Global warming.

Fine here is your link for 2100 scientist: http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=con ... ue-spreads

"In March, a meeting of 2000 climate scientists in Copenhagen prompted the headline “Projections of Climate Change Go From Bad to Worse, Scientists Report.”

Here is your list of 31,000: http://petitionproject.org/signers_by_l ... hp?run=all

"The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists."

Welcome to the family Farquezy.

Ok, sound good to me
I'll look into the subject more though.

Lets say global warming isnt real.
Now, lets agree on some things, do you agree carbon dioxide concentration has been increasing rapidly?
Do you agree that the ozone layer is thinning in north and south poles causing the melting of ice caps due to green house effect?
Do you agree there has been a rise in storms which in turn can be linked to carbon dioxide which causes green house effect, causing fresh water to enter the oceans and changing ocean currents and temperature?

None of these have to do anything with global warming, these have to due with just the introduction of unnatural amounts of carbon dioxide.
So no, i dont believe in global warming, but i 100% fully believe in Green House effect which is a extremely big problem, and anyone who have finished 5th grade science class would agree.

Now im interested to see what you can come up with, because i dont want to be carrying around false info


I would be quick to add, however, that because of the limited spatial coverage and short time period of data, it is still not possible to say if these trends will continue

do you agree carbon dioxide concentration has been increasing rapidly?

No. Atmospheric CO2 volume levels historically have been around 200 and 300 ppm or 0.02% and 0.03% respectively. CO2 currently is at 387ppm(0.0387%); but still, that level of CO2 in the air is barely equivalent to dropping a small bottle of red food dye in an Olympic size swimming pool. In other words not enough CO2 to matter.

Do you agree that the ozone layer is thinning in north and south poles causing the melting of ice caps due to green house effect?

No. There is no evidence that the Ozone layer ever completely covered the icecaps. The "hole" phenomenon has already been explained on this thread.

Do you agree there has been a rise in storms which in turn can be linked to carbon dioxide which causes green house effect, causing fresh water to enter the oceans and changing ocean currents and temperature?

No for the CO2 reason above. It is natural for freshwater to enter the ocean via rivers and rain. If higher solar activity has nothing to do with higher storm activity then it must be a sign of the rapture.
Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Env ... 793446.cms

i 100% fully believe in Green House effect which is a extremely big problem, and anyone who have finished 5th grade science class would agree.

If you believe current levels of carbon dioxide are responsible for "the green house effect" then do your part and stop breathing.
The most abundant green house gas in the atmosphere is water vapor, not CO2. Why don't you ask a 5th grader what we should do about that?

Mars's southern polar ice cap, has shrunk in recent years due to planetary warming similar to what's happening on Earth.

The simultaneous rise in temperatures on Earth and Mars indicates a non human cause for global warming.

"Experts" maintain that humans are responsible for Earth's climate changes, so does this mean that the Mars phenomenon is a coincidence?

Photo courtesy of NASA
Source:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming

Psh, life on Mars confirmed!

That was posted on February 28, 2007 and this is the first time I have heard of it so I guess it goes to show you how much the news/politicians are trying to shove Global Warming down our throats.

They would probably say that our carbon waste is so tremendous that a huge ball of it penetrated the ozone and traveled the atmosphere all the way to mars.

Ice cap thaw may awaken Icelandic volcanoes?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100416/wl_ ... no_climate

[crait]

That's the stupidest piece I've ever read on Yahoo!
They are retards! It doesn't make sense!

http://www.nationalexpositor.com/index.php?news=2067

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=155701

Reworking the data utilized by the IPCC in Mann's "hockey stick" graph, Monckton identified three distinct periods of global warming – 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-2001 – that he argued were naturally occurring cycles not resulting from human activity.

Monckton then called upon Rajendra Pachauri, the Indian railway engineer currently heading the U.N. IPCC, to withdraw the graph and publish the correction on the IPCC website, "Or, I am going to report you for criminal fraud." said Monckton.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100610/ap_ ... wer_plants

Burning wood instead of coal supposedly will increase global levels of CO2 by 3%.

CO2 levels are currently at: 382 ppm or 0.0382% according to EPA. A 3% increase looks like 393 ppm or 0.0393%

Oxygen is 209,460 ppm of the atmosphere or 20.9%, compare that to CO2.

Breathe easy and have a nice day.

[DarkPacMan77]

Yeah I never understood why they relate to CO2 levels as if they were to rise in whole percentages... that just doesn't happen on Earth unless there's perhaps a forest fire or volcano in a certain region, and only then, it's not like the ramifications from CO2 alone are worth worrying over much past even a week or so. Just might feel a little more groggy.

-DarkPacMan77-

It's even more unlikely than you think.

For example, water covers 71% of the planets surface, but water vapor is only present in the atmosphere as a trace gas. It's concentration in the air varies with location and temperature from 0.1 to 4%.

By the way, water vapor is also a powerful green house gas so what are we going to do about that?

[crait]

Just think.... 0.1-4% is enough for rain... So when we see CO2 at 2%... Shouldn't we see CO2 rain?

[Kanadier]

in 97' they said we'd be burning up by now, Why am I still waiting!?

[DarkPacMan77]

Just think.... 0.1-4% is enough for rain... So when we see CO2 at 2%... Shouldn't we see CO2 rain?

Yes, in fact, it's happened often enough in many places. That's merely referred to as "acid rain". When certain compounds react with water in the air it can make it acidic. Acid rain can also be caused by other compounds than just CO2 though, like sulfur, nitrogen and others.

You must also take into consideration that there are different types of methods for deposition for acid rain. You can have wet or dry deposition. Wet includes actual rain, snow, or condensation that is acidic while dry deposition involves gases, often considered to be pollutants, remaining in the air as particles. Dry can turn into wet disposition, but usually areas that output more pollutants for the natural rain cycle to "cleanse" are the ones that see acid rain. Major metro areas in the United States as well as industrial areas in other countries, particularly China, have problems with acid rain being carried to other areas as well in which we have those pollutants deposited on the surface of Earth through rain eventually.

Most importantly, it's important to keep in mind that both CO2 and H2O are common molecules and building blocks of life for our planet. Acid rain usually doesn't have the chance to fall because molecules of water aren't available to latch onto through the water cycle or because other life on our planet absorb or convert CO2 for energy or for relations with lifeforms involving relationships with other lifeforms. Taking this into consideration, acid rain caused by CO2 becomes quite unlikely. The Earth will absolutely NOT experience even a full 1% world-wide accumulation of CO2 in the air that we breathe, and certainly will not come to 3% on average anywhere even close to the end of our lives or the lives of our children, or their children, or their children, for generations to come. It just doesn't happen and won't, particularly useful to consider because most prestigious scientists align with the possibility that "Global Warming isn't caused by mankind and/ or isn't even taking place at all". This becomes increasingly more curious when you find that the Earth has been cooling on average for the better most of the last decade.

-DarkPacMan77-

[crait]

I know what acid rain is... It's not pure CO2... If there was as much CO2 as it takes to make rain, it would be nearly pure CO2 rain which would be incredibly worse. I took a class that is purely environmental studies and acid rain is actually minuscule compared to pure CO2 rain.