Human caused climate change!

[Toddsterpatriot]

Global warming is a religion. I'm a Christian.

Anthropogenic global warming is a fact. A fact based on sound science, the laws of physics, and decades of very intensive research by tens of thousands of scientists from many countries all around the world. A fact that is affirmed by pretty much every national and international scientific organization, society, and research institution on the planet with no such organizations denying that fact. A fact that is based on mountains of evidence in many areas, evidence that is becoming more and more obvious to most of the world's population.

AGW denial, on the other hand, is definitely a sort of AstroTurfed cult, created by the fossil fuel industry, with mostly rightwingnut, anti-science, anti-environmental, poorly educated, extremely ignorant, politically motivated, highly deluded retards like you and the other deniers on this forum.

You're most likely a sort of comic-book-christian whose real religion is the worship of money and power. You're obviously a bamboozled and very confused moron, dude, and on the subject of global warming, you don't know your butt from a hole in the ground.

Anthropogenic global warming is a fact.

Too bad it looks just like the other kind.

 

[flacaltenn]

An idiotic question, typical of idiots like you.

The sun's output has been quite constant so the changes we're seeing in Earth's average temperatures and the consequent climate changes are not due to any changes in the sun's energy reaching Earth. Mankind has raised atmospheric levels of CO2, a powerful greenhouse gas, by 40% and the world's scientists all agree that that factor is the cause of the current warming and climate changes. So, dumbass, the fact is that mankind is currently having a "greater impact" on the Earth's climate while the sun's contribution remains the same as it was before the temperatures started climbing.

Now we got something to discuss RollingThunder.. How sure are you that part I bolded above?? Is THAT what you've been told?

What that shows is explained here.. http://www.usmessageboard.com/5549839-post68.html

The IPCC reports talk about just 12 year cycles of solar output. But the definite increase that you see in that graph is ALMOST equal to the raw calculated forcing function increase due to CO2.. When you see this LONGER solar irradiance record -- ARE YOU STILL sure of what you've been told? That almost ALL of the warming is accounted for by just CO2.

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature

Exactly -- that's the response.. Change the discussion to be about the last 20 yr cycle of solar activity.. Makes no sense to look at a 20 history of ANYTHING in climate change. That is just like saying that since temperatures haven't risen significantly in the past decade -- that's no excuse for CO2 NOT being the cause. Hypocritical no?

Why should we expect that GLOBAL AVERAGE temperatures should follow EITHER of those causes over one or two decades?

When you observe that the calculated CO2 forcing is between 1.4 and 2.0 degC for the past 100 yrs and you see that TSI could account for more than 1/2 of that depending on thermal response times -- it really CAN'T be dismissed can it?

Question -- how long does it take to warm and appreciable volumn of the oceans? I suspect it's longer than a decade when you turn the stove up a couple degrees..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The scientific underpinnings of global warming is easily explained.

The government provides the scientists with a body of raw data and says "If you find that this proves global warming you will get millions of dollars. If you find this doesn't prove global warming you will be fired. Now please give us your unbiased opinion."

They do not say that. You made that up.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Now we got something to discuss RollingThunder.. How sure are you that part I bolded above?? Is THAT what you've been told?

What that shows is explained here.. http://www.usmessageboard.com/5549839-post68.html

The IPCC reports talk about just 12 year cycles of solar output. But the definite increase that you see in that graph is ALMOST equal to the raw calculated forcing function increase due to CO2.. When you see this LONGER solar irradiance record -- ARE YOU STILL sure of what you've been told? That almost ALL of the warming is accounted for by just CO2.

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature

Exactly -- that's the response.. Change the discussion to be about the last 20 yr cycle of solar activity.. Makes no sense to look at a 20 history of ANYTHING in climate change. That is just like saying that since temperatures haven't risen significantly in the past decade -- that's no excuse for CO2 NOT being the cause. Hypocritical no?

A decade is 20 years long?

Wow. Who knew?

 

[Fordsflylow]

You all think it is bad now just wait till Mother Earth lets one rip - methane fart via permafrost, then the party really begins.

