Latest news on Global Warming......More bad news

[audtatious]

.....for the Global Warming alarmists.....

Seems the tree ring data that Gore and the IPCC have used as proof of Global Warming has finally been shown to be a bunch of poo as the data was selected to show warming....

"How the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie "http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n...e-lie/

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/...tions/

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/...teers/

It's nice when data is not released to be rebutted.....

[szh]

Unreal.

As an engineer/scientist myself, I find his deliberate falsification of data to be simply unacceptable.

Z

[ScrapMetal]

I gotta admit, An Inconvenient Truth was pretty boring. Though IMO, all the pollution that people have been spewing into the environment since the start of the industrial revolution has to have some adverse effect on the environment.

[S13_love]

Yeah, "global warming" is "a bunch of poo" for crying out loud.

Let me put it this way, there are a couple towns just east of here which have already gotten snow...it's not even October.

[Sentientbydesign]

Without getting into a heated debate. Let's consider this... There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 billion motor vehicles in the world.

Now let's remove the polution aspect from the vehicles and just concentrate on heat output.

Can anybody seriously say that 1 billion vehicles pumping heat into our environment isn't causing some increase in global temperature?

Add in cooking, heating, and industrial heat and it's really difficult to say that there isn't at least some degree of global warming being caused by humans.

[xX RB Xx]

^ I disagree.

Here in Memphis, we had one of the coolest summers in 100 years. And what has only been around for 100 years?? Automobiles, and all of the other things you mentioned that would increased global temps.

[AZhitman]

We've established this long ago.

I've never read anything that points to the heat (referred to as "waste heat" from internal combustion engines) as a contributor to "global warming".

The number of vehicles, and the relatively small temperature differential they produce, compared to the vastness of our atmosphere, is simply too small.

http://ronney.usc.edu/whyiceng...s.pdf

Keep in mind, alternative energy sources (to the internal combusion engine) are likely to contribute MORE to any so-called environmental impact... even those perceived as "green".

People see a hybrid and think it's doing some good - They're too short-sighted to think that the alternative energy has to come from a source, and THAT source generates - you guessed it - heat, emissions and pollution.

If all these pinheads would quit screaming that the sky is falling, quit fearmongering, and put their heads together to make the ICE *more* efficient, or create alternative fuels that can work in an ICE, we'll all be a lot better off.

But they'd rather run around in a panic, clueless as to where to direct their energies.

[dusred]

Without getting into a heated debate. Let's consider this... There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 billion motor vehicles in the world.

Now let's remove the polution aspect from the vehicles and just concentrate on heat output.

Can anybody seriously say that 1 billion vehicles pumping heat into our environment isn't causing some increase in global temperature?

Add in cooking, heating, and industrial heat and it's really difficult to say that there isn't at least some degree of global warming being caused by humans.

Lets add all the volcano's around the world which are mother natures way of heating the earth. . . if you take the 1 billion cars' pollution and compare it to the pollution of 1 volcano it is like comparing the size of the earth to the size of the sun.

[Sentientbydesign]

^ I disagree.

Here in Memphis, we had one of the coolest summers in 100 years. And what has only been around for 100 years?? Automobiles, and all of the other things you mentioned that would increased global temps.

Your POV doesn't really say anything. Billions of tiny heaters still amount to a continuous release of large amounts of heat.

We've got a problem with both perspectives here. The global warning yuppies want to make an immediate emergency out of something that will take a relatively long time to happen.

On the other hand, you have people who swear that our world is infinitely large with infinite resources which will NEVER be trashed.

Both sides are fundamentally flawed. The only thing I'm saying is, even if the pollution isn't enough to cause global warming, the conversion of thermal potential energy into heat HAS to have some effect on our environment.

[_b.jaye_]

Yeah, "global warming" is "a bunch of poo" for crying out loud.

Let me put it this way, there are a couple towns just east of here which have already gotten snow...it's not even October.

^ I disagree.

