Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und

Simple. Kyoto is irrellevant, the fact that the socialists tried to exempt China is one reason why.




I'm asking a question.

Originally Posted by jallman

I think people that use cartoons to make their point for them aren't very imaginative or insightful.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

What is your point? Are you trying to suggest that I am wrong about Chinas horrible pollution problems?

Are you attempting to suggest that unless one has been somewhere, they can’t know anything about the place? I never experienced WWII, but I know a lot about it.

Originally Posted by jfuh

I too have been to both these cities multiple times, spanning since 1983 all the way up to 2007.
I've seen significant differences between the capitalization then and now. As well as pollution levels then and now.
China has deffinitively gotten far far worse in pollution.
But I do share the assessment of Shanghai vs LA to a certain extent.
If LA had the same humidity level that Shanghai has LA would be far worse (all else unchanged).
Chinese are far far less reliant on the internal combustion engine than Americans. The top method of getting from A to B in China is still the bicycle followed then by public transport and then followed far later by ICE's. However the car is quickly catching up and congesting cities creating an urban Ozone that traps pollution in the cities even more.
When I visited Beijing in 1998 it was terrible, I literally could not see much but sillouettes of buildings that were but a mere 100 meters away. My last visit to these two cities just last year though proved different. Beijing had seriously cleaned up - thanks largely to it's extended brand new light rail, as had Shanghai.
There are still several more rual areas that are subject to heavy industrial pollution but it is clear that they are cleaning up.
As is the case with the Shandong city of Rizhao, where get this, 99% of all heating is from solar energy and overwhelming majority of street lights get their power from solar panels.
Any such city in the US? Europe? Not that I know of.

Originally Posted by shuamort

My point was that it seemed your post was from a position of unknowing the actual facts. Your statement:

I was recently in China again and visited a couple of cities, but stayed mainly in Beijing and Shanghai. I found the pollution to be on par with LA in Shanghai and Beijing similar to Chicago. More interestingly, I found the country to be far more capitalist than the United States. But, that's all from personal, first hand experience.

Originally Posted by jfuh

I hope this is not a waste of time where you're just going to give me some nonsense response.
All too easy for before man walked the earth.
#1 atmospheric composition was not the same as it was then.
#2 orbital wobbel known as Milankovitch cycles.
#3 solar output cycles

So you have no problem with the fact that the world is indeed warming.
Fair enough that saves me time from proving that it is warming.
Then the rational is quite simple.
1. Solar output has been steady we are not at any point where there has been any observed change in solar output directly or indirectly. The sun does have 11 year maximum minimum sunspot cycles but earth's circulation and ocean currents buffer out any radical changes
2. We are not wobbeling any closer to the sun nor have we been in the last 200 years since the Industrial revolution.
3. Though volcanic eruptions do indeed release huge quantities of greenhouse gases they also release huge quantities of particles that reflect radiation back into space and actually cool rather than warm. AS well as the fact that anthropogenic output far exceeds that of planetry volcanic systems.
4. Nature emits orders upon orders of magnitude more in greenhouse gases than human beings ever produce, however, natures emissions are in equilibrium - IOW carbon neutral and can be observed in the carbon cycle.

Eleminated solar, stellar and all natural impacts on global climate for the last 200 years (where we see the warming).
By process of elimination look to your left and see the 5ton elephant in the corner. Anthropogenic sources.
Elimination not enough? Ok

Anthropogenic emissions are NOT in equilibrium with the environment. They are a net addition to what nature already produces. Planet is able to buffer out fast dramatic changes but over the course of time with incriments of greenhouse gases continuing what we see are an un-ignorable trend of the concentration of greenhouse gases coinciding precisely with temperature incriments.
[IMG]

I didn't say you did, I specifically said it seemed that you are eluding to.
But since that is not what you are saying then what relevance does bringing up that "other nations pollute worse than we do" have on the argument whatsoever? I hope you're not reaching for a tu quo quoi argument here.

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

None of what you posted here can prove the case for "man" caused global warming. In order to PROVE that it is man caused, one must then explain why there have been at least four major ice ages in the Earth's past with corresponding heating and melting long before man walked the earth.

All I am asking for here is some intellectual curiosity and explanation of how this all has occurred many times in the distant past without man?

So please explain to me the CO2 levels and warming that have occurred four times in the past and the global cooling that resulted in ICE ages four times in the past according to scientists; and then explain how they occurred without man's involvement and how this time it involves them.

The FACT is that we have been part of a warming trend from the last ice age which started over 10,000 years ago.

Sidebar: I was just on a camping visit to Yosemite Park. They tell me it was formed when the ice sheets and glaciers carved the valley out, then retreated. NOTE: They retreated long before man walked the earth.

Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The earliest hypothesized ice age, called the Huronian, was around 2.7 to 2.3 billion years ago during the early Proterozoic Eon.

The earliest well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last 1 billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which permanent ice covered the entire globe.

A minor ice age, the Andean-Saharan, occurred from 460 to 430 million years ago, during the Late Ordovician and the Silurian period.

There were extensive polar ice caps at intervals from 350 to 260 million years ago, during the Carboniferous and early Permian Periods, associated with the Karoo Ice Age.

Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacials (glacial advance) and interglacials (glacial retreat). The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. All that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

I swear McCain found the one person who, if President, has the potential to make George W. Bush look good in history's eyes.

Originally Posted by jfuh

Orbital wobble I already explain this Milankovitch cycles. This was my very first response in my post.

Do spend some time to read what has been posted

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

So that is your argument? Man caused global warming is the result of Milankovitch cycles and orbital wobble? WOW!

Originally Posted by jfuh

You asked me what caused past ice ages and warming. I told you that it was orbital wobble.
I also stated that at current in the last 200+ years there has been no discrepency of orbital wobble that would've resulted in any climate change as we see today.