Global warming

[konradv]

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?

You missed it because, you're the only one talking about "de minimus changes". I don't consider 67% to be that. How about using your own brain, instead of parroting what others say?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Not at all! We're not Venus, we're Earth!

The burden of proof falls on you to show how a de minimus increase of 200PPM causes the temperature increase.

Your statement is on par with saying, "paper burns, so if we stuff a Saturn V booster with enough paper, we can land on the Moon!"

 

[konradv]

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.

Not at all! We're not Venus, we're Earth!

The burden of proof falls on you to show how a de minimus increase of 200PPM causes the temperature increase.

Your statement is on par with saying, "paper burns, so if we stuff a Saturn V booster with enough paper, we can land on the Moon!"

NO, the burden of proof is on you to show that the principle of Conservation of Energy doesn't apply in this case. You also have to prove that the changes are "de minimus", because you seem to be the only one saying that.

 

[westwall]

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.

Not at all! We're not Venus, we're Earth!

The burden of proof falls on you to show how a de minimus increase of 200PPM causes the temperature increase.

Your statement is on par with saying, "paper burns, so if we stuff a Saturn V booster with enough paper, we can land on the Moon!"

NO, the burden of proof is on you to show that the principle of Conservation of Energy doesn't apply in this case. You also have to prove that the changes are "de minimus", because you seem to be the only one saying that.

No, konrad. We don't have to prove anything anymore. Every day new evidence is released showing how the alarmists have manipulated and manufacture data. The movement is over. Now the accolytes such as yourself are railing against the "bad deniers"
who want to pollute the world. The fact that you're angry just supports the fact that we're winning the battle against your pseudo science.

 

[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.

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

Can you please repost it?

I never claimed what you're going on about....my posting showed my exchanges with Monckton and how his carrying on about CO2 does not ring true when ALL factors of the natural environment and man's increasing urbanization, deforestation and pollution are taken into account.

Go back and read them if you like....it should clear things up for you. Now, care to document who is saying exactly what you claimed here?

 

[westwall]

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?

I never claimed what you're going on about....my posting showed my exchanges with Monckton and how his carrying on about CO2 does not ring true when ALL factors of the natural environment and man's increasing urbanization, deforestation and pollution are taken into account.

Go back and read them if you like....it should clear things up for you. Now, care to document who is saying exactly what you claimed here?

I hate to tell you but your interaction with Moncton does nothing of the sort. You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims and deliver a lot of opinion. Monckton rightly decided that having a conversation with you was a waste of time.

 

[code1211]

So your claim is that 'nature' has increased the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 387 ppm in the last 150 years? What then is the mechanism by which nature has done this? What is your source for this information? Or is this more baseless yap-yap nonsense?

My claim is that CO2 has increased. It is you who demand to know from exactly what source the increase has risen. It seems reasonable to assume that any increase has been due to the combined emision from all sources. All Sources in Nature combine to emit conservatively 95% while a far smaller share is emitted by man made sources.

You have been the source for some of this. You have said that the warming is reaching farther north to areas previously gripped by perma frost. As the warming warms latitudes farther north, the frozen ground thaws and emits CO2 which was previously sequestered.

Those areas have sequestered carbon in the form of dead plants. Plants which presumably grew there once. That plants may grow there again seems to indicate that we are returning to a climate of days gone by.

If this is true and there seems to be little reason to doubt it, why panic about something that has already happened and is merely happening again.

This is merely diversion, though. The increase of CO2 needs to be proven to drive temperature. It has not been proven. In truth, the prediction from Hansen was wrong. The rise of temperature over the period measured was in keeping with a constant rate of increase, not an increased rate as he suggested would occur with higher levels of CO2.

Proving CO2 has increased does not prove that CO2 causes temperature to rise. Predicting a given rate of temperature increase driven by a given rate of CO2 increase would serve to show this link, but temperature seems to chronically ignor the temptation to be driven by CO2.