 

[daveman]

Global warming is a religion. I'm a Christian.

Anthropogenic global warming is a fact. A fact based on sound science, the laws of physics, and decades of very intensive research by tens of thousands of scientists from many countries all around the world. A fact that is affirmed by pretty much every national and international scientific organization, society, and research institution on the planet with no such organizations denying that fact. A fact that is based on mountains of evidence in many areas, evidence that is becoming more and more obvious to most of the world's population.

AGW denial, on the other hand, is definitely a sort of AstroTurfed cult, created by the fossil fuel industry, with mostly rightwingnut, anti-science, anti-environmental, poorly educated, extremely ignorant, politically motivated, highly deluded retards like you and the other deniers on this forum.

You're most likely a sort of comic-book-christian whose real religion is the worship of money and power. You're obviously a bamboozled and very confused moron, dude, and on the subject of global warming, you don't know your butt from a hole in the ground.

Damn, you leftists are gullible, aren't you?

 

[daveman]

The scientific underpinnings of global warming is easily explained.

The government provides the scientists with a body of raw data and says "If you find that this proves global warming you will get millions of dollars. If you find this doesn't prove global warming you will be fired. Now please give us your unbiased opinion."

The cultists screech, "Follow the money!!...just not ours, okay?"

 

[Big Fitz]

You all think it is bad now just wait till Mother Earth lets one rip - methane fart via permafrost, then the party really begins.

Wanna put your paycheck that's going to happen this summer?

You're not a betting man... are you? I'll take the house odds on that one.

 

[flacaltenn]

You all think it is bad now just wait till Mother Earth lets one rip - methane fart via permafrost, then the party really begins.

Wanna put your paycheck that's going to happen this summer?

You're not a betting man... are you? I'll take the house odds on that one.

That's pretty much what took out the Deep Water Horizon rig.. Big frozen chunks of it.

Seems like we better step up the drilling before the fuel-air bomb goes off..

 

[Big Fitz]

You all think it is bad now just wait till Mother Earth lets one rip - methane fart via permafrost, then the party really begins.

Wanna put your paycheck that's going to happen this summer?

You're not a betting man... are you? I'll take the house odds on that one.

That's pretty much what took out the Deep Water Horizon rig.. Big frozen chunks of it.

Seems like we better step up the drilling before the fuel-air bomb goes off..

So do we have a race between the Permafrost FAE and the Yellowstone Megavolcano yet?

 

[flacaltenn]

Wanna put your paycheck that's going to happen this summer?

You're not a betting man... are you? I'll take the house odds on that one.

That's pretty much what took out the Deep Water Horizon rig.. Big frozen chunks of it.

Seems like we better step up the drilling before the fuel-air bomb goes off..

So do we have a race between the Permafrost FAE and the Yellowstone Megavolcano yet?

What we have here is one of rare benefits of the AGW movement. We now realize what a crappy dangerous planet this one is.. We've gotta at least thank them for that..

It's like the beater with no door handles and a fire extinguisher in the front seat -- on sale at Milky Way Motors..

 

[bobgnote]

Now we got something to discuss RollingThunder.. How sure are you that part I bolded above?? Is THAT what you've been told?

What that shows is explained here.. http://www.usmessageboard.com/5549839-post68.html

The IPCC reports talk about just 12 year cycles of solar output. But the definite increase that you see in that graph is ALMOST equal to the raw calculated forcing function increase due to CO2.. When you see this LONGER solar irradiance record -- ARE YOU STILL sure of what you've been told? That almost ALL of the warming is accounted for by just CO2.

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature

Exactly -- that's the response.. Change the discussion to be about the last 20 yr cycle of solar activity.. Makes no sense to look at a 20 history of ANYTHING in climate change. That is just like saying that since temperatures haven't risen significantly in the past decade -- that's no excuse for CO2 NOT being the cause. Hypocritical no?

Why should we expect that GLOBAL AVERAGE temperatures should follow EITHER of those causes over one or two decades?

When you observe that the calculated CO2 forcing is between 1.4 and 2.0 degC for the past 100 yrs and you see that TSI could account for more than 1/2 of that depending on thermal response times -- it really CAN'T be dismissed can it?

