Look at all the pretty windmills....

[Did you notice that her SS "evidence" is damned near 7 years old?

Then show us new data.

No, not cherrypicks, global data.

Oh look, you have none. My data is good, and yours sucks balls. Same old same old.

You are interesting in a psychological sense. You hate all life on earth, but you exclude yourself from that seething hatred. Don't you consider yourself to be life?

In any case, please stay away from all other humans. And all other life. If you have to get your jollies destroying life, go kill some mold.
 
The ice age began with CO2 concentrations around 1000ppm. If CO2 causes warming, exactly how do you think that happened?


Thus the question is what happen to all that CO2, the answer is it gets absorbed into the earth and some goes to the ocean.

That is the eco system or mothers nature way of handling it

yet it is man who digs up this product and release it back into the atmosphere



That is how man affects his environment
Unless you put the conclusion that the author reaches and the discussion then posting a review as being meaningful but it is small as it is just someones opinion and it got published. Tell us what the conclusion was and the discussion that is in the review then we can get to it. Then we can reach a real consensus

Guess you didn't actually look at the papers...in several, I provided the conclusions...and the conclusions are there for anyone to read who may actually be interested in what the science says rather than what alarmist blogs and the mainstream media say. Clearly you aren't.

whether small or significant is irrelevant as you admit that mans activities do contributing to increase levels of CO2 in the atmosphere

Still waiting on some empirical evidence that demonstrates that it matters. And again, I don't expect for you to provide any, because there simply isn't any. To date, there has not been a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the claimed warming due to our production of so called greenhouse gasses has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on said so called greenhouse gasses. The science simply isn't there...

Pass it over as minor but in a balanced eco system everything matters. As population increases and more people are causing CO2 to rise, then Man continues to put more CO2 in the atmosphere

As I have already stated, and supported with actual science, our CO2 emissions are not even enough to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...meaning that our CO2 isn't enough to alter the balance...that is the whole point of all the papers I have provided...they show that the amount of CO2 we produce is so trivial, when compared to the CO2 that the earth produces, that it just doesn't matter...and again, there is no physical evidence which demonstrates that CO2 has anything at all do do with global temperatures...

And you keep talking about the piddling amount of CO2 we put in the atmosphere when we know that concentrations of 7000ppm didn't cause anything like run away warming..and ice ages began with concentrations of 5000ppm. You are assuming that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere matters...there is no physical evidence to suggest that it does. The models which predict warming from additional CO2 have failed completely...before you go on about adding CO2 to the atmosphere, you need to first produce some physical evidence which suggests that it matters...and no such physical evidence exists.

Everyone one is aware of the other sources of CO2 but the CONSENSUS is still there that we have to control man's emissions of CO2

Why? What physical evidence can you produce which suggests that the CO2 we produce has any effect whatsoever on global temperatures?

Thus you argument is small

My argument is supported by peer reviewed, published science...so far, yours is based on nothing at all...no science, no literature, nothing except your own opinion...if my argument which is based upon, and supported by published literature is small, then that must mean that your argument is non existent. You are doing nothing more than flapping your hands claiming that the sky is falling and the only evidence you have is an acorn at your feet....an acorn is not the sky.

Ohh very scientific of you to use the word DUPE but it goes both ways

It might, if you could actually provide some science which provides physical evidence to support your claims...but you can't. I know you can't because I have spent the past 3 decades looking. I didn't become a skeptic because I just like to argue. I became a skeptic because I expect science to provide actual evidence to support its claims...climate science hasn't...All the real science, based on observation and empirical evidence says that the models upon which climate science is based are wrong.

CO2 levels are rising but you don't care because its political thus it is apparent that you serve a specific political cause because you want to focus the argument elsewhere instead of on the consequences of mans actions. Still you are entitled to your beliefs even though it is not the CONSENSUS of those who study the issue

CO2 levels are rising and I don't care because history has shown us that it doesn't matter. It is your side who is wrapped up in politics as evidenced by your inability to provide actual science to support your position. Thus far, you have shown nothing at all by way of physical evidence which suggests that there is any consequence at all to our piddling addition to the total atmospheric CO2 level...nor are you likely to.