 

[code1211]

Yes I AM saying that. Vostock Ice cores show a 800 year gap from the time warming begins to the increase in CO2 levels. 800 years ago the planet experienced the MWP and voila! 800 years has passed and the CO2 is increasing.

Seems a no brainer to me....so it should be right up your alley!

You're forgetting that modern CO2 is more sensitive that that Old Fashioned CO2

What else can account for the missing 800 year lag?

Also, I'm giving Old Rocks double the increase, a 200PPM increase and he still totally refuses to show me in a lab how that increase does all or any of the things he claims

...and you've just become a TROLL. No one is refusing to show in a lab what you want. The truth is what you want can't be shown in a lab and you know it, hence the TROLL tag. Too much booty on your mind, Frank?

Does CO2 behave differently in a lab than it does in nature?

 

[code1211]

And who do you work for? Oil companies? The branch of the company that I work for is spending a great deal to clean up the sins of prior owners.

However, that is off subject. The primary source of greenhouse emissions is production of electricity and transportation. All the efforts to create an infrastructure that provides us with electricity and transportation without the pollution are being blocked by people like yourself. You claim to be environmetally aware, but, like your claim to be a geologist, have proved otherwise in your posts.

When the technology is available to produce energy that is clean and convenient AND makes economic sense, it will obsolete fossil fuels over night.

How is the lack of that source of energy a "blocking" of anything?

If you build it, they will come.

 

[taichiliberal]

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

Can you please repost it?

I never claimed what you're going on about....my posting showed my exchanges with Monckton and how his carrying on about CO2 does not ring true when ALL factors of the natural environment and man's increasing urbanization, deforestation and pollution are taken into account.

Go back and read them if you like....it should clear things up for you. Now, care to document who is saying exactly what you claimed here?

I hate to tell you but your interaction with Moncton does nothing of the sort. You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims and deliver a lot of opinion. Monckton rightly decided that having a conversation with you was a waste of time.

Since our earlier exchanges on this thread demonstrates your inability to logically and factually disprove what I stated....and exposes your dishonesty and insipid stubborness when you are proven wrong on a point, your opinion here plus a metro card will only get you on the bus.

I detest liars....so I'm done with you here, Westie. We can start fresh on another thread....see you then.

 

[westwall]

I never claimed what you're going on about....my posting showed my exchanges with Monckton and how his carrying on about CO2 does not ring true when ALL factors of the natural environment and man's increasing urbanization, deforestation and pollution are taken into account.

Go back and read them if you like....it should clear things up for you. Now, care to document who is saying exactly what you claimed here?

I hate to tell you but your interaction with Moncton does nothing of the sort. You make a lot of unsubstantiated claims and deliver a lot of opinion. Monckton rightly decided that having a conversation with you was a waste of time.

Since our earlier exchanges on this thread demonstrates your inability to logically and factually disprove what I stated....and exposes your dishonesty and insipid stubborness when you are proven wrong on a point, your opinion here plus a metro card will only get you on the bus.

I detest liars....so I'm done with you here, Westie. We can start fresh on another thread....see you then.

Ah yes, obfuscate, denigrate, evaporate. Typical lefty nonsense from a typical lefty.

 

[taichiliberal]

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.

Post #43 and #58......all you're doing here is just regurgitating already disproven assertions while trying to take certain things out of context to falsely bolster your current responses.

As I said earlier, I detest liars. Hope you clean up your game on the next thread, Westie.

So long for now, Westie....you may your last and predictable dishonest, self aggrandizing and repetitive retort.

 

[Old Rocks]

So your claim is that 'nature' has increased the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 387 ppm in the last 150 years? What then is the mechanism by which nature has done this? What is your source for this information? Or is this more baseless yap-yap nonsense?

My claim is that CO2 has increased. It is you who demand to know from exactly what source the increase has risen. It seems reasonable to assume that any increase has been due to the combined emision from all sources. All Sources in Nature combine to emit conservatively 95% while a far smaller share is emitted by man made sources.