Question -- how long does it take to warm and appreciable volumn of the oceans? I suspect it's longer than a decade when you turn the stove up a couple degrees..

Sun's Strange Behavior Baffles Astronomers | Space.com

The sun issues 11 and 22-year short-term cycles. But the recent minimum, 2008-9 was unexpectedly chilled, while the current cycle is expected to be milder, than normal.

So WTF is with all the heat, if GHGs aren't doing what they are supposed to do?

Solar cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[flacaltenn]

You can see those short cycles in the longer time record above. That's where the AGW folks WANT you to concentrate of course because they don't want to talk about the historical record over the past 100 or 400 years. DOES NOT MATTER what the 11 or 22 cycle is doing.. Just like it does not matter that temperatures have seem to stalled out for a decade whilst CO2 continues to rise. What matters to climate change is the longer term trend shown on the time line above. The sun is warmer NOW than it's been in hundreds of years AND the increase is in the right magnitude to explain a LARGE part of the warming.

 

[bobgnote]

You can see those short cycles in the longer time record above. That's where the AGW folks WANT you to concentrate of course because they don't want to talk about the historical record over the past 100 or 400 years. DOES NOT MATTER what the 11 or 22 cycle is doing.. Just like it does not matter that temperatures have seem to stalled out for a decade whilst CO2 continues to rise. What matters to climate change is the longer term trend shown on the time line above. The sun is warmer NOW than it's been in hundreds of years AND the increase is in the right magnitude to explain a LARGE part of the warming.

1. Remember that graph you loaded, a month and a half, ago? That was a 400,000 year record, of CO2 and temperature. You didn't notice, how the CO2 was steadier and forced the temperature, particularly evident, at peaks and troughs;
2. I since loaded all kinds of media, including graphs, which included recent instrument records, but I also loaded proxies, back to Iceball Earth, and you ignore the reason AGW scientists concentrate on either ancient records or those since 1950 are we are in an automobile and chainsaw-enhanced period of warming and accelerated out-gassing, of GHGs, which will precede a runaway global warming, similar to the PETM, 56 m.y.a., but our Mass Extinction Event 6 will be more like the P/T Extinction, 251 m.y.a., when there was a lot of CH4 in the atmosphere, like we will have;
3. We AGW-files also like to review the Pleistocene-Holocene thermal maximum, so:

Eat shit, you lying, retarded bitch, Fatass!

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah -- that graph I loaded that you can't read.. I remember it...

 

[bobgnote]

Yeah -- that graph I loaded that you can't read.. I remember it...

I just posted the UK-Brighton graph, for your boy, buttpunk9643, with you ranting up your usual stupid sockage, Fatass. Go ahead and post it, again, or let's wonder what it would take, to get you to think, before you write a load of shit, on USMB walls, again:

 

[Fordsflylow]

Something that is missing from the graphs and such as well as the convo in general, and seems to have been overlooked is the FACT that there are now 7 BILLION PEOPLE. Sure historical data gives us all something to deduce as far as cycles go BUT there are a whole lotta people now. Not to mention the domestic animals, far less forests, most everyone burning fossil fuel from carbon "stores" (there's a clue for an open mind)etc, etc, etc,............... Heck I bet I've likely burned 10,000 gal's of fuel just myself in my lifetime and I'm barely over 50.

Should be painfully obvious we should have a great impact on our HOME. It's our HOME!! Get it? If not wake the f up.

 

[Big Fitz]

Something that is missing from the graphs and such as well as the convo in general, and seems to have been overlooked is the FACT that there are now 7 BILLION PEOPLE. Sure historical data gives us all something to deduce as far as cycles go BUT there are a whole lotta people now. Not to mention the domestic animals, far less forests, most everyone burning fossil fuel from carbon "stores" (there's a clue for an open mind)etc, etc, etc,............... Heck I bet I've likely burned 10,000 gal's of fuel just myself in my lifetime and I'm barely over 50.

Should be painfully obvious we should have a great impact on our HOME. It's our HOME!! Get it? If not wake the f up.