What you will do, if you continue is to give more political reasons to alter our lifestyles with no actual science to support the changes you want to have made.

here is the deal you are the minority and it is you who is on the island waving that flat

Guess you really don't know much about science...it is the few who actually have the physical evidence who win out in the end...Consider the number of long held scientific consensus views which have fallen in the past few years as a result of a few scientists out there who actually asked questions and did real science to see if the consensus view was supported...The consensus view that stomach ulcers were caused by stress has fallen...the consensus view that salt causes high blood pressure has fallen...the concuss view that quasi crystals can not exist has fallen....the consensus view that natural fats are worse for you that polyunsaturated fats has fallen...the consensus view that cholesterol causes heart disease has fallen..and on and on and on.

The sad fact is that if you pick any topic in science....any field...especially a relatively new field like climate science, the odds of being right are heavily in your favor simply by going against the consensus view...I certainly don't subscribe to the consensus view any more and don't because the published, peer reviewed science says that the consensus is wrong...

Hey who is that waving something out there, never mind its just a non believer

Science isn't about belief...science is about evidence and while I can support all of my views with peer reviewed, published science you don't seem to be able to support any of yours at all with anything like actual science. I am not prepared to simply "believe" in a climate crisis because the media, politicians, and activist scientists say so....I expect science to be able to provide actual physical evidence to support their claims and climate science simply can't do it..

If you want to hold quasi religious beliefs because some activists who share your politics say that you should believe, then believe all you want..but don't call it science...Science is about actual physical evidence and you have none...

Then why do most experts in the subject do not support you conclusions and peer review is just a way to get your ideas published. It doesn't proof that your right unless the experts agree after they reviewed your findings

I have not seen any change in support for global warming just your continued holding of a peer review as proof. yet with all this proof I do not see all the scientist agreeing that it is a con

  • 476_AAAS_320x240.jpg

    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    "Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)3
  • 478_americanchemicalsociety_320x240.jpg

    American Chemical Society
    "The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)4
  • 479_americangeophysicalunion_320x240.jpg

    American Geophysical Union
    "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
  • 480_americanmedicalassociation_320x240.jpg

    American Medical Association
    "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
  • 481_americanmeteorologicalsociety_320x240.jpg

    American Meteorological Society
    "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
  • 482_americanphysicalsociety_320x240.jpg

    American Physical Society
    "Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8
  • 484_geologicalsocietyamerica_320x240.jpg

    The Geological Society of America
    "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International Academies: Joint Statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

  • 485_nationalacademyscience_320x240.jpg

    U.S. National Academy of Sciences
    "Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions."11
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
  • 486_usgcrp_320x240.jpg

    U.S. Global Change Research Program
    "Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities." (2018, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12
INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
  • 487_ipcc_320x240.jpg

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

    “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14
OTHER RESOURCES
List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations - Office of Planning and Research

Wow they must all be wrong but hey you got some peer reviews that says your right
 
[Did you notice that her SS "evidence" is damned near 7 years old?

Then show us new data.

Doofus...I just showed you 5 papers published in the past couple of years.

No, not cherrypicks, global data.

The papers I provided were not cherrypicked for a particular area, they are studies scattered across the globe...but if you want something that speaks to the entire globe, here...

Dem seltsamen Ergrünen der Welt auf der Spur - wissenschaft.de

and here

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12257-8.pdf

74-percent-of-the-globe-is-greening-due-to-CO2-and-climate-change-Chen-2019.jpg


And here

Detected global agricultural greening from satellite data - ScienceDirect

Global-greening-in-agricultural-areas-Gao-2019.jpg


Oh look, you have none. My data is good, and yours sucks balls. Same old same old.

Oh look...of course I do...want more? There are more because the earth is in fact still greening and the trend is expected to continue...

You are interesting in a psychological sense. You hate all life on earth, but you exclude yourself from that seething hatred. Don't you consider yourself to be life?

Sorry hairball...it is you who hates everything and everyone...you hate the idea of a greener earth..you apparently hate raptors, migratory birds, and bats...you hate anyone who isn't as bitter and angry as yourself...sad, but that's the reality...whenever you accuse someone else of something, you can bet that it is you who is doing exactly that.

Wrong again hairball...always wrong...
 
Thus the question is what happen to all that CO2, the answer is it gets absorbed into the earth and some goes to the ocean.

Actually, the bulk of it went into the cooler oceans..and began outgassing as the earth began to warm.