Here in Memphis, we had one of the coolest summers in 100 years. And what has only been around for 100 years?? Automobiles, and all of the other things you mentioned that would increased global temps.

you gotta think though. a rise of, say, 1 degree in the average temp of the globe doesnt necessarily mean that everywhere on the face of the planets ambiant air temp goes up by 1 degree. its an average, which means that a region that was much colder basically got warm enough to melt off all its locked up water, be it ice or snow or whatever, and flood all that back into various bodies of water around the globe.

being as water temps are one of the main drivers of weather patterns, your gonna see changes in temps (could be higher OR lower temps depending on how patterns are effected) & weather for what may seem like a small average increase.

that being said, im going outside to wash my car with pornographicly wastefull amounts of water
Modified by _b.jaye_ at 2:04 PM 9/30/2009

[nametakennow]

The earth has mechanisms for managing its temperature - not quite actively like a mammal's body, but there are elements that are relatively difficult to imbalance. Even when these elements do get out of balance (say, extraterrestrial impact), the outside influence is often cause for an increase in these mechanisms' activity, which results in a return the balance.

Hilariously, the same class where all of that was explained to me, fortifying my previous ideas that anthropogenic global warming was, to use a technical term, hullabaloo, is also a class where I literally walked out in annoyance one day in the middle of an alarmist CO2 "discussion" led by the professor.

edit: How'd I wander into Politics? Blast... oh well.

[audtatious]

Without getting into a heated debate. Let's consider this... There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 billion motor vehicles in the world.

Now let's remove the polution aspect from the vehicles and just concentrate on heat output.

Can anybody seriously say that 1 billion vehicles pumping heat into our environment isn't causing some increase in global temperature?

Add in cooking, heating, and industrial heat and it's really difficult to say that there isn't at least some degree of global warming being caused by humans.

I have no problem with your POV or considering the above. Pollution has been a factor that has increased and is constantly being worked on by having more efficient vehicles. I fully approve. We have made great strides in the US since the 70's on that front.

The question you should ask is, if what seems obvious to you, that the use of cars, trucks, etc. has to be making some change, why can't those who support your viewpoint come up with real data instead of false data?

It's been shown that ice core data is incorrect from a CO2 perspective because as time passes and pressure increases, CO2 diminishes in ice. Thus, the "lower" CO2 numbers shown via ice cores in the past do not prove anything unless you neglect the "diminishing CO2 in ice" discovery. Then you have all the data from weather stations around the globe where a large number of them are on asphalt, near A/C units, etc. Now we have the tree ring data being manipulated.....

[Sentientbydesign]

I have no problem with your POV or considering the above. Pollution has been a factor that has increased and is constantly being worked on by having more efficient vehicles. I fully approve. We have made great strides in the US since the 70's on that front.

The question you should ask is, if what seems obvious to you, that the use of cars, trucks, etc. has to be making some change, why can't those who support your viewpoint come up with real data instead of false data?

It's been shown that ice core data is incorrect from a CO2 perspective because as time passes and pressure increases, CO2 diminishes in ice. Thus, the "lower" CO2 numbers shown via ice cores in the past do not prove anything unless you neglect the "diminishing CO2 in ice" discovery. Then you have all the data from weather stations around the globe where a large number of them are on asphalt, near A/C units, etc. Now we have the tree ring data being manipulated.....

Science is so heavily manipulated right now that I don't really believe it unless I do the experimenting myself.

Theorizing on billions of "tiny" heaters on the other hand is much easier.

[audtatious]

Doesn't seem to stop the "doom and gloom" gang from using MMGW as a way to inject fear and create a new way to make money off it.

Cap & Trade will be horrible legislation

[C-Kwik]

It's been shown that ice core data is incorrect from a CO2 perspective because as time passes and pressure increases, CO2 diminishes in ice. Thus, the "lower" CO2 numbers shown via ice cores in the past do not prove anything unless you neglect the "diminishing CO2 in ice" discovery. Then you have all the data from weather stations around the globe where a large number of them are on asphalt, near A/C units, etc. Now we have the tree ring data being manipulated.....

Links please. I'm curious as to how any chemical will diminish over time unless it is actually leaving the ice somehow. And even then, it would have to make its way through all the layers of ice above it. If the CO2 isotopes from one period are different than others, then we would see a mixing of them and could likely still come up with a determination of how much CO2 exists for each poeriod based on isotope spread throughout the core. This can depend on how the CO2 escapes. I can't imagine there are many chemical reactions taking place given the relative stability of water and CO2 molecules and the temperatures they will be at in the ice. Even then, there would be traces of such reactions as we could simply seek the carbon atoms still trapped in the ice that are now attached with other atoms/molecules. Of course, I'm no chemist, so if there is a valid explanation, it is beyond my knowledge and understanding, but I'd like to see the explanation that is being offered.

you gotta think though. a rise of, say, 1 degree in the average temp of the globe doesnt necessarily mean that everywhere on the face of the planets ambiant air temp goes up by 1 degree. its an average, which means that a region that was much colder basically got warm enough to melt off all its locked up water, be it ice or snow or whatever, and flood all that back into various bodies of water around the globe.

being as water temps are one of the main drivers of weather patterns, your gonna see changes in temps (could be higher OR lower temps depending on how patterns are effected) & weather for what may seem like a small average increase.

Absolutely. Not only that, but the average also has to be taken over time. A long enough period to show a trend as there are cycles that do occur globally as well. Anything observed as weather cannot directly be used for such an analysis.

One particular concern in this aspect is if certain parts of the world are seeing cooling trends and global warming is occuring, then other parts will see warming trends. If the two occur such that the cold weather and warm weather meet, it could produce a larger storm.

The earth has mechanisms for managing its temperature - not quite actively like a mammal's body, but there are elements that are relatively difficult to imbalance. Even when these elements do get out of balance (say, extraterrestrial impact), the outside influence is often cause for an increase in these mechanisms' activity, which results in a return the balance.

Hilariously, the same class where all of that was explained to me, fortifying my previous ideas that anthropogenic global warming was, to use a technical term, hullabaloo, is also a class where I literally walked out in annoyance one day in the middle of an alarmist CO2 "discussion" led by the professor.

edit: How'd I wander into Politics? Blast... oh well.

Sure, but what are the effects? If more heat energy is in the atmosphere, then ice will melt. Ice absorbs a tremendous amount of heat as it changes from ice to water. So temperature rise will be offset somewhat, but such mechanisms are not infinite. If you consider the earth as an energy system (think physics), then energy is conserved. So energy being released as heat has to go somewhere. Some will naturally be emitted out of the atmosphere, some might be absorbed by various things on earth. But at some point, if we produce enough heat to exhaust the capabilities or reach their maximum capabilities of absorbing heat, then we will see a rise in heat. Not to mention we already get a lot of our heat from the sun. Moreover, if climate scientists are right, then the increase in CO2 would reduce one path for heat to be shed, which can cause more load on other methods of removing heat. Of course, the science is quite complex (I think its mostly an issue of having a ton of variables rather than being an issue of human understanding of science) and beyond my own understanding, but the basic bookeeping principle with energy is valid in any system where energy is conserved. This is pretty much on par with what Nate is thinking, but it is certainly much more complex as there are many factors that are likely to be variable with changing temperature.

[smockers83]

I think one major element our planet has in regulating it's temperature is not ice formations, but cloud cover. A rise in heat at the surface produces more water vapor condensing above, hence clouds. Clouds then reflect heat from the sun, but also trap heat below them and at the surface. As more and more clouds, and storms, occur, the planet will actually begin to cool.

Another thing to remember is that CO2 escapes from where ever it is and is released into the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration works for only a certain time period as CO2 escapes the underground storage it's forced into. Another thing about CO2 is that it is in the neighborhood of about 0.003% of the atmosphere, even at current levels. Perhaps the next Redwood National Forest is in the making today?

[AZhitman]

Absolute hilarity.

While people are running around freaking out over something that may or may not happen, but certainly won't impact me, my children, or my great-great-grandchildren, I'll be putting my effort into improving things for us WHILE WE'RE HERE.

Not only is it something that may or may not happen, but it's also something we may or may not be able to affect.

And, if it ever does, technology will have progressed to the point where it won't matter.

THINK.

We're genetically designing our own food. So, in 500 years, if the planet looks much different than it does today, we'll be building our own food anyway... likely eating a pill daily rather than meals, and altering our own DNA to accommodate any deficiencies.

Why are the politicians freaking out over cars (a known and proven MINOR THREAT) when there's thousands of unmonitored asteroids hurtling through space, headed towards Earth?

I'll tell you why: Political reasons.

You can't control people by focusing on an external threat. But you CAN if you demonize an everyday one.

The harder the lefties lobby for this crap, the harder us rational people will resist.

[S133P3R]

the tilt of the axis of the planet earth is changing according to a ~2500 yr cycle. look at it this way... the earth has planetary seasons that affect the whole planet not just hemispheres.ice age was winter, humanity has existed in the spring and fall, and now that we are coming up on planetary summer -its going to be really f***ing hot.WATERWORLD FTW.

[AZhitman]

...and we have THOUSANDS of years to adapt.

It's a good thing there were no humans during the time of the dinosaurs. Some pinhead would have tried to save them all, too.

[audtatious]

Links please. I'm curious as to how any chemical will diminish over time unless it is actually leaving the ice somehow. And even then, it would have to make its way through all the layers of ice above it. If the CO2 isotopes from one period are different than others, then we would see a mixing of them and could likely still come up with a determination of how much CO2 exists for each poeriod based on isotope spread throughout the core. This can depend on how the CO2 escapes. I can't imagine there are many chemical reactions taking place given the relative stability of water and CO2 molecules and the temperatures they will be at in the ice. Even then, there would be traces of such reactions as we could simply seek the carbon atoms still trapped in the ice that are now attached with other atoms/molecules. Of course, I'm no chemist, so if there is a valid explanation, it is beyond my knowledge and understanding, but I'd like to see the explanation that is being offered.

I saw it on some Discovery Chnl deal. Searching the net brings me to:

http://answers.yahoo.com/quest...Dkebb

1/2 way down shows:

"Ice cores have been shown to be un-reliable for several reasons.

Even in very old deep ice there is always small pockets of un-frozen water that absorbs co2 slowly so the further you go back in the ice record the lower the recorded co2 levels, hence the skewed graphs showing co2 lower in the past for thousands of years (this is also contradicted by longer term co2 reconstructions).

There a other issues aswell like gas seepage through sheer cracking etc...

then there is the issue of the co2 history from ice cores being shifted without good reason to make the data fit with current co2 levels. If it is not shifted is shows co2 was just as high as now in our recent history. (this matches stomatal data).

Stomatal data does not fit with ice core co2 reconstructions adding fuel to the suspision that ice cores are un-reliable.

What we do know from ice core data is that is has been warmer in the recent past, and that co2 historically follows rising temperatures caused by solar activity and changes to earths tilt and oribt and that co2 does not drive global temps historically.

http://www.21stcenturysciencet...7.pdfhttp://www.larouchepub.com/eiw...e.pdfhttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/.../2310http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htmhttp://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdfhttp://www.friendsofscience.or...k.pdf"

[C-Kwik]

http://www.21stcenturysciencet...7.pdfhttp://www.larouchepub.com/eiw...e.pdfhttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/.../2310http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htmhttp://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdfhttp://www.friendsofscience.or...k.pdf"

Those are some time consuming reads and I don't have the time to look them over in any detail right now. But I noticed a few of the links were to articles written by the same author. And from what I gather, much of his work appears in non-refereed journals. One must ask that if there was any validity to it, why would he not publish the article in a journal that would be subject to peer review? This is not to say that his opinion is wrong, but as I look into the the publications of naysayers of MMGW, I'm finding they are often publishing their works on the topic in a similar manner.

As for the issue of unfrozen water dissolving CO2, sure. But unless that water is able to seep out of subzero temperature ice (its likely to refreeze) the CO2 would still be trapped in or very near that portion of ice. The explanation I need to understand and verify would be how the CO2 actually leaves the ice completely so that it can not be measured. As I said, if the isotopes of carbon atoms in the ice vary from year to year, they could estimate how much of it seeped into other locations and still measure the ice.

[smockers83]

If you want even more bad news, listen to this one.

Green jobs that Obama is talking about creating, saying that jobs can be created 4:1 by going green is a complete falsehood. Utterly, sickly, and completely false. All you have to do is look at Europe which has a head start on going green. They've actually seen the very exact opposite occur where they lost jobs in the neighborhood of 2:1 to 4:1 by going green.

Think about it. Once you get the windmills up, what's next? You don't keep working it like one does with an oil rig. It's built, it's up, it's running, come check on it here and there by 1 person who can check hundreds a month.

Again, here's my application for economic advisor to President Obama. References available upon request.

[audtatious]

Those are some time consuming reads and I don't have the time to look them over in any detail right now. But I noticed a few of the links were to articles written by the same author. And from what I gather, much of his work appears in non-refereed journals. One must ask that if there was any validity to it, why would he not publish the article in a journal that would be subject to peer review? This is not to say that his opinion is wrong, but as I look into the the publications of naysayers of MMGW, I'm finding they are often publishing their works on the topic in a similar manner.

