Global warming

[Meister]

But there will always be ideological idiots around, so you will always be in vogue.

Remember how you tried to push the fear of the swine flu "pandemic"?
You pick up everything that is in vogue, roxie.

Given the history of prior pandemics, such caution is not only wise, but neccessary. The flu that hit the world at the end of WW1 caused nearly as many deaths worldwide as WW1. And considerably more deaths in the US than we lost to WW1.

Our healthcare system is that of the early 20th century? I hope that's not what your saying, roxie. We have had a lot of advancements since then haven't we? But, your the fear monger, and need the sky falling all the time.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is where your side has gone off the rails. Hansen wants the US to revert back to a pre-industrial level of technology, The NYT's Thomas Friedman wants us to turn our backs on our way of life etc. etc. etc.


Funny how you focus on two people of whom extreme viewpoints have NOTHING to do with the points I made with Monckton or with the source material I used to document my points as valid. This is an a-typical dodge of the climate change deniers...you ignore what you can't disprove or which does not support your beliefs, and then try to divert the discussion to what you feel comfortable with in proving your assertions. Sorry to inform you that this ploy just doesn't work with a recorded chronology of the posts.

We have never claimed that electric vehicles and all the other green technologies are going backwards. What we have stated is that many of the green techs are MORE environmentally unfriendly than that which they are attempting to replace. Purely electric vehicles are a wonderful example. They take more energy to produce in the first place, they use more energy (up to four times as much with certain vehicles) to go similar distances, cost more than 90% of the population can afford in the first place and are prohibitivly expensive to rebattery, thus are destined for the scrap heap far sooner than a vastly cheaper ICE vehicle.

First off, who is this "we". I'm talking to YOU, and YOU made a generalized statement based on two individuals to categorize an entire discussion. First you alluded to that all people who point out global warming is real are some sort of luddites, and when I logically pointed out how wrong you were, you now go the route that electric cars are totally implausible. But what you forget is that when the current fuel efficient cars were a result of DECADES of refinement. Comparably, the development of affordable and more efficient electric cars is MUCH faster. Essentially, it comes down to a matter of willingness of the industrial/science community along with public advocacy to bring it to fruition.

Environmentalism is a great thing...if done intelligently. If done poorly it creates more harm than that which it wants to replace. And do you really think that a company is going to go through all the expense to ship garbage across the oceans to dump on a third world country?



Please, show some common sense. That costs money so they don't do it. What they do do though is take jobs away from first world countries and transplant them to the third world where there are no controls. That's cheap. That's why if you elevate everywhere to first world status that horrible practice stops. The practices and regulations that the environmentalists currently are pushing will ONLY MAKE THAT PROBLEM WORSE. Wake up to a simple truth why don't you. You parrot the lefty line real good but they don't bother to actually read history so have a very myopic view of the world.

One example for your education:

Ghana: Digital Dumping Ground
FRONTLINE/World Ghana: Digital Dumping Ground | PBS

Evidently, you're good at parroting moot points and combining it with your personal opinion in an attempt to portray others as uninformed. Problem is, the chronology of the posts exposes your folly...and your own ignorance of general knowledge furthers discredits your assume lecture status.

And your final point is complete and utter nonsense. Go take a look at Flanders Fields some day. That was the location for the worst combat that WWI gave us. When the war was over it was quite literally a moonscape. Now you have to look real hard to see any evidence of the battles fought there. The great battles of WWII and especially WWI where millions were killed (and the horribly destructive engines of war simply obliterated all life in their sphere) in the space of four years offer a wonderful example of the recuperative powers of Mother Earth. Twenty years after the First World War the battlefields were disappearing. Now they are almost invisible save in areas where they have been preserved.

Once again, you pontificate without knowing or using all pertinent information. Some examples for your education:

world war 2 pollution - Google Search

Environmental effects of war



Once again you choose to ignore the lessons of history......at your peril.

I strongly urge YOU to widen your scope when you research history before you endorse policies that are detrimental to present and future generations.