That is the eco system or mothers nature way of handling it

yet it is man who digs up this product and release it back into the atmosphere[/qiopte]

Do you think we are making "new" CO2? Since the concentration was 1000ppm at the time the present ice age started, and it is presently about 400...what exactly do you think we are doing that is out of the normal for planet earth?

Your position gets weaker and weaker and weaker the more you talk...

Then why do most experts in the subject do not support you conclusions and peer review is just a way to get your ideas published. It doesn't proof that your right unless the experts agree after they reviewed your findings

Various reasons...the fact that politics hijacked the science early on and made it into a political fight has a lot to do with it...then there is the fact that at present, there is about 5 TRILLION dollars on the line. Do you think scientists are immune from the temptation of power and money? If so, perhaps you should do a bit of research into the topic.

I have not seen any change in support for global warming just your continued holding of a peer review as proof. yet with all this proof I do not see all the scientist agreeing that it is a con

Wow they must all be wrong but hey you got some peer reviews that says your right

Wow...all of that and you still can't produce a single published peer reviewed paper in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on our greenhouse gasses....nor can you provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation and warming in the atmosphere...out of all that, you can't even provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

I predicted that you would not provide any actual science and would again, make a political argument. And what do you do, you tell me what the political heads of scientific societies have to say. I can only guess that you are blissfully unaware that the heads of those scientific societies don't ask the rank and file scientists who make up the membership what they think on the topic.

The only time a scientific society ever did ask their membership, the learned toot sweet that the 97% that gets tossed around was nothing like the reality.. The American Physical Society...the mother of all scientific societies actually asked their membership about what the society's position should be on man made climate change... They got slammed by angry scientists who didn't like the idea that their society should be supporting a hypothesis that isn't backed by real science, but is supported entirely by failing models.

Of course, being a political body, the heads of the American Physical Society ignored the 50,000 scientists that make up the most influential scientific society on earth and did what political organizations that are interested in money and power do...they did what was expected of them by those who actually control the money and power..

Got anything to make your position even more weak, or do you think you have bottomed out? It is clear by now that neither you, nor all your political heads of scientific organizations are going to be able to produce any empirical evidence to support your position...which proves what? It proves that your position is political and not scientific...which would be good if this weren't a scientific issue. Since it is...all the real science supports my position, not yours.
 
Thus the question is what happen to all that CO2, the answer is it gets absorbed into the earth and some goes to the ocean.

Actually, the bulk of it went into the cooler oceans..and began outgassing as the earth began to warm.

That is the eco system or mothers nature way of handling it

yet it is man who digs up this product and release it back into the atmosphere[/qiopte]

Do you think we are making "new" CO2? Since the concentration was 1000ppm at the time the present ice age started, and it is presently about 400...what exactly do you think we are doing that is out of the normal for planet earth?

Your position gets weaker and weaker and weaker the more you talk...

Then why do most experts in the subject do not support you conclusions and peer review is just a way to get your ideas published. It doesn't proof that your right unless the experts agree after they reviewed your findings

Various reasons...the fact that politics hijacked the science early on and made it into a political fight has a lot to do with it...then there is the fact that at present, there is about 5 TRILLION dollars on the line. Do you think scientists are immune from the temptation of power and money? If so, perhaps you should do a bit of research into the topic.

I have not seen any change in support for global warming just your continued holding of a peer review as proof. yet with all this proof I do not see all the scientist agreeing that it is a con

Wow they must all be wrong but hey you got some peer reviews that says your right

Wow...all of that and you still can't produce a single published peer reviewed paper in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on our greenhouse gasses....nor can you provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of infrared radiation and warming in the atmosphere...out of all that, you can't even provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

I predicted that you would not provide any actual science and would again, make a political argument. And what do you do, you tell me what the political heads of scientific societies have to say. I can only guess that you are blissfully unaware that the heads of those scientific societies don't ask the rank and file scientists who make up the membership what they think on the topic.

The only time a scientific society ever did ask their membership, the learned toot sweet that the 97% that gets tossed around was nothing like the reality.. The American Physical Society...the mother of all scientific societies actually asked their membership about what the society's position should be on man made climate change... They got slammed by angry scientists who didn't like the idea that their society should be supporting a hypothesis that isn't backed by real science, but is supported entirely by failing models.