As for the issue of unfrozen water dissolving CO2, sure. But unless that water is able to seep out of subzero temperature ice (its likely to refreeze) the CO2 would still be trapped in or very near that portion of ice. The explanation I need to understand and verify would be how the CO2 actually leaves the ice completely so that it can not be measured. As I said, if the isotopes of carbon atoms in the ice vary from year to year, they could estimate how much of it seeped into other locations and still measure the ice.

I too noticed he referred to multiple links by the same guy but it would have been wrong of me to not quote the whole thing. I'm not trying to hide resources

The problem with seeking information on ice core temps and CO2 is the huge amount of links that refer to them without referring to the information I was looking for. I found that one and was "done" at that point

As I said I had seen it on some documentary concerning MMGW but don't remember if it was History/Discovery/PBS, what....

[WDRacing]

Lets add all the volcano's around the world which are mother natures way of heating the earth. . . if you take the 1 billion cars' pollution and compare it to the pollution of 1 volcano it is like comparing the size of the earth to the size of the sun.

Huh...I never thought of that. Twin turbo BBC FTMFW

[MinisterofDOOM]

I'm very pleased to see that more and more people are becoming aware of just how much of an exaggeration (and that's putting it lightly) the whole global warming bullcrap is. A couple weeks ago History or Discovery or some channel ran an old "ways we could become extinct" show that featured clips of Gore. I nearly put my fist through my TV when he said, with a sort of impatient sneer, "There's no debate." What an ***hole. The guy's using pseudoscience and made-up bulls*** (and this tree ring/hockeystick graph crap is NOT the first of his "scientific" bases for mmgw to be disproven by REAL scientists) to construct what sounds like a sensible argument on the surface. Anyone who claims there's no debate (and that's anyone on EITHER SIDE) is selling something, plain and simple. That's not how science works. There is ALWAYS a debate. Even with things that are "proven" and understood and accepted as fact, there's always debate. That's how we increase understanding. That's how we gain new knowledge. There's less science in Gore's global warming scare tactics than in Harry Potter.

While people are running around freaking out over something that may or may not happen, but certainly won't impact me, my children, or my great-great-grandchildren, I'll be putting my effort into improving things for us WHILE WE'RE HERE.

Exactly. It's disgusting and wasteful to be devoting resources and manpower to something that's maybe-someday. Especially when there are REAL problems that REALLY need attention that are getting pushed aside as a result.But perhaps the worst thing is that entire industries are being reshaped because of this nebulous "maybe-someday" thing. We're so busy preparing for "when" it happens, we haven't stopped to think about how we could be worse off in the future if it DOESN'T happen. Our focuses are in all the wrong places. We're only preparing for ONE possible eventuality. It's unwise and we will regret it down the road.

[C-Kwik]

As I said I had seen it on some documentary concerning MMGW but don't remember if it was History/Discovery/PBS, what....

While it would be interesting to see what the arguments are, consider that if you are basing your opinions on a documentary, what gives it anymore credibility than "An Inconveneient Truth"? The reality is even Gore's movie is only a documentary. The most credible sources are going to be the peer-reviewed journals.

I'm very pleased to see that more and more people are becoming aware of just how much of an exaggeration (and that's putting it lightly) the whole global warming bullcrap is. A couple weeks ago History or Discovery or some channel ran an old "ways we could become extinct" show that featured clips of Gore. I nearly put my fist through my TV when he said, with a sort of impatient sneer, "There's no debate." What an ***hole. The guy's using pseudoscience and made-up bulls*** (and this tree ring/hockeystick graph crap is NOT the first of his "scientific" bases for mmgw to be disproven by REAL scientists) to construct what sounds like a sensible argument on the surface. Anyone who claims there's no debate (and that's anyone on EITHER SIDE) is selling something, plain and simple. That's not how science works. There is ALWAYS a debate. Even with things that are "proven" and understood and accepted as fact, there's always debate. That's how we increase understanding. That's how we gain new knowledge. There's less science in Gore's global warming scare tactics than in Harry Potter.

