Neelman on cnbc.com today....

[jayme]

Gore was seen getting on a G-II with a few folks last year to go from TN to the west coast.........(not that I don't love the G-II). He talks the talk, but.......

If he was so concerned about emissions, maybe he should walk.

One more time - I never brought up Gore. You did.


I'm more concerned with NOAA and NASA.

 

[MJ42]

What's your premise, here? That since there is waste at NASA, all their research is moot? Interesting...

Ha, funny...my uncle is Chairman Emeritus at NOAA, I know the value of his quality research. I wish I could get him to respond to some of your posts, he would eat you for lunch.

I think 717's doing a good job debating you, I wish I had access to the wealth of info that my uncle has!

 

[PBRstreetgang]

I'll be happy if they can keep track of the bags

Can you imagine them handling bags of oil. I would like to see some of the rampers running the cracking towers!
PBR

 

[jayme]

Ha, funny...my uncle is Chairman Emeritus at NOAA, I know the value of his quality research. I wish I could get him to respond to some of your posts, he would eat you for lunch.

I think 717's doing a good job debating you, I wish I had access to the wealth of info that my uncle has!

From your "uncle's" website:

Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.
2. Are greenhouse gases increasing?

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point.

 

[jayme]

And then there's this gem, right off the front page of noaa.gov.

A synopsis:

The average global land temperature last month was the warmest on record and ocean surface temperatures were the 13th warmest. Combining the land and the ocean temperatures, the overall global temperature ranked the second warmest for the month of March. Global temperature averages have been recorded since 1880.

 

[MJ42]

From your "uncle's" website:

Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.
2. Are greenhouse gases increasing?

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point.

I personally liked #10:


10. Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?

Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. With now 28 years of reliable satellite observations there is confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance related to sunspots but no longer term trend in these data. Based on paleoclimatic (proxy) reconstructions of solar irradiance there is suggestion of a trend of about +0.12 W/m2 since 1750 which is about half of the estimate given in the last IPCC report in 2001. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

 

[MJ42]

And then there's this gem, right off the front page of noaa.gov.

A synopsis:

The average global land temperature last month was the warmest on record and ocean surface temperatures were the 13th warmest. Combining the land and the ocean temperatures, the overall global temperature ranked the second warmest for the month of March. Global temperature averages have been recorded since 1880.

Funny how you pick out things that only support your view and skip over those that don't!

 

[jayme]

My argument is that we are causing global warming. I didn't leave out any contradictory information.

 

[MJ42]

My argument is that we are causing global warming. I didn't leave out any contradictory information.

And where in your NOAA links does it say we are causing global warming? Or did I miss it?

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

A common argument against raising CAFE standards is that it will almost invariably mean lighter cars, which will in turn raise fatalities during car crashes.............

Of course if people would simply put down the coffee, the cheeseburger, the cell phone, the paper and f-ing pay attention .....and maybe use a turn signal once in a while, fatalities might just not increase. But, then who am I to ask people to be aware of their surroundings?

 

[jayme]

And where in your NOAA links does it say we are causing global warming? Or did I miss it?

You missed it.

Reread post #49.

 

[MJ42]

You missed it.

Reread post #49.

"So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation."


Still don't see it. Above quote from your post questions if humans are the cause. Nothing in any of your links say we are causing global warming.

 

[jayme]

Still don't see it. Above quote from your post questions if humans are the cause. Nothing in any of your links say we are causing global warming.

Good lord...

See if you can connect the dots:

1. The greenhouse effect is due to greenhouse gasses.

2. Humans are increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses.

Got it?

 

[STL717]

The cost and futility of trading hot air​

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,BoldItalic]Why carbon ‘cap-and-trade’ is an immoral non-solution to a non-problem[/FONT]


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/cost_and_futility_of_trading_hot_air.html

 

[Soverytired]

They aren't being quiet about it (do you need the links?) -- deforestation is at the top of the list.

Pick and choose whichever part of "climate change" you want to believe in order to make it convenient for your conscience -- then tell your great grandchildren that you were willing to take the risk to save a few bucks or your current lifestyle.

If it does all go to hell in a handbasket, you can just say that it was the natural order of things and not the direct result of man's (in)action. I guess for some, it's that simple. For others, it's like thinking that back in the day, most people didn't think that smoking was harmful.

That being said, the "hype" is soon to be a reality. The federal government will act, whether you like it or not.

The environment should NEVER, EVER be a partisan issue.

I'm curious, are you in your early 30's or younger? There is a fair amount of niavetee about your faith in the oncoming "climate change" and the necessity and ability of "the government" to do something about it.

Skepticism is a good thing. When the government wants to tax you into oblivion, retard the US and world economies, and set goals and programs that are unmeasurable in effect (remember, all these guys will be long out of office and dead before their programs have any affect) . . . well, one tends to realize that we've been down this road before.

Climatology is an infant science. Climate models are wildly inaccurate. Not all global warming scenarios are bad; some are beneficial. And if you think the biggest carbon "offenders" of China and India are going to go back to 2nd-3rd world status (or the US for that matter) for a nebulous goal, you're fooling yourself.