Of course, being a political body, the heads of the American Physical Society ignored the 50,000 scientists that make up the most influential scientific society on earth and did what political organizations that are interested in money and power do...they did what was expected of them by those who actually control the money and power..

Got anything to make your position even more weak, or do you think you have bottomed out? It is clear by now that neither you, nor all your political heads of scientific organizations are going to be able to produce any empirical evidence to support your position...which proves what? It proves that your position is political and not scientific...which would be good if this weren't a scientific issue. Since it is...all the real science supports my position, not yours.


Look ma no peer review

When carbon dioxide CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, approximately 50% remains in the atmosphere, while 25% is absorbed by land plants and trees, and the other 25% is absorbed into certain areas of the ocean. In other areas of the ocean, where the concentration of CO2 is higher in the water than in atmosphere above, CO2 is released to the atmosphere.

where is the bulk, ma


yet it is man who digs up this product and release it back into the atmosphere[/qiopte]

Do you think we are making "new" CO2? Since the concentration was 1000ppm at the time the present ice age started, and it is presently about 400...what exactly do you think we are doing that is out of the normal for planet earth?

Only you would interpret as new as release it back into the atmosphere is obvious not new but hey you do need something to complain about


Do you think we are making "new" CO2? Since the concentration was 1000ppm at the time the present ice age started, and it is presently about 400...what exactly do you think we are doing that is out of the normal for planet earth?

Is that your conclusion

Obviously if it was that high then it eventually went down based on how the earth eco system handles things naturally . So there was a decline in CO2 levels in the atmosphere

prior to the industrial age it was about in the 19th century, global average CO2 was about 280 ppm.

Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958, global atmospheric carbon dioxide was already 315 ppm

So now after the industrial age began it continues to go up and is about 400 PPM

which has been attributed to the activities of man.

Why because burning fuels like coal release it back into the atmosphere which is a man made activity

But of course your peer reviews have determine that it is minimal but yet the previous organization are sounding the alarm

Prevention is better than the cure

You seem to think that these scientific organization are not doing their homework. Well I disagree they should have discussions and debate with experts and in the end come out with a statement. Will everyone agree no

all you need is a consensus but you seem to put more credence in peer reviews written by whomever

There is a substantial body of peer reviewed scientific research to support the technical aspects of the 2007 APS statement. The purpose of the following commentary is to provide clarification and additional details.

wow so they used peer review

APS put out the following statement

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.




Adopted by the Council on November 18, 2007
Category: National Policy

in 2010 they formed a committee of various people chosen to review the 2007 statement

The first sentence of the APS statement is broadly supported by observational data, physical principles, and global climate models. Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years). Historical records indicate that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun’s radiative output, changes in Earth’s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century. Warming is observed in land-surface temperatures, sea-surface temperatures, and for the last 30 years, lower-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite. The second sentence is a definition that should explicitly include water vapor. The third sentence notes various examples of human contributions to greenhouses gases. There are, of course, natural sources as well.

The evidence for global temperature rise over the last century is compelling. However, the word "incontrovertible" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2007 APS statement is rarely used in science because by its very nature science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century. (Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html)

The first sentence in the third paragraph states that without mitigating actions significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and health are likely. Such predicted disruptions are based on direct measurements (e.g., ocean acidification, rising sea levels, etc.), on the study of past climate change phenomena, and on climate models. Climate models calculate the effects of natural and anthropogenic changes on the ecosphere, such as doubling of the CO2-equivalent [1] concentration relative to its pre-industrial value by the year 2100. These models have uncertainties associated with radiative response functions, especially clouds and water vapor. However, the models show that water vapor has a net positive feedback effect (in addition to CO2 and other gases) on global temperatures. The impact of clouds is less certain because of their dual role as scatterers of incoming solar radiation and as greenhouse contributors. The uncertainty in the net effect of human activity on climate is reflected in the broad distribution of the predicted magnitude of the consequence of doubling of the CO2-equivalent concentration. The uncertainty in the estimates from various climate models for doubling CO2-equivalent concentration is in the range of 1°C to 3°C with the probability distributions having long tails out to much larger temperature changes.

The second sentence in the third paragraph articulates an immediate policy action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to deal with the possible catastrophic outcomes that could accompany large global temperature increases. Even with the uncertainties in the models, it is increasingly difficult to rule out that non-negligible increases in global temperature are a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2. Thus given the significant risks associated with global climate change, prudent steps should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now while continuing to improve the observational data and the model predictions.

