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.
Which human caused climate change? We need to find him and stop him. The rest of us are getting blamed for it.
Always some snide ass remark(s) from another person who thinks he knows all there is to know, never to learn anymore. If posts like this weren't so sad, they might just be funny!
Which human caused climate change? We need to find him and stop him. The rest of us are getting blamed for it.
Always some snide ass remark(s) from another person who thinks he knows all there is to know, never to learn anymore. If posts like this weren't so sad, they might just be funny!
You're right. It apparently had a much more dense biome and nature produces more CO2 than man by a factor of 10 and always seems to balance out. CO2 goes up, the biome improves as it gets more CO2 out of the atmosphere. It's one giant negative feedback loop and it is able to do so with us as well as insignificant as our contribution is.I've a few billion years of history that say otherwise. What've you got?
Again, does that 5 billions of history have 7 billion people in it and all the other bs that goes with it?
The universe is not static and can never be. Quit thinking you can make it so.
You're right. It apparently had a much more dense biome and nature produces more CO2 than man by a factor of 10 and always seems to balance out. CO2 goes up, the biome improves as it gets more CO2 out of the atmosphere. It's one giant negative feedback loop and it is able to do so with us as well as insignificant as our contribution is.Again, does that 5 billions of history have 7 billion people in it and all the other bs that goes with it?
The universe is not static and can never be. Quit thinking you can make it so.
If co2 was the only gas to worry about AND your claim is/was factually correct, I suppose you'd have a leg to stand on. However, co2 isn't the only climate changing gas and you are TRYING to defend something 90% of climate scientist disagree with.
If co2 was the only gas to worry about AND your claim is/was factually correct, I suppose you'd have a leg to stand on. However, co2 isn't the only climate changing gas and you are TRYING to defend something 90% of climate scientist disagree with.
Yes, Water vapor is the problem. Don't take hot showers, save the planet
Since Water Vapor is the biggest threat and is even MORE essential to life on this planet that CO2 (even thought that's critically essential too) we don't find a way to control it??? My GAWD! During the era when we were using steam to power everything we could? Oh the horror!You're right. It apparently had a much more dense biome and nature produces more CO2 than man by a factor of 10 and always seems to balance out. CO2 goes up, the biome improves as it gets more CO2 out of the atmosphere. It's one giant negative feedback loop and it is able to do so with us as well as insignificant as our contribution is.Again, does that 5 billions of history have 7 billion people in it and all the other bs that goes with it?
The universe is not static and can never be. Quit thinking you can make it so.
If co2 was the only gas to worry about AND your claim is/was factually correct, I suppose you'd have a leg to stand on. However, co2 isn't the only climate changing gas and you are TRYING to defend something 90% of climate scientist disagree with.
You're right. It apparently had a much more dense biome and nature produces more CO2 than man by a factor of 10 and always seems to balance out. CO2 goes up, the biome improves as it gets more CO2 out of the atmosphere. It's one giant negative feedback loop and it is able to do so with us as well as insignificant as our contribution is.I've a few billion years of history that say otherwise. What've you got?
Again, does that 5 billions of history have 7 billion people in it and all the other bs that goes with it?
The universe is not static and can never be. Quit thinking you can make it so.
You're right. It apparently had a much more dense biome and nature produces more CO2 than man by a factor of 10 and always seems to balance out. CO2 goes up, the biome improves as it gets more CO2 out of the atmosphere. It's one giant negative feedback loop and it is able to do so with us as well as insignificant as our contribution is.Again, does that 5 billions of history have 7 billion people in it and all the other bs that goes with it?
The universe is not static and can never be. Quit thinking you can make it so.
You are just full of idiotic ignorance today, eh BigFizzle. The fact is that mankind has raised atmospheric CO2 levels by a quite measurable 40% over pre-industrial levels. The Earth's natural carbon sinks have absorbed some of the fossil carbon we've released and the oceans have (measurably) absorbed most of the excess carbon temporarily but no, little retard, it is not "balancing out". That's just some kind of denier cult fantasy of yours. Once again you conclusively demonstrate that you are a confused, ignorant nitwit with no comprehension of the facts of this matter.
Natural carbon emissions and natural carbon sinks were in pretty good balance for many, many millennia prior to the start of mankind's wholesale burning off of fossil carbon into the atmosphere. Currently, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising rapidly and are already significantly higher than any levels that have existed for at least the past 650,000 years.You're right. It apparently had a much more dense biome and nature produces more CO2 than man by a factor of 10 and always seems to balance out. CO2 goes up, the biome improves as it gets more CO2 out of the atmosphere. It's one giant negative feedback loop and it is able to do so with us as well as insignificant as our contribution is.
The universe is not static and can never be. Quit thinking you can make it so.
You are just full of idiotic ignorance today, eh BigFizzle. The fact is that mankind has raised atmospheric CO2 levels by a quite measurable 40% over pre-industrial levels. The Earth's natural carbon sinks have absorbed some of the fossil carbon we've released and the oceans have (measurably) absorbed most of the excess carbon temporarily but no, little retard, it is not "balancing out". That's just some kind of denier cult fantasy of yours. Once again you conclusively demonstrate that you are a confused, ignorant nitwit with no comprehension of the facts of this matter.
All that's based on the theory that both the oceans and the land were ALWAYS in perfect Carbon balance before evil destructive man came along..
Actually it is based on some very clear evidence based on the fact that global CO2 levels remained remarkably constant over vast stretches of time.That's a pretty silly concept based on not much evidence.
That's so idiotic, confused and nonsensical, it is hard to know where to begin so I'll just say that your retardation is showing again. You have no idea what you're talking about.In fact, it's hard for us [retards] to understand WHY oceans and lands "suddenly LEARNED" to take up man's excess CO2 when (we are being told) they never did that before...
There are definite limits to how much extra CO2 the natural carbon sinks can absorb, including the oceans. And yes, it is a very bad thing for the oceans to be absorbing so much excess CO2 because of the ocean acidification that is happening.So the question is --- if they can do that -- will the absorbed fractions INCREASE? Got a definate(sic) answer to that one? In the case of the oceans, that result COULD be a very bad thing if the OAcidification effect is a large concern..
You are just full of idiotic ignorance today, eh BigFizzle. The fact is that mankind has raised atmospheric CO2 levels by a quite measurable 40% over pre-industrial levels. The Earth's natural carbon sinks have absorbed some of the fossil carbon we've released and the oceans have (measurably) absorbed most of the excess carbon temporarily but no, little retard, it is not "balancing out". That's just some kind of denier cult fantasy of yours. Once again you conclusively demonstrate that you are a confused, ignorant nitwit with no comprehension of the facts of this matter.
All that's based on the theory that both the oceans and the land were ALWAYS in perfect Carbon balance before evil destructive man came along..
Natural carbon emissions and natural carbon sinks were in pretty good balance for many, many millennia prior to the start of mankind's wholesale burning off of fossil carbon into the atmosphere. Currently, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising rapidly and are already significantly higher than any levels that have existed for at least the past 650,000 years.
Actually it is based on some very clear evidence based on the fact that global CO2 levels remained remarkably constant over vast stretches of time.
Actually moron -- most of that time was during many ice ages. Times when even GED scholars like yourself could identify significant differences in the Carbon Cycle. And there was no need to start the flaming. You want the oceans and the land to absorb more carbon? Make them WARMER.. It's really that simple. My question remains. Since this represents a significant NEGATIVE feedback -- how well do we understand the math?
That's so idiotic, confused and nonsensical, it is hard to know where to begin so I'll just say that your retardation is showing again. You have no idea what you're talking about.In fact, it's hard for us [retards] to understand WHY oceans and lands "suddenly LEARNED" to take up man's excess CO2 when (we are being told) they never did that before...
You'll not convince me that with NATURAL CO2 exchanges in the 700 Gton/yr range that the proxies of ice cores, tree rings and insect parts are sensitive enough to tell what the carbon balance actually was a Million yrs ago.. To claim that would require sensitivities and accuracies of a few percent. But then again -- you chose to malign me rather than making the observation that coming out of an Ice Age promotes greater CO2 absorption.
There are definite limits to how much extra CO2 the natural carbon sinks can absorb, including the oceans. And yes, it is a very bad thing for the oceans to be absorbing so much excess CO2 because of the ocean acidification that is happening.So the question is --- if they can do that -- will the absorbed fractions INCREASE? Got a definate(sic) answer to that one? In the case of the oceans, that result COULD be a very bad thing if the OAcidification effect is a large concern..