I find your statement contradicting itself quite a bit. In the one hand, you make a really good point about keeping all scientific debates open. On the other, you state that MMGW is bullcrap and an exaggeration. Keep in mind that Gore is merely a person with political influence that put together an influential movie. The real debate is with those who are doing the research. You also state that these things were disproven by real scientist, yet ignore all the real scientists that back MMGW.

Exactly. It's disgusting and wasteful to be devoting resources and manpower to something that's maybe-someday. Especially when there are REAL problems that REALLY need attention that are getting pushed aside as a result.But perhaps the worst thing is that entire industries are being reshaped because of this nebulous "maybe-someday" thing. We're so busy preparing for "when" it happens, we haven't stopped to think about how we could be worse off in the future if it DOESN'T happen. Our focuses are in all the wrong places. We're only preparing for ONE possible eventuality. It's unwise and we will regret it down the road.

From a standpoint of MMGW alone, I would agree with you. However, even if MMGW is completely false, we still need to reduce our carbon dependency. Fossil fuels are finite. And even while there is a lot of fossil fuel still out there, it gets much harder to get to (more expensive). Between rising demand and depleting resources, fossil fuels are likely to get exponentially expensive once we reach a certain point. The infrastructure needed to effectively become independent from fossil fuels is tremendous. We can choose to sit idly then try to build a huge "green" system of energy all at once, or we can build it over time and and avoid having to do it all at once, learn more about the technologies, its limitations and pitfalls, better the technology, and by reducing the use of fossil fuels, extend our fossil fuel resources to be used for things that can't be done without fossil fuels. Look beyond MMGW and you'll see plenty of reasons that we should be doing such research anyways.

Lets add all the volcano's around the world which are mother natures way of heating the earth. . . if you take the 1 billion cars' pollution and compare it to the pollution of 1 volcano it is like comparing the size of the earth to the size of the sun.

But even the earth is large enough to have gravitational influence on the sun. From far away, we would observe our own sun as vibrating just as we do other stars that have planets orbiting them. Even still, consider that volcanic activity existed before cars. Any carbon we add to it would increase the total. The question is, is the additional carbon enough to significantly warm the earth? Making a relative comparison to another carbon source does not prove anything...

[audtatious]

While it would be interesting to see what the arguments are, consider that if you are basing your opinions on a documentary, what gives it anymore credibility than "An Inconveneient Truth"? The reality is even Gore's movie is only a documentary. The most credible sources are going to be the peer-reviewed journals.

Just playing the "it was on tv so it's gotta be true" card

Maybe they thought this kinda stuff didn't need to be reviewed due to "all scientists agree" and such? Then again, maybe it was peer-reviewed, I have no way to tell.

Keep in mind that Gore is merely a person with political influence that put together an influential movie. The real debate is with those who are doing the research.

Except it's not the scientists who are pushing forth to make major legislation which will impact every one of us and potentially cripple the economy. With the IPCC reports being the "defacto standard" for the politicians pushing forth this agenda there is no more scientific scrutiny required as they have exactly what they want, regardless of fact or new evidence.

[C-Kwik]

Just playing the "it was on tv so it's gotta be true" card

Is that what they mean by Reality TV?

[audtatious]

or "un-reality", dependent on what side of the issue you may be on

[dusred]

But even the earth is large enough to have gravitational influence on the sun. From far away, we would observe our own sun as vibrating just as we do other stars that have planets orbiting them. Even still, consider that volcanic activity existed before cars. Any carbon we add to it would increase the total. The question is, is the additional carbon enough to significantly warm the earth? Making a relative comparison to another carbon source does not prove anything...

. . . about 1,000,000 Earths would fit inside the sun.

(You can read the entire article if you wish: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/d....html )

Here's my points:

1. I'm not a scientist or anything (just a freshman college student) but I seriously doubt the earth could have any gravitational influence on the sun.

2. WTF does gravitational influence have to do with global warming?

3. Quote »The question is, is the additional carbon enough to significantly warm the earth?[/quote]The carbon came from the earth to start with, it's not a foreign substance. Do you seriously think you can kill nature with one of her own substances? Who the hell do you think you are?

4. My point is that a volcano puts out hundreds of thousands times more carbon then cars ever could and you're saying that the Earth can just barely handle it all that one single little drop more is going to put it over the edge?

5. Quote »Making a relative comparison to another carbon source does not prove anything...[/quote] Relative comparison? I'm saying that nature handles so much carbon that a few drops more from combustion engines could not possibly make any difference.