The fourth paragraph, first sentence, recommends an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on Earth's climate. This sentence should be interpreted broadly and more specifically: an enhanced effort is needed to understand both anthropogenic processes and the natural cycles that affect the Earth's climate. Improving the scientific understanding of all climate feedbacks is critical to reducing the uncertainty in modeling the consequences of doubling the CO2-equivalent concentration. In addition, more extensive and more accurate scientific measurements are needed to test the validity of climate models to increase confidence in their projections.

With regard to the last sentence of the APS statement, the role of physicists is not just "...to support policies and actions..." but also to participate actively in the research itself. Physicists can contribute in significant ways to understanding the physical processes underlying climate and to developing technological options for addressing and mitigating climate change.*
 
Look ma no peer review

Actually, the 7 peer reviewed papers I already provided stated that fact...to bad you are adverse to actually reading science that challenges your quasi religious faith.

When carbon dioxide CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, approximately 50% remains in the atmosphere, while 25% is absorbed by land plants and trees, and the other 25% is absorbed into certain areas of the ocean. In other areas of the ocean, where the concentration of CO2 is higher in the water than in atmosphere above, CO2 is released to the atmosphere.

where is the bulk, ma

Like most alarmists, you either have a problem keeping up, or you feel the need to constantly change the goalposts so your position appears to have merit. You asked where the 1000ppm in the atmosphere at the time the present ice age started went...as I said, since the oceans were cooling off, most of it went into the oceans...which is where most of it is coming from today.

yet it is man who digs up this product and release it back into the atmosphere[/qiopte]

Still waiting for you to produce some actual science which says that we are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2...your belief simply isn't enough. You can either support the claim or you can't...thus far you haven't supported anything you have had to say..

Is that your conclusion

I provided the conclusions of 7 peer reviewed published papers that said that our contribution to the global CO2 is the next thing to imperceptible...thus far you have provided nothing other than your opinion in argument...and your opinion doesn't carry much weight against actual science..

Obviously if it was that high then it eventually went down based on how the earth eco system handles things naturally . So there was a decline in CO2 levels in the atmosphere

As I pointed out...most of it went into the cooling oceans..

prior to the industrial age it was about in the 19th century, global average CO2 was about 280 ppm.

Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958, global atmospheric carbon dioxide was already 315 ppm

And as has already been pointed out to you...warming oceans outgas the CO2 they absorbed as they cooled going into and during the ice age...what is so hard about that idea that you don't seem to be able to understand it?

There is a very simple experiment you can perform right on your kitchen counter to demonstrate the principle if you care to try it.

So now after the industrial age began it continues to go up and is about 400 PPM

The onset of the industrial age coincides with the end of the little ice age and the warming of the oceans. Look, I have already provided peer reviewed published science that states that our contribution to the total CO2 is trivial...either you can provide some science which is supported by empirical evidence which counters what I provided or you can't.. if you can't, then regardless of what you think, you have lost the point...

which has been attributed to the activities of man.

Great...lets see the peer reviewed, published literature supported by empirical evidence.

Prevention is better than the cure

Cure for what? You have yet to provide any empirical evidence which supports the claim that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming...Every ice core ever done demonstrates that raising CO2 is the result of warming...not the cause. If you are going to keep claiming that additional CO2 is causing warming, you are going to need to show some empirical evidence to support the claim...and by now, surely you know that you can't...because there is none. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

You seem to think that these scientific organization are not doing their homework. Well I disagree they should have discussions and debate with experts and in the end come out with a statement. Will everyone agree no

You are proving that they haven't done their homework...You and every alarmist out there prove it every day. If they had been doing their homework, rather than telling me your opinion, and making political arguments about consensus, you would be slamming me with peer reviewed, published science which was abundantly supported by empirical evidence...

As all can see, you aren't doing that..nor are any of your alarmist buds...you are all just giving your opinions based on what you have read in the media, and alarmist blogs...in case you haven't noticed, the people who are constantly producing actual science to support their position are us skeptics...the actual science supports our position, not yours...

all you need is a consensus but you seem to put more credence in peer reviews written by whomever

Consensus is meaningless. We are talking about science...evidence is what matters in science and you don't seem to be able to provide any. Yammering on about consensus when the consensus can't produce any empirical evidence to support their hypothesis is about as weak an argument as one can make.

