re: are there still people who still believe the earth is warming and man caused it?

quote:

---

Humans do have an effect on the climate. Fricken PLANTS have an effect on climate and they don't even have brains.

---

What's the physical mass of all plants on the earth compared to that of all humans?

quote:

---

and think that just because Al Gore is a douche we can just throw up our hands and ignore serious environmental issues that do exist.

---

Uhm... yeah. Pretty much.

quote:

---

I asked for a link showing that Mars is undergoing the "same temperature changes as earth".

---

quote:

---

After computation of the astronomical Milankovitch cycles on deep sea cores for the last 2.4 Ma the same cycles revealed to exist in land sediment series: Long Term (last 2.4 Ma, Pleistocene) and Middle Term (last 127Ka, Last Interglacial - Last Glacial Time-span) Time Series after cycle computation with the newly developed ExSpect method. Moreover, the same calculation method proved useful for Short Term Time Series as well on sediments of the last 10.000 years (10Ka). The latter cycles as those obtained for ice and glacial lake deposits on Mars could also clearly be traced back in the planetary correlations computed by the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. This points to an extra terrestrial astronomical forcing of the origin of all these cycles on both planets Earth and Mars.
LINK

---

quote:

---

Results indicate enhanced wind stress in recently darkened areas and decreased wind stress in brightened areas, producing a positive feedback system in which the albedo changes strengthen the winds that generate the changes. The simulations also predict a net annual global warming of surface air temperatures by ~0.65?K, enhancing dust lifting by increasing the likelihood of dust devil generation. The increase in global dust lifting by both wind stress and dust devils may affect the mechanisms that trigger large dust storm initiation, a poorly understood phenomenon, unique to Mars. In addition, predicted increases in summertime air temperatures at high southern latitudes would contribute to the rapid and steady scarp retreat that has been observed in the south polar residual ice for the past four Mars years
LINK

---

quote:

---

Al Gore is a hack, and I don't subscribe to his global warming theory, but we do have a pernicious effect on the environment that needs to be addressed.

---

Good - we can agree on these points.

quote:

---

I find that many global warming opponents have no interest in the environment whatsoever and think that just because Al Gore is a douche we can just throw up our hands and ignore serious environmental issues that do exist.

---

True conservatives and libertarians are the ultimate conservationists - you want to conserve soemthing - give someone ownership over it. Classic example was the end of the Soviet collectivized farms. The collective farms continued to yield less and less. However, a program was begun (and perhaps Gorbachev started it while he was still at the Ag Bureau) - to allow the farmers to have small privately held plots - and they split time between working on the collectivized fields and their own, very small in comparison, private plots.

Well - lo and behold - after a few years, the yield on those small plots began to rival the larger collectivized acreage. Why do you suppose that is?

quote:

---

This points to an extra terrestrial astronomical forcing of the origin of all these cycles on both planets Earth and Mars.

---

I have never disputed that the origin of past major climate changes have been due to astronomical/solar/orbital factors. In fact, I think this is quite obviously the case. However, the argument is that there is a significant CO2 feedback effect, which reminds me that you haven't responded to my last post in the other thread, so I will ask the question here.

If there are no positive feedback effects from CO2 (or anything else), how do you explain the fact that temperature declines from max to min take an order of magnitude longer than temperature rises from min to max? If the only factor at play were extra terrestrial, wouldn't you expect temperature rises and declines to take about the same length of time?

quote:

---

just because Al Gore is a douche we can just throw up our hands and ignore serious environmental issues that do exist

---

To be fair, when you cry wolf... people start dismissing the messenger.

I honestly think part of the human psyche requires a constant looming doomsday scenario.

They've been with us since he earliest of times. Christians have the 2nd coming. Muslims have the 12th Imam. In more modern times it's been: nuclear war (50s,60s), running out of oil (30s, 70s), global cooling, acid rain, the ozone hole (80s), Y2k, now it's AGW.

Its quite likely an evolutionary thing that has kept us safer throughout time. Prepared for the worst: hoping for the best.

quote:

---

ow do you explain the fact that temperature declines from max to min take an order of magnitude longer than temperature rises from min to max?

---

Latent heat. LINK

quote:

---

, he hit on my ex wife at an art gallery opening here about 8 years ago.

---

Never thought I'd be defending the man, bear, pig Gore, but like YOU have never done this!!! Woooo Hoooo

quote:

---

So... Are you contending that CO2 does not have an effect on the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere?

---

I am contending that, while water vapor is an important GHG, its rapid cycle makes it more difficult to appreciably accumulate barring a drastic temperature change. Its concentration also varies so wildly that it's difficult to measure any trends, if there are any. That said, CO2 accumulation and the associated warming would be expected to, in the long term, increase the average concentration of water vapor and contribute to a feedback effect.

quote:

---

As an in-situ single variable experiment? Link?

---

You want a link to an obviously impossible experiment? An in situ experiment on the entire world involving only one variable? If that's what it will take for you to accept something as fact, then I guess you don't believe 99% of the things we know and technology we use on a daily basis. Because almost no experiment can be performed without having to account for variables outside of one's control. We don't exactly have a control sample of Earth. That said, the radiation absorbing properties of CO2 are well-understood, and the amount of radiative forcing it contributes has been calculated and measured many, many times. Google search link for convenience. Feel free to logically debunk it all.

quote:

---

Compared to the amount in water vapor.

---

You mean the amount in water vapor, which averages out to a somewhat stable concentration? The amount that contributes to equilibrium in the system, and has not seen a measurable increase or decrease? The amount that has not seen much change that would cause an accumulation of heat on the surface of the earth? That amount?

quote:

---

Heat has to be held by something. Otherwise it will get lost to space.

---

Heat is held by everything, and everything radiates it back out. This kind of supports the position that adding anything to the atmosphere that holds heat will create a new, higher equilibrium temperature.

quote:

---

Personally, I don't think any proposed solution is counterproductive,

---

The solution proposed by Kyoto was the US sending a Trillion Dollars to the 3rd world. So, you think that's productive?

quote:

---

After all, we don't know the side-effects of any solutions, and reducing the output would obviously be an attack on the root of the problem.

---

Yes we do know the side-effects. Wind power was proposed in 1995. The argument against it was that the blades are gonna kill a ton of birds. Look what happened 18 years later?

All of the side effects of solar being inefficient, electric cars not having range, geo thermal, wave, co-gen ...were all known 20 years ago.

Side effects don't matter to those in the movement with changing names:

Deep Ecology... the 70s.
The Ethic ... the 80s.
Green ... the 90s.

It's the same deceitful crap every decade. Predicting destruction. Being wrong. Fudging data. Wash, rinse, repeat.