I have a feeling I am far more conversant with Earths history then you are. Don't know it for certain but I have a feeling.

If Tai has more than a second year college course in any aspect of Paleo, that is doubtful.

I also do not endorse anything that would be detrimental to following generations (I do have a 4 year old to consider so I assure you I do have a vested interest in the outcome)

I find this laughable. So you say, and then, in spite of all the evidence, most of it from the geological community concerning the changes that we are seeing related to the warming earth, you state that we are not the cause of any of it. That in itself brands you either as a scientific ignoramous or a liar.

and in fact work quite hard at cleaning up past environmental abominations and was active when Greenpeace was founded. I still support Paul and his Sea Shepard organization, though like Paul when Greenpeace was taken over by socialists

The whole goddamned world is being taken over by SocioFascistic Commies. Oppose anything that would harm the great energy Corperations, for they are the Capitalistic
Gods of this world

I left that organisation. So I've been in the trenches a lot longer than you I think. Once again I could be wrong but I doubt it. So please don't attempt to lecture me.

Lecture you? Wouldn't think of it. But I would lecture people concerning the bullshit that you post.

I travelled the road you are on a LONG time ago.

Sure, fellow, sure.

 

[taichiliberal]

This is where your side has gone off the rails. Hansen wants the US to revert back to a pre-industrial level of technology, The NYT's Thomas Friedman wants us to turn our backs on our way of life etc. etc. etc.


Funny how you focus on two people of whom extreme viewpoints have NOTHING to do with the points I made with Monckton or with the source material I used to document my points as valid. This is an a-typical dodge of the climate change deniers...you ignore what you can't disprove or which does not support your beliefs, and then try to divert the discussion to what you feel comfortable with in proving your assertions. Sorry to inform you that this ploy just doesn't work with a recorded chronology of the posts.

We have never claimed that electric vehicles and all the other green technologies are going backwards. What we have stated is that many of the green techs are MORE environmentally unfriendly than that which they are attempting to replace. Purely electric vehicles are a wonderful example. They take more energy to produce in the first place, they use more energy (up to four times as much with certain vehicles) to go similar distances, cost more than 90% of the population can afford in the first place and are prohibitivly expensive to rebattery, thus are destined for the scrap heap far sooner than a vastly cheaper ICE vehicle.

First off, who is this "we". I'm talking to YOU, and YOU made a generalized statement based on two individuals to categorize an entire discussion. First you alluded to that all people who point out global warming is real are some sort of luddites, and when I logically pointed out how wrong you were, you now go the route that electric cars are totally implausible. But what you forget is that when the current fuel efficient cars were a result of DECADES of refinement. Comparably, the development of affordable and more efficient electric cars is MUCH faster. Essentially, it comes down to a matter of willingness of the industrial/science community along with public advocacy to bring it to fruition.

Environmentalism is a great thing...if done intelligently. If done poorly it creates more harm than that which it wants to replace. And do you really think that a company is going to go through all the expense to ship garbage across the oceans to dump on a third world country?



Please, show some common sense. That costs money so they don't do it. What they do do though is take jobs away from first world countries and transplant them to the third world where there are no controls. That's cheap. That's why if you elevate everywhere to first world status that horrible practice stops. The practices and regulations that the environmentalists currently are pushing will ONLY MAKE THAT PROBLEM WORSE. Wake up to a simple truth why don't you. You parrot the lefty line real good but they don't bother to actually read history so have a very myopic view of the world.

One example for your education:

Ghana: Digital Dumping Ground
FRONTLINE/World Ghana: Digital Dumping Ground | PBS

Evidently, you're good at parroting moot points and combining it with your personal opinion in an attempt to portray others as uninformed. Problem is, the chronology of the posts exposes your folly...and your own ignorance of general knowledge furthers discredits your assume lecture status.