I guess I'm going to have to drop this on another ecofascistitard.

Planetary Atmospheric Composition (You can find it in any junior high text, but Wiki is the same.
Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gas Volume
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 394.45 ppmv (0.039445%)
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4) 1.79 ppmv (0.000179%)
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%)
Carbon monoxide (CO) 0.1 ppmv (0.00001%)
Xenon (Xe) 0.09 ppmv (9×10−6%) (0.000009%)
Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0 to 7×10−6%)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.02 ppmv (2×10−6%) (0.000002%)
Iodine (I2) 0.01 ppmv (1×10−6%) (0.000001%)
Ammonia (NH3) trace
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface

Okay? Note that? CO2 is less than 0.4% of total atmospheric composition. Now. How much is that by weight? We all hear about how many gigatons we produce as a species right? Let's see how much of an impact that has. Mind you, this is STILL basic gradeschool math applied to Junior High science. We're going to have to multiply and divide. Stay with me, mmkay?

The average mass of the atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion (5×1015) tonnes or 1/1,200,000 the mass of Earth. According to the American National Center for Atmospheric Research,

Okay, the total atmospheric weight is 5,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes. And for the sake of argument we'll round UP to 0.4% of Carbon Dioxide's share which is a weight of 200 billion tonnes.

So, you get that, right?

All CO2 = 200 billion tons

So what's man's contribution to that amount?

Approximately 9,000,000,000 tons. And that was last year, and a record.

Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? At least till you read this:

How about natural sources?

Most sources of CO2 emissions are natural, and are balanced to various degrees by natural CO2 sinks. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands and the action of forest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year, while new growth entirely counteracts this effect, absorbing 450 gigatonnes per year.

That means that in the yearly production of CO2 in the world, mankind is responsible for 0.02% of all CO2 produced of which makes up 0.4% of total atmospheric composition.

Now, you are asking us to turn the world upside down for global ecofascism for the addition to the atmosphere of 0.000002% of it's total volume???

Now remember this small fact too. Water vapor is a much stronger and variable green house gas. It exists in the atmosphere at between 1-4% of total volume, and yet we do not hear of people trying to ban water vapor.

Take further note that nature on average is in equalibrium with or absorbing more CO2 than is being produced from all sources by 2 billion tonnes. Shouldn't the temperatures be plummeting because before 1990 we weren't even close to 2 billion tonnes a year, or is it another factor? Hmmmmmmmmm........

You wonder why I am incredulous about AGW, particularly as CO2 as a main driver?

The math is astounding when you consider our impact as a whole.


True story.

 

[flacaltenn]

Something that is missing from the graphs and such as well as the convo in general, and seems to have been overlooked is the FACT that there are now 7 BILLION PEOPLE. Sure historical data gives us all something to deduce as far as cycles go BUT there are a whole lotta people now. Not to mention the domestic animals, far less forests, most everyone burning fossil fuel from carbon "stores" (there's a clue for an open mind)etc, etc, etc,............... Heck I bet I've likely burned 10,000 gal's of fuel just myself in my lifetime and I'm barely over 50.

Should be painfully obvious we should have a great impact on our HOME. It's our HOME!! Get it? If not wake the f up.

Termites == 9Gtons/yr.

Man == 30Gtons/yr.

If you count the methane contribution from JUST TERMITES and apply the 20X multiplier for Greenhouse Gas "power" --- termites SURPASS man's CO2 contribution to the warming effect..

Just the "feeling" that there are too many people on the planet is really not enough to trigger TRILLIONS of dollars in spending and economic rearrangement in an attempt to reduce CO2 and temperature by 0.5 or 1.0 degC.

So how sure are you of that "feeling" .. As Clint Eastwood would say -- "are ya feeling lucky punk -- eh?"

 

[Fordsflylow]

All I got left to state about this is IF you are a climate scientist, you are among the minority 10%, and not in the consensus of the 90% who believe in global climate change and that we are in or headed to no man's land. I disagree with the 90% on their prediction on how soon or later the shit will hit the fan.

I will never understand why so many people refuse to keep learning and think they now it all.