I've got no choice apparently but to return the personal insults. Perhaps when you can do this in a grown-up matter --- it'll relieve me of having to translate into mental midget dialect.
All that's based on the theory that both the oceans and the land were ALWAYS in perfect Carbon balance before evil destructive man came along..
Natural carbon emissions and natural carbon sinks were in pretty good balance for many, many millennia prior to the start of mankind's wholesale burning off of fossil carbon into the atmosphere. Currently, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising rapidly and are already significantly higher than any levels that have existed for at least the past 650,000 years.
There are definite limits to how much extra CO2 the natural carbon sinks can absorb, including the oceans. And yes, it is a very bad thing for the oceans to be absorbing so much excess CO2 because of the ocean acidification that is happening.
Only idiots can make that assertion and live with themselves. Go pat yourself.. And tell me the limit of the carbon sinks. I'm probably talking over your rectally sheltered head here, but there is also a limit on the EFFECTIVE CONCENTRATION of CO2 that causes the GreenHouse effect. There's this little math relationship (CO2 forcing function) based on a LOGARITHM (wiki it -- they'll use 5th grade explanations -- so you'll be fine). That says the effectiveness of CO2 to warming FALLS OFF at higher concentrations. Just PM me if you want me to 'splain that to you..
You hush. They're LIBERALS, man. They just KNOW.Okay, sick curiosity got the better of me and I had to look at Trolling Blunder's post. In it, we see a perfect example of liberal thinking about the nature of the world.
"Nobody can take care of themselves properly unless I/We are involved in making their decisions."
People cannot make the correct (and I use the term ironically) dietary decisons.
People make too many wrong choices and must have the law spell it out.
People must be punished for making wrong decisions
But now the BEST one yet, right here...
The EARTH is not capable of taking care of itself, so WE must do it for IT.
The conceit of this belief is beyond amazement! You can do better than natural law can? By who's standard? You know better? Better than what? Who appointed you god? By what merit do you have the right to say what is and is not good while all the while you rebel and destroy every ethical and moral system you come across with relativistic bullshit?
Get OVER yourself! You are not all that and a bag of chips with a side of guacamole, and your meddling in everyone elses business (including the planet's) while ignoring your own shit just makes the world worse. Fill that hole in your soul with something else.
I've got no choice apparently but to return the personal insults. Perhaps when you can do this in a grown-up matter --- it'll relieve me of having to translate into mental midget dialect.
Natural carbon emissions and natural carbon sinks were in pretty good balance for many, many millennia prior to the start of mankind's wholesale burning off of fossil carbon into the atmosphere. Currently, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising rapidly and are already significantly higher than any levels that have existed for at least the past 650,000 years.
There are definite limits to how much extra CO2 the natural carbon sinks can absorb, including the oceans. And yes, it is a very bad thing for the oceans to be absorbing so much excess CO2 because of the ocean acidification that is happening.
Only idiots can make that assertion and live with themselves. Go pat yourself.. And tell me the limit of the carbon sinks. I'm probably talking over your rectally sheltered head here, but there is also a limit on the EFFECTIVE CONCENTRATION of CO2 that causes the GreenHouse effect. There's this little math relationship (CO2 forcing function) based on a LOGARITHM (wiki it -- they'll use 5th grade explanations -- so you'll be fine). That says the effectiveness of CO2 to warming FALLS OFF at higher concentrations. Just PM me if you want me to 'splain that to you..
Here's how humans made their paltry emissions more significant:
1. CHAINSAWS
2. SEQUESTERED CARBON RELEASE
3. HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO OUT-GAS DERIVED GHGs
Oh, I get it. Fecaltoons the Clown doesn't get simultaneous removal of CO2 metabolizers OR sequestered problems, which help lead, to derivative out-gassing.
Feke, if you'd even once try to math out the effect of CHAINSAWS and human-affected FIRE and FLAMMABILITY, we'd have some math, worth shit, not just shinola.
But you like to eat shit, and shine your ass. Hey, you are a clowning cartoon. All kinds of CO2 and CH4 which you'd consider natural is a direct result, of human intervention, in an environment, which we need to positively control.
But not if Fecaltoons the Clown has shit, to say.