And your final point is complete and utter nonsense. Go take a look at Flanders Fields some day. That was the location for the worst combat that WWI gave us. When the war was over it was quite literally a moonscape. Now you have to look real hard to see any evidence of the battles fought there. The great battles of WWII and especially WWI where millions were killed (and the horribly destructive engines of war simply obliterated all life in their sphere) in the space of four years offer a wonderful example of the recuperative powers of Mother Earth. Twenty years after the First World War the battlefields were disappearing. Now they are almost invisible save in areas where they have been preserved.

Once again, you pontificate without knowing or using all pertinent information. Some examples for your education:

world war 2 pollution - Google Search

Environmental effects of war



Once again you choose to ignore the lessons of history......at your peril.

I strongly urge YOU to widen your scope when you research history before you endorse policies that are detrimental to present and future generations.

I have a feeling I am far more conversant with Earths history then you are. Don't know it for certain but I have a feeling. I also do not endorse anything that would be detrimental to following generations (I do have a 4 year old to consider so I assure you I do have a vested interest in the outcome) and in fact work quite hard at cleaning up past environmental abominations and was active when Greenpeace was founded. I still support Paul and his Sea Shepard organization, though like Paul when Greenpeace was taken over by socialists I left that organisation. So I've been in the trenches a lot longer than you I think. Once again I could be wrong but I doubt it. So please don't attempt to lecture me.

I travelled the road you are on a LONG time ago.

My goodness, but you do blow a LOT of smoke when you're proven wrong.

This discussion is NOT about YOU or your self-opinion or your little experiences....this is about what YOU stated and how I deconstructed it and backed up my statements and points with documented fact that you could not disprove.

If you can't acknowledge facts and logic that counter your beliefs, then I can't help you and won't waste time trying to do so.

 

[westwall]

But there will always be ideological idiots around, so you will always be in vogue.

Remember how you tried to push the fear of the swine flu "pandemic"?
You pick up everything that is in vogue, roxie.

Given the history of prior pandemics, such caution is not only wise, but neccessary. The flu that hit the world at the end of WW1 caused nearly as many deaths worldwide as WW1. And considerably more deaths in the US than we lost to WW1.

You should read a little more history there old fraud the influenza pandemic killed many more people worldwide than resulted from WWI.

 

[westwall]

I strongly urge YOU to widen your scope when you research history before you endorse policies that are detrimental to present and future generations.

I have a feeling I am far more conversant with Earths history then you are. Don't know it for certain but I have a feeling.

If Tai has more than a second year college course in any aspect of Paleo, that is doubtful.

I also do not endorse anything that would be detrimental to following generations (I do have a 4 year old to consider so I assure you I do have a vested interest in the outcome)

I find this laughable. So you say, and then, in spite of all the evidence, most of it from the geological community concerning the changes that we are seeing related to the warming earth, you state that we are not the cause of any of it. That in itself brands you either as a scientific ignoramous or a liar.

and in fact work quite hard at cleaning up past environmental abominations and was active when Greenpeace was founded. I still support Paul and his Sea Shepard organization, though like Paul when Greenpeace was taken over by socialists

The whole goddamned world is being taken over by SocioFascistic Commies. Oppose anything that would harm the great energy Corperations, for they are the Capitalistic
Gods of this world

I left that organisation. So I've been in the trenches a lot longer than you I think. Once again I could be wrong but I doubt it. So please don't attempt to lecture me.

Lecture you? Wouldn't think of it. But I would lecture people concerning the bullshit that you post.

I travelled the road you are on a LONG time ago.

Sure, fellow, sure.

So says the moral and ethical cripple. Crawl back under your rock you cretin. Oh stop polluting your state too why don't you. You must be so proud of yourself selling your soul to make a few bucks.....sounds just like the corporations you vilify doesn't it. FRAUD!

 

[westwall]

I strongly urge YOU to widen your scope when you research history before you endorse policies that are detrimental to present and future generations.