There is a substantial body of peer reviewed scientific research to support the technical aspects of the 2007 APS statement. The purpose of the following commentary is to provide clarification and additional details.

Great...lets see some of it that backs up the statement...lets see a single peer reviewed paper in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing by our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on our greenhouse gas emissions. If there is a "substantial" body of scientific research in support of the consensus claims, it would begin with such a paper which has actually quantified the amount of warming we are responsible for and has provided empirical evidence to support the claim....lets see it. What's that bucky? You can't provide any such paper... Not to worry...I already told you that no such paper existed..

wow so they used peer review

So you say...but don't seem to be able to provide any of those claimed peer reviewed papers which supposedly support the consensus. Do you have enough functioning brain cells to ask yourself why I seem to be able to produce peer reviewed literature to support my claims, but you don't seem to be able to produce any to support yours? Has that thought ever crossed your mind?

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

So you provided a statement from a political head of a scientific organization...I already pointed out that they asked their membership, the working scientists who make up the APS what they thought and in very short order the political head shut down the conversation because the membership made it abundantly clear that the statement was bullshit...the political head went ahead with their consensus opinion over the screaming voices of the 50,000 working scientists who make up the society telling them that their statement was not supported by the science...

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

Great...lets see some of the peer reviewed, published literature which provides empirical evidence to support their conclusions...you keep talking about it but don't seem to be able to provide any...I sure don't have any problem providing peer reviewed published literature to support my position..

It is like you are telling me about Santa Clause...among children in Christian nations, there is a consensus that he is real and brings them toys....they believe it as fervently as you believe in man made climate change... but if you ask those children to provide proof, they will show you the toys they found under the tree on Christmas morning, and point out some television shows..and maybe even the NORAD tracking of Santa and his sleigh on Christmas Eve, and then start telling you about the consensus...none of them will ever provide any empirical evidence to support their beliefs.....and neither will you.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Still telling the story....I am asking for the evidence ...I am not one who simply believes because some government agencies asked me to. I would like to see some observed, measured, empirical evidence, and the published, peer reviewed literature that goes with it...Why don't you seem to be able to produce any?

Adopted by the Council on November 18, 2007
Category: National Policy

in 2010 they formed a committee of various people chosen to review the 2007 statement

The first sentence of the APS statement is broadly supported by observational data, physical principles, and global climate models. Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years). Historical records indicate that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun’s radiative output, changes in Earth’s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century. Warming is observed in land-surface temperatures, sea-surface temperatures, and for the last 30 years, lower-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite. The second sentence is a definition that should explicitly include water vapor. The third sentence notes various examples of human contributions to greenhouses gases. There are, of course, natural sources as well.

The evidence for global temperature rise over the last century is compelling. However, the word "incontrovertible" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2007 APS statement is rarely used in science because by its very nature science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century. (Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html)

Nice story...but with out supporting empirical evidence, it is just a pretty piece of fiction...and then there is the fact that the working scientists who make up the APS wholeheartedly objected to that statement...but the front office went with it anyway...Does that inconvenient fact mean nothing to you?

The first sentence in the third paragraph states that without mitigating actions significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and health are likely. Such predicted disruptions are based on direct measurements (e.g., ocean acidification, rising sea levels, etc.), on the study of past climate change phenomena, and on climate models. Climate models calculate the effects of natural and anthropogenic changes on the ecosphere, such as doubling of the CO2-equivalent [1] concentration relative to its pre-industrial value by the year 2100. These models have uncertainties associated with radiative response functions, especially clouds and water vapor. However, the models show that water vapor has a net positive feedback effect (in addition to CO2 and other gases) on global temperatures. The impact of clouds is less certain because of their dual role as scatterers of incoming solar radiation and as greenhouse contributors. The uncertainty in the net effect of human activity on climate is reflected in the broad distribution of the predicted magnitude of the consequence of doubling of the CO2-equivalent concentration. The uncertainty in the estimates from various climate models for doubling CO2-equivalent concentration is in the range of 1°C to 3°C with the probability distributions having long tails out to much larger temperature changes.

Again..nice story...and it would be alarming if they could provide you with some empirical evidence to support the claims...But as you keep proving, they haven't...so you are left just telