case, i'm not dumb or lack logic. even if IQ mattered in this thread, i've got my bases covered to be someone to listen to, and you don't win automatically, just cause yours is higher. whtever the case, it's a red herring. it's just a distraction to fluff up his argument.

again, unless you can answer those questions, it's idiotic to say global warming is a hoax.

Edited October 28, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's not the best cite, but i've posted this before and it bears positng again.
[url="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72"]http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72[/url]

note, the critique of that article in the comments section said that no sane person claims that volcanos cause GW. he said it was just a distraction.

i am open to an actual study, and will admit i'm wrong once more conclusive proof is posted. i cant believe someone would post what iron has posted so far and consider it a proof that MMGW is unsubstantial. what's been posted so far is what i'd expect to see in a third grade science report.

[quote]"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon ©, rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)."
[url="http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html"]http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html[/url][/quote][quote][/quote]

Edited October 28, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, here is exponential growth of carbon emissions evidence.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_...de_400kyr-2.png[/url]

add that to the graphs gore cited showing a correclation between CO2 and temperture. i am aware that correlation does not prove causation, but it's certainly some proof.

[ironmonk]

Anyone can add to wikipedia, so the value of wiki is low.

Numbers in that study are not real... you can't take a display of over 400,000 years of data in a seven inch graph seriously. That is a blatent attempt at keeping the guise of the hoax. Anyone with a scientific mind would know this.

The accurracy of the data would be in serious question in anything over 5000 years.

There is nothing to indicate that any warming is man made.

Carbon levels increase after heat does.

The industrial revolution has not caused a significant rise in CO2 whatsoever. That conclusion is a complete lie.

The industrial revolution has done less "damage" to the planet via CO2 than a eye dropper full of bleach could do to the ocean.

[jeffpugh]

Dude, she cited more than a wiki topic. But, I agree with the facts you have presented. I'm just goona take care of the earth like a Catholic Christian though. Stewardship for the win. First thing: cut down garbage output....

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1410874' date='Oct 28 2007, 11:05 PM']Dude, she cited more than a wiki topic. But, I agree with the facts you have presented. I'm just goona take care of the earth like a Catholic Christian though. Stewardship for the win. First thing: cut down garbage output.... [/quote]

I know... but I didn't want to type that much about the topic... again. lol

God Bless,
ironmonk