I have a feeling I am far more conversant with Earths history then you are. Don't know it for certain but I have a feeling. I also do not endorse anything that would be detrimental to following generations (I do have a 4 year old to consider so I assure you I do have a vested interest in the outcome) and in fact work quite hard at cleaning up past environmental abominations and was active when Greenpeace was founded. I still support Paul and his Sea Shepard organization, though like Paul when Greenpeace was taken over by socialists I left that organisation. So I've been in the trenches a lot longer than you I think. Once again I could be wrong but I doubt it. So please don't attempt to lecture me.

I travelled the road you are on a LONG time ago.

My goodness, but you do blow a LOT of smoke when you're proven wrong.

This discussion is NOT about YOU or your self-opinion or your little experiences....this is about what YOU stated and how I deconstructed it and backed up my statements and points with documented fact that you could not disprove.

If you can't acknowledge facts and logic that counter your beliefs, then I can't help you and won't waste time trying to do so.

How exactly did you counter anything I said? You blow a lot of smoke and leftist talking points. You then post a link to a bunch of blogs about how bad war is...guess what I knew that. Guess what I've also walked most of those battlefields and there's nothing to see or hear or taste. You're a typical blow hard. You have no solution for anything than to make the first world poor and take the money from the middle class and give it to the third world (while taking your cut of course...management and all that don't you know) you are a blind fool.

Have fun being blind. You'll notice the rest of the world is abandoning your crap. We are winning the war of ideas because we don't lie. We don't manipulate data, we don't manufacture data. Your side does that. That's why you are losing. keep it up. We like easy victories.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Walleyes, why don't you at least do a little research before posting such egreriously wrong information? Or perhaps you like to be labeled as a liar.

China to Invest $3 Billion into Alternative Fuel and Forests | Solar Feeds News Network

The Chinese government has announced it will invest US$3 billion in the development of biofuels over the next ten years.

The government's plan calls for 23% of the country to be covered by forests within the next decade -- a 3% increase from the current level. These forests will combat climate change by absorbing carbon dioxide. Similarly they will provide biomass material for biodiesel and ethanol.

China is one of the world's fastest growing economies, likewise, it is one of the world's fastest growing emitters of greenhouse gases.
Currently the country relies on coal to supply two-thirds of its energy. Increasing pressure from across the globe has pushed China to shift its energy policy. As a result, it has become a leader in cleantech development; last year China was the number one country for cleantech and renewable energy investment.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmers Dilemma

They claim they can eliminate all variables except minuscule increases in CO2 as the proximate cause of Global Warming, but they can't demonstrate it in a laboratory setting.

If there are too many other factors, how can you say it's CO2?

 

[Old Rocks]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[westwall]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

How about answering Franks question instead of linking to a site that presents one single questionable viewpoint of how the world works.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

So why won't you show us in a lab how a 200PPM increase does all the things you claim?

Do you know what 200PPM is?

I think you didn't understand the question. No one is denying CO2 as a greenhouse gas, the question is does an almost imperceptible increase of say 200PP have a measurable effect on temperature or climate.

Did that help?

 

[taichiliberal]

I have a feeling I am far more conversant with Earths history then you are. Don't know it for certain but I have a feeling. I also do not endorse anything that would be detrimental to following generations (I do have a 4 year old to consider so I assure you I do have a vested interest in the outcome) and in fact work quite hard at cleaning up past environmental abominations and was active when Greenpeace was founded. I still support Paul and his Sea Shepard organization, though like Paul when Greenpeace was taken over by socialists I left that organisation. So I've been in the trenches a lot longer than you I think. Once again I could be wrong but I doubt it. So please don't attempt to lecture me.

I travelled the road you are on a LONG time ago.

My goodness, but you do blow a LOT of smoke when you're proven wrong.

This discussion is NOT about YOU or your self-opinion or your little experiences....this is about what YOU stated and how I deconstructed it and backed up my statements and points with documented fact that you could not disprove.

If you can't acknowledge facts and logic that counter your beliefs, then I can't help you and won't waste time trying to do so.