I give it to you, Code. Of all those engaging in prevarication on this board, you do it the most elegantly.

Of course, each year, of the emmission of CO2, nature emits 95%+. And then also absorbs that same amount, plus a little extra. However, we only emit, and do not absorb any of the excess. So, over the 150 years since the level was 280 ppm, we have increased the amount to 387 ppm, at present, through the burning of fossil fuels.

I don' know in whose employ you are, but I hope they pay you well, your lies are slick.

You have been the source for some of this. You have said that the warming is reaching farther north to areas previously gripped by perma frost. As the warming warms latitudes farther north, the frozen ground thaws and emits CO2 which was previously sequestered.

That is correct. While not a big factor at present, we can see the increase in CH4 due to Arctic permafrost, and Artic Ocean clathrate emmissions. Emmissions that would not be happening had we not added another 40% of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Those areas have sequestered carbon in the form of dead plants. Plants which presumably grew there once. That plants may grow there again seems to indicate that we are returning to a climate of days gone by.

Oh, certainly, they will grow there again. In the meantime, we will have experianced, somewhere along the way, an adrupt climate change, with all that that implies.

If this is true and there seems to be little reason to doubt it, why panic about something that has already happened and is merely happening again.

No reason to panic at all. Elegant solution to overpopulation.

This is merely diversion, though. The increase of CO2 needs to be proven to drive temperature. It has not been proven. In truth, the prediction from Hansen was wrong. The rise of temperature over the period measured was in keeping with a constant rate of increase, not an increased rate as he suggested would occur with higher levels of CO2.

Now that is not an elegant lie, just another fucking dumb lie to be latched onto by the short bus IQs on this board.

The absorption spectrum of CO2 was established in 1858. On a median line, the temperature increase is within 10% of Hansen's predictions. And picking the years you wish to state for his line would be the same as claiming Line A was accurate because of 1998.

Proving CO2 has increased does not prove that CO2 causes temperature to rise. Predicting a given rate of temperature increase driven by a given rate of CO2 increase would serve to show this link, but temperature seems to chronically ignor the temptation to be driven by CO2.

Only the all the Scientific Societies in existance state otherwise. Perhaps you should inform them of their error.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Walleyes, I cannot denigrate you, you are beyond denigration.

 

[westwall]

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.

Post #43 and #58......all you're doing here is just regurgitating already disproven assertions while trying to take certain things out of context to falsely bolster your current responses.

As I said earlier, I detest liars. Hope you clean up your game on the next thread, Westie.

So long for now, Westie....you may your last and predictable dishonest, self aggrandizing and repetitive retort.

OK smarty. You claimed I lied. Prove it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Walleyes, you have proven yourself a liar about every other post.

 

[westwall]

Now Walleyes, you have proven yourself a liar about every other post.

So says the man who can never seem to come up with a lie I've told (because I havn't said any, but who's counting). My wife says you suffer from Reaction Formation. Look it up, it may help you sleep better at night after you've spent your day poisoning your neighbors.

 

[code1211]

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.

The problem with this statement is that it assumes that there will be no other factors which might slow or eliminate warming. We already know that CO2 is a GHG. The problem is that there are politicians who are trying to tax the air and control the economy because of a theory. For this reason, causation is important to isolate.

Other things we know for certain about CO2 is that it reaches its peak at the moment that an Ice Age starts. This is not a causation, but, while the high CO2 probably does not cause cooling, it certainly does not stop the onset of the cold. There are other climate driving factors that overpower CO2.

Higher CO2, then, does not mean that additional warming is inevitable. It only means that there is higher CO2.

 

[Big Black Dog]

The only thing worse than a Global Warming post is a "I love Owe Bama" post.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now Walleyes, you have proven yourself a liar about every other post.

So sayeth the EnviroMarxist