Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There you go again with the appeal to authority fallacy.Of course, just because every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University disagrees with you just means that they are all a bunch of Commies, right, Comrade?
You global warming crazies are like little boys getting fucked up the ass by a priest just because some authority told you to bend over..
Grow up you stupid pathetic watermelon.
Since authority doesn't impress you how about logic?
The ability of CO2 and other gases to absorb infra-red radiation, is scientifically well-documented.
The concentration of those gases have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
If the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?
Chew on that for a while. You'll be in good company, since none of the other deniers have managed to satisfactorily answer the question!
Here we go again. Not only can you not read, Walleyes, your memory is defective.
Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report
ScienceDaily (Oct. 9, 2009) You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.
"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today and were sustained at those levels global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.
"Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history," she said.
skeptics and alarmists both say that the climate is warming
skeptics and alarmists both say that CO2 is increasing
skeptics and alarmists both say that CO2 increases temperatures by slowing certain wavelengths of outgoing radiation.
that we can agree upon.
without computer models the highest temperature increase for doubling CO2 is about 1.2Cwithout computer models and the fixation on CO2 we would assume natural causes were the driving force behind changes in climate because natural causes such as sun output and ocean current patterns match the variability of temperature whereas the linear increase of CO2 does not.
My wife is a PhD psychologist who will quite happily school you on any personality disorder you may have.
And according to the aforementioned Vostock Ice Cores there was a 1000 year period with CO2 levels higher then the current day and there were two periods of warming and cooling that lasted for hundreds of years respectively, all while the CO2 level stayed elevated. Ask olfraud for that link again. It was a very compelling study, I kick myself for not saving it and he refuses to repost it.
Here we go again. Not only can you not read, Walleyes, your memory is defective.
Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report
...Remember the CO2 levels were HIGHER than now, so the level we are at now is irrelevent.
Actually, when I referred to gw or global warming on this forum, I was talking about manmade global warming or agw. I am aware that the earths temperature has risen slightly in the past 100 years, I am just not convinced that mankind is the cause of it.
Does anyone know what the co2 concentrations in the atmosphere were 150 or 500 or 2000 years ago?I am talking about the atmosphere, not the ice in antarctica. 97.2% of the co2 in the atmosphere is produced naturally each year, how can we assume that the level never fluctuates 2 or 3% in a hundred or a thousand years. The oceans produce more when they warm up.
Actually, when I referred to gw or global warming on this forum, I was talking about manmade global warming or agw. I am aware that the earths temperature has risen slightly in the past 100 years, I am just not convinced that mankind is the cause of it.
There is nothing wrong with this position, especially if you are just starting to seriously investigate and explore the subject. It is a sign of healthy scientific skepticism. I began explore the subject several decades ago, and remained fairly neutral on the "A" part of GW until the early part of the decade when the preponderance of evidence overcame my reticence and crossed my personal considerations of "compelling."
The question becomes, where do you turn to find the information you need to make up your mind, and what evidence would it take to help you decide one way or the other?
Hmmm...... So the melting of the Arctic sea ice, the accelerated melting of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Caps are supposed to convince us that nothing has happened since 2000? Come on, Ian, are you totally blind?
How about the Alpine Glaciers? And then there is the little matter of global temperatures. The running mean from 2002 to 2007 was higher than any previous peak except that of 1998. And the running mean of the peak of 2010 matched that of 1998.
All the data since 2000 shows an acceleration of the warming, and affects that we were not expecting until mid-century or later. Such as the beginning of the clathrate outgassing in the Arctic Ocean. Now you may choose to remain willfully ignorant of the data, but most intellectually honest people do not.
And according to the aforementioned Vostock Ice Cores there was a 1000 year period with CO2 levels higher then the current day and there were two periods of warming and cooling that lasted for hundreds of years respectively, all while the CO2 level stayed elevated. Ask olfraud for that link again. It was a very compelling study, I kick myself for not saving it and he refuses to repost it.
Presuming that you are not misstating the case (I know what are the odds?), I would very much like to examine that paper.
skeptics and alarmists both say that the climate is warming
skeptics and alarmists both say that CO2 is increasing
skeptics and alarmists both say that CO2 increases temperatures by slowing certain wavelengths of outgoing radiation.
that we can agree upon.
Actual skeptics, such as myself (active, participating carded CSICOP member since 1978), Phil Platt, Michael Shermer, and the vast majority of the rest of the long-time skeptics and skeptical organizations understand and accept the theory of AGW and its portents. Most of the posters here who claim to be skeptics seem to possess little or no actual scientific understanding and by their statements reject the very issues you mentioned.
without computer models the highest temperature increase for doubling CO2 is about 1.2Cwithout computer models and the fixation on CO2 we would assume natural causes were the driving force behind changes in climate because natural causes such as sun output and ocean current patterns match the variability of temperature whereas the linear increase of CO2 does not.
Please provide cite and reference to peer-reviewed, mainstream science journal (or academic, graduate-level or higher textbook) which supports the underlined portions of your above assertions.
skeptics and alarmists both say that the climate is warming
skeptics and alarmists both say that CO2 is increasing
skeptics and alarmists both say that CO2 increases temperatures by slowing certain wavelengths of outgoing radiation.
that we can agree upon.
Actual skeptics, such as myself (active, participating carded CSICOP member since 1978), Phil Platt, Michael Shermer, and the vast majority of the rest of the long-time skeptics and skeptical organizations understand and accept the theory of AGW and its portents. Most of the posters here who claim to be skeptics seem to possess little or no actual scientific understanding and by their statements reject the very issues you mentioned.
without computer models the highest temperature increase for doubling CO2 is about 1.2Cwithout computer models and the fixation on CO2 we would assume natural causes were the driving force behind changes in climate because natural causes such as sun output and ocean current patterns match the variability of temperature whereas the linear increase of CO2 does not.
Please provide cite and reference to peer-reviewed, mainstream science journal (or academic, graduate-level or higher textbook) which supports the underlined portions of your above assertions.
Ok, let's take this in order. What particular field of Science is your degree in?
=The fairy tale of better climate gasolineDie Mär vom Prima-Klima-Sprit
Die Autofahrer wollen den umstrittenen Biosprit E10 nicht tanken, es ist ein Fiasko für Politik und Mineralölkonzerne - aber ein Segen für die Umwelt, glauben Forscher und Naturschützer. Sie geißeln die Biosprit-Operation seit Jahren als Unfug.
Ok, let's take this in order. What particular field of Science is your degree in?
sorry to disappoint you Old Rocks but I believe Mother Nature works on her own schedule. did it warm up last century- yes. but not since1998. has it warmed up and put glaciers in retreat before? obviously yes, just look at the Ice Man. you can look forward to Doomsday if you wish.
