"'The Inconvenient Truth' is indeed inconvenient to alarmists"

you are way off, guy. the environmental movement is doing a poor job educating the citizenry on this problem.

the argument is that burning fossil fuels has changed the proportion of gases in the atmosphere, like water vapor and co2, yunno the greenhouse effect? it has little to do with the actual heat produced when things burn.

(are you kidding, you knew that right? i dont understand.)

ok i will try harder.

 

Same basic concept...byproducts. What do you think that 'heat' is made of? That's right, gases. It is beyond me how anyone can deny the impact of anthropogenic processes (i.e. SUV's). Sure, the magnitude is an area of dispute. But we're talking about finite elements.

 

not the same concept. the actual heat generated from burning is not the issue at all.

?

heat isnt "made" of gases. heat is essentially energy. i dont think you understand the basics of global warming. the main issue is an overabundance or co2 and other gases (regardless of the temp of the gases) in the atmosphere. the argument is how much these gases contribute to the earth retaining heat. the actual temperature of the items producing greenhouse gases is not the issue. you could have an ice cold co2 machine pumping out co2 and it would be part of the problem, it doesnt matter the temperature of the actual burning of fossil fuels, the issue is the proportions of gases in the atmosphere. i would guess the energy that hits the earth from the sun daily dwarfs all the heat ever produced by humans.

finite elements? what?

 

No? Then what do you propose it consists of, sir? Perhaps, yes, heat is was a little off-base in it's example. But, getting back on track, you wanted to know how the earth could possibly be hotter now than it was some time ago, sarcastically apologizing for gas-guzzling automobiles. The answer, is anthropogenic processes...ones related to human activity. All sorts of chemical reactions are giving off by-products (because they're not 100% efficient) that weren't taking places thousands of years ago. Certainly, you're not denying this, right?

You know that saying 'two tears/drops in a bucket?' Well, if you add enough drops, the bucket eventually overflows, right? In other words, you can downplay the mangnitude of our impact all you want. But, even if that is the truth, eventually it adds up to something significant.

 

are you asking me to explain the first day of middle school science?

like i said, heat is essentially energy. a gas is a state of matter and can be hot or cold. i dont see what you are saying. i get the impression you are either pulling my leg or do not understand basic physics.

the earth has heated and cooled violently for millions of years, periodically going in and out of ice ages. now, during an ice age, something causes the earth to heat, right? or else the ice age would last forever. this may be solar cycles or something else i really do not know. my question is, if the earth naturally heats and cools all the time, how can we be certain that this particular episode of heating is the result of our influence? how can we know this warming period is not the result of the lots and lots of factors that are in play with regard to climate change? red would argue that science has this figured out, and i do not necessarily agree with him. that is basically the argument.

many non-human factors can change the climate, or the climate would have been perfectly static before humans arrived, which it wasnt. i realize that humans do various things and these things give off heat and whatever other byproducts. but the heat we produce for example in a combustion engine or whatever else we doing is totally insignificant. what is relevant is the earths retention of the heat of the sun as a function of the atmosphere. the heat of the sun dwarfs any heat-producing process done by man.

not necessarily. it may be that the earth is warming now because the sun is going through a stretch of time where it cooks a little hotter. the sun goes through cycles. it may be some other reason that we do not understand. we know there were ice ages before humans were around. why did they start? why did they stop? what warmed the earth out of an ice age before there were humans? if you were the only human on the earth a million years ago during an ice age, and the ice was melting, would you blame yourself?

i argue that climate is an incredibly complex system with so many factors that accurate predictions are difficult and cause effect relationships are hard to find. doesnt increasing heat increase water vapor? doesnt water vapor form clouds which reflect the sun's heat? wouldnt that cool us and restrict the heat from getting out of hand? in the past co2 levels have been far higher than they are now. why was that? did that cause previous heating of the earth? why did it stop? since plants love c02, will increased levels of it mean more productive plants that feed us easier? will global warming make areas that are currently far too cold to live or grow food more habitable? of course. more than the areas that become too hot or the areas that supposedly will flood from rising oceans? wont the increased heat mean more water vapor which will mean more precip in areas too dry to grow food? and wont lots of that water vapor end up as snow on the poles and not contribute to rising ocean level? see how many questions there are?

i also point out that there is an element of chaos theory involved. i will explain this to you also if you would like, but you seem to be tripped up on simpler points.

 

Actually, you said deforestation was causing global warming. OK, I showed you that there is actually more standing timber today than there was 500 years ago so there's one myth from moveon.org shot down.

Then you said the rise in CO2 was the cause. OK, I showed you an expert that said the meager rise in CO2 since humans is nothing compared to the CO2 levels years ago when the earth was in an ice age. Those aren't myths or misleading facts.

The expert stated the facts......the earth was in an ice age thousands of years ago when the CO2 levels were 10 times what they are now. If that's a sample size of one so be it. But the facts of time and temp are not a sample size of one. You just don't like he is pointing out facts that blow any of your conclusions out of the water. Sorry.

 

Red, wait a minute. Are you the guy that looks like Willie that I used to see at baseball games? If so, that would raise you 2 knotches in my book.