Nat Geo had a very good documentary (up until the narrator interjected a statement about AGW) it was  called "solar force" and was on "Naked Science". All the scientists interviewed were discussing solar variations as the main reason for climate change. None were promoting or even mentioning AGW. Near the end of the show the narrator, of course, interjected AGW as a proven given that is also a reason for climate change. They had to put the agenda/propaganda in because the scientists didn't I guess.

when i was growing up he was the main weatherman on NBC channel 5

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
 -Thomas Jefferson

ckc1227,

Interesting. So, following you logic, since 2 is a number, and 7 is a number, 2 = 7?

The answer is correct according to your question. Following logic and not mathematics why is this so...?

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

It's a chemical reaction, converting (via heat) molecules of one type into another. Another way to think about it is to take a box of cake mix, add other ingredients (eggs, milk, water), stir and bake. You end up with the same weight -- but now have a cake. As in the car, you're converting the gasoline and air into CO2. After 70 miles, your gas tank weighs less -- but the converted air now contains all that CO2.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

"How do you measure gas?"

We measure gas by volume and not by weight. CO2, in a gaseous form, is measured by the cubic foot. It still has mass, though. Not that it matters much.

The argument over how many "pounds" of CO2 we produce is just a red herring as CO2 gas (or any other gas) is not very efficient as an “greenhouse“ material since it is infrared light which is supposedly being trapped by the CO2 and converted into good, old-fashioned heat. CO2, as a gas, can only trap a small percentage of infrared light (most will pass right through) and convert it into heat, therefore its ability as a “greenhouse” material is very limited. Water vapor is a much better "greenhouse" substance as it actually reflects infrared heat, but no one is worried about how much water vapor we're dumping into the atmosphere.

Solid carbon is a great “greenhouse“ substance as it traps all of the infrared light and converts it into heat. Solid carbon, having high density, has good insulating properties as well so it tends to traps any converted heat within its structure.

Gaseous CO2, on the other hand, is not a good insulator as it is far less dense and convection currents in the gas rapidly transmits that heat upward into the higher altitudes. That convection mechanism quickly dissipates the heat away from the surface and into space. As that hot CO2 rises in the atmosphere, its density decreases, which lowers its temperature, and there is a corresponding decrease in CO2’s ability to trap heat. The less dense that gas becomes, the less insulating qualities it will provide and the less infrared energy it will convert into heat.

I never understood why people keep referring to the “greenhouse” effect and why they keep comparing what happen in a greenhouse with what is happening in the atmosphere. The two are not compatible.

In a greenhouse, air is normally trapped inside of a closed structure, that’s why the temperature increases. As the materials inside the greenhouse traps the sun’s infrared light and converts it into heat, that heat is transferred into the atmosphere inside the structure. Since the atmosphere inside of a greenhouse is trapped, any heat contained in that atmosphere is also trapped, as normal convection does not occur and that heat can not be lost due to atmospheric convection.

In the open air, though, there is no structure trappingin the air and interfering with convection. That air is free to circulate and convection currents will transfer heat from the lower altitudes up into the high altitudes and out into space.

How, then, can any gas like CO2 trap the heat and cause Global Warming? I don’t think it can in an open system. After all, there’s no barrier preventing convection from transporting that heat up and out of the atmosphere and into space. The Earth is not enclosed by a sphere of glass or other insulator. No enclosure, no greenhouse effect. Something else must be at work here, don’t you think?

The below is a link to my forum topic. Which is automaticaly added to all of my posts. If you want to argue it go there.

(Note, you might want to read some of the legal and historical documents referred to in my forum topic before assuming that 8 USC 1401 applies to the Constitution's test for Presidential Qualification)

---
Communist vs. Statist '08

Q. Is Panamanian born John McCain a "Natural Born Citizen"

Some people simply can't be taught, can they sy? Read this to get this data: "Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich. (From 1926 to 1960, some 70-95% of these glaciers were in retreat.)"

Not exactly local, is it? But you knew that already didn't you?

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

"It's GLOBAL not LOCAL."

Is that also why the Arctic sea ice is the largest it's been in several decades?  Is that local too?

"The data is gathered from the entire planet not
your local area."

Like how Iraq had snow for the first time in 100 years this past winter?  Was that a local effect?

"When your agricultural hardiness zone changes due to
increasing temps"

Temperatures are decreasing didn't you get the memo?  They just adjusted their climate models and told us to expect "10 years of cooling, then the models suggest we will go back into warming".  Complete garbage, they don't know and still don't know.

"the time to transport across the frozen tundra
shrinks from 12 to 8 weeks"

The time to transport across the tundra was 16 weeks (at least) this past winter.

"increases in severity of storms"

Storm severity is caused by a cooler world not a warmer one.  Storms are caused by the temperature difference between the equater and the poles.  As temperatures drop over the next 10 years (and I have no doubt about that) we will see more severe storms.

"I feel
the same about the Global War on Terror when the alarmists tell me I
should support it"

So as a typical liberal you ignore real problems and make up imaginary ones.

"So, who should I believe the small band of liars
who got us into Iraq or the hard data acquired by so many scientists
from all over the world? Hmmm...I'll stick with the truth every time"

Every week more scientists leave the IPCC.  In 5 years time people will be ashamed that they attached themselves to the imaginary hysteria.

look at this:

http://www.oar.noaa....

It's a picture from Nasa comparing sunspots to temperature change.  And as other posters here have noted, there have been NO new sunspots in this cycle that's starting.