How exactly did you counter anything I said? You blow a lot of smoke and leftist talking points. You then post a link to a bunch of blogs about how bad war is...guess what I knew that. Guess what I've also walked most of those battlefields and there's nothing to see or hear or taste. You're a typical blow hard. You have no solution for anything than to make the first world poor and take the money from the middle class and give it to the third world (while taking your cut of course...management and all that don't you know) you are a blind fool.

Have fun being blind. You'll notice the rest of the world is abandoning your crap. We are winning the war of ideas because we don't lie. We don't manipulate data, we don't manufacture data. Your side does that. That's why you are losing. keep it up. We like easy victories.

Post #58 on this thread clearly shows YOU making statements that are just plain ignorant of the facts. I provided valid documentation that proved you wrong...but it seems you lack to maturity to address those items directly.

You seem to think that repeating your personal experience coupled with your supposition and conjecture is a substitute for facts and logic that contradict your assertions and opinions.

As the chronology of the posts shows, that is clearly not the case...but your obvious bloated ego and insipid stubborness will not allow your cognitive reasoning skills to acknowledge this. In short, you just avoid and ignore what you don't like.

So I leave you to your self aggrandizing blatherings and faux condescending chucklings, because an honest, rational and logical debate with you is obviously impossible beyond a point. You may have the last predictably childish retort.

 

[taichiliberal]

The Warmers Dilemma

They claim they can eliminate all variables except minuscule increases in CO2 as the proximate cause of Global Warming, but they can't demonstrate it in a laboratory setting.

If there are too many other factors, how can you say it's CO2?

Please document who is saying EXACTLY what you are claiming here.....because I've given links to information that basically throws your assertions out the window.

 

[westwall]

My goodness, but you do blow a LOT of smoke when you're proven wrong.

This discussion is NOT about YOU or your self-opinion or your little experiences....this is about what YOU stated and how I deconstructed it and backed up my statements and points with documented fact that you could not disprove.

If you can't acknowledge facts and logic that counter your beliefs, then I can't help you and won't waste time trying to do so.

How exactly did you counter anything I said? You blow a lot of smoke and leftist talking points. You then post a link to a bunch of blogs about how bad war is...guess what I knew that. Guess what I've also walked most of those battlefields and there's nothing to see or hear or taste. You're a typical blow hard. You have no solution for anything than to make the first world poor and take the money from the middle class and give it to the third world (while taking your cut of course...management and all that don't you know) you are a blind fool.

Have fun being blind. You'll notice the rest of the world is abandoning your crap. We are winning the war of ideas because we don't lie. We don't manipulate data, we don't manufacture data. Your side does that. That's why you are losing. keep it up. We like easy victories.

Post #58 on this thread clearly shows YOU making statements that are just plain ignorant of the facts. I provided valid documentation that proved you wrong...but it seems you lack to maturity to address those items directly.

You seem to think that repeating your personal experience coupled with your supposition and conjecture is a substitute for facts and logic that contradict your assertions and opinions.

As the chronology of the posts shows, that is clearly not the case...but your obvious bloated ego and insipid stubborness will not allow your cognitive reasoning skills to acknowledge this. In short, you just avoid and ignore what you don't like.

So I leave you to your self aggrandizing blatherings and faux condescending chucklings, because an honest, rational and logical debate with you is obviously impossible beyond a point. You may have the last predictably childish retort.

Really?

Let's take them in order shall we?

"This is the common distortion/misconception/lie that is used by corporatists and businesses to defend and maintain "business as usual" in order to protect their perceived profit margins. Solar and wind, geothermal, electric cars, longer life life bulbs, energy saving technology for electric appliances, etc. are NOT "going backwards" or punishing anyone and have produced new business that will contribute to the economy."

This is a statement. There is no substantiation of your view it is merely presented as a factoid. The only substantive point you presented was that electric vehicles et al were not going backward. I responded to that specific point that yes it was not backward but it also expended more energy than the problem it was trying to fix. To what else could I respond?


You forget or omit that the First World Nations just LOVE to dump their garbage on third world nations, and they just love to do business with third world nations due to cheaper labor or lack of over sight standards. As for the population "peaking"...it depends on what part of the population you're talking about, and where.

I refuted this for the most part by simple logic. Yes there are exceptions to the rule (which I stipulated to, I guess you missed that part) but for the most part it is more expensive to do that, thus it is not done...remember they are beholden to shareholders (which I guess you also missed, along with the part where I mention that companies instead of shipping waste to said countries instead build plants there and do their polluting on site, thus saving shipping costs) the population rate of increase have been dropping since the 1960's and this is well documented should you care to look. So once again what else do I respond to?

And that's just not possible....because you, like Monckton, just ignore that the major exchangers of CO2 have been destroyed at an alarming rate over the last 3 centuries. The CO2 measurement game is essentially a statistical shuffle that puts' in/leaves out variables that suit the drafters preferences. You can't remove a major part of the equation, replace it with artificial turf, and then state "There is still not enough CO2 for the plants to reach optimal growth rates." when you have an INCREASE in artificial pollutants being pumped into the air. You're dealing with an ARTIFICIALLY INDUCED imbalance and then trying to justify certain claims by comparing that to a NATURAL state that existed millions of years ago. That is just not logical

Care to provide a paper describing in detail how all of the plants on the planet have been destroyed. Since 1900 reforestation has repaired much of the damage done during the prior two centuries. You seem to think that man lives in a time bubble. Once damage is done it can't be rectified. The Earth disagrees with you.

Man's "local" area is a hell of a lot of land on virtually every continent on the planet. And it doesn't just go away, like a local river clean up. You clean up a river, but dump in the nearby lake or ocean. The planet can recuperate, but it will NOT be the same planet, and it might recuperate to a level that doesn't include mankind.

Once again, my final points to Monckton leave climate deniers a lot to consider, as their standby mantras don't stand up to scrutiny.

Once again a lot of lefty talking points but I see no references to papers substantiating your viewpoint. Please show me one lake, stream, river, waterway whatever that has been polluted by cleaning up things upriver. It doesn't happen that way. The most polluted river in the US is the remains of the Colorado as it enters Mexico. This is exascerbated by the damage wrought by Kerr-McGee and its mining along the river, the re-dirrection of the water for irrigation and its subsequent reintroduction to the river with all the attendant pesticieds (more of a problem than the mining issue BTW)
http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/download/riversreport.pdf
There are talks ongoing between the states of AZ, NV, CA, and UT along with Mexico to work out those problems, and they have been doing so for far too long...but blame the respective governments for that, business has nothing to do with it.

So where do you refute anything I said? I see a lot of unsubstantiated opinion backed up by nothing. What was there for Monckton to respond to? Just because you say it doesn't make it so.

 

[konradv]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

So why won't you show us in a lab how a 200PPM increase does all the things you claim?

Do you know what 200PPM is?

I think you didn't understand the question. No one is denying CO2 as a greenhouse gas, the question is does an almost imperceptible increase of say 200PP have a measurable effect on temperature or climate.

Did that help?

LOL!!! No wonder you don't understand the topic, if you think a 67% increase over historical averages is imperceptible! Do you even know what the word means? It means "so low we can't even measure it". Well, we all know THAT'S BS or we wouldn't even know that that at present we're 25-30% above historical averages with no obvious cause except that we're doing it, ourselves.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

So why won't you show us in a lab how a 200PPM increase does all the things you claim?

Do you know what 200PPM is?

I think you didn't understand the question. No one is denying CO2 as a greenhouse gas, the question is does an almost imperceptible increase of say 200PP have a measurable effect on temperature or climate.

Did that help?

LOL!!! No wonder you don't understand the topic, if you think a 67% increase over historical averages is imperceptible! Do you even know what the word means? It means "so low we can't even measure it". Well, we all know THAT'S BS or we wouldn't even know that that at present we're 25-30% above historical averages with no obvious cause except that we're doing it, ourselves.

Really? So why can't you replicate these results given a 67% increase in a laboratory?

I was being generous and giving you 200PPM because 200PPM > 67% increase

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmers Dilemma

They claim they can eliminate all variables except minuscule increases in CO2 as the proximate cause of Global Warming, but they can't demonstrate it in a laboratory setting.

If there are too many other factors, how can you say it's CO2?

Please document who is saying EXACTLY what you are claiming here.....because I've given links to information that basically throws your assertions out the window.

I must have missed where you no longer claim that de minimus increases in CO2 causes Global Warming.

Can you please repost it?

 

[konradv]

So why won't you show us in a lab how a 200PPM increase does all the things you claim?

Do you know what 200PPM is?

I think you didn't understand the question. No one is denying CO2 as a greenhouse gas, the question is does an almost imperceptible increase of say 200PP have a measurable effect on temperature or climate.

Did that help?

LOL!!! No wonder you don't understand the topic, if you think a 67% increase over historical averages is imperceptible! Do you even know what the word means? It means "so low we can't even measure it". Well, we all know THAT'S BS or we wouldn't even know that that at present we're 25-30% above historical averages with no obvious cause except that we're doing it, ourselves.

Really? So why can't you replicate these results given a 67% increase in a laboratory?

I was being generous and giving you 200PPM because 200PPM > 67% increase

Depends what you mean. No one create that an entire climate in a lab, thoough models are done on computers. Simply putting CO2 in a spectrophotometer WILL show that the absorbance numbers go up if you raise the concentration by 200 PPM. BTW, the historical number I've seen and cited in posts is ~300 ppm. How is an increase of 200 ppm greater than 67%??? Could it be that you're both math AND science challenged?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL!!! No wonder you don't understand the topic, if you think a 67% increase over historical averages is imperceptible! Do you even know what the word means? It means "so low we can't even measure it". Well, we all know THAT'S BS or we wouldn't even know that that at present we're 25-30% above historical averages with no obvious cause except that we're doing it, ourselves.

Really? So why can't you replicate these results given a 67% increase in a laboratory?

I was being generous and giving you 200PPM because 200PPM > 67% increase

Depends what you mean. No one create that an entire climate in a lab, thoough models are done on computers. Simply putting CO2 in a spectrophotometer WILL show that the absorbance numbers go up if you raise the concentration by 200 PPM. BTW, the historical number I've seen and cited in posts is ~300 ppm. How is an increase of 200 ppm greater than 67%??? Could it be that you're both math AND science challenged?

So are you saying the atmosphere is too complex to limit the effects of one variable?

Your soulmate OR said and I quote, "So your claim is that 'nature' has increased the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 387 ppm in the last 150 years?"

That's about a 67% increase, right? And that's only a 100PPM increase in CO2, no matter how sensitive it is, right?

I'm giving you DOUBLE THAT! Go do 200PPM increase and show me ANY temperature effect as a result.

 

[konradv]

Really? So why can't you replicate these results given a 67% increase in a laboratory?

I was being generous and giving you 200PPM because 200PPM > 67% increase

Depends what you mean. No one create that an entire climate in a lab, thoough models are done on computers. Simply putting CO2 in a spectrophotometer WILL show that the absorbance numbers go up if you raise the concentration by 200 PPM. BTW, the historical number I've seen and cited in posts is ~300 ppm. How is an increase of 200 ppm greater than 67%??? Could it be that you're both math AND science challenged?

So are you saying the atmosphere is too complex to limit the effects of one variable?

Your soulmate OR said and I quote, "So your claim is that 'nature' has increased the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 387 ppm in the last 150 years?"

That's about a 67% increase, right? And that's only a 100PPM increase in CO2, no matter how sensitive it is, right?

I'm giving you DOUBLE THAT! Go do 200PPM increase and show me ANY temperature effect as a result.

Don't need to. You yourself have agreed that CO2 is a GHG. What's so hard to understand about, if you have more of it, you'll get more trapped energy? More energy, more heat. I don't care if it can be proven that temps have gone up at all. BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, if we keep pumping it into the atmosphere, additional warming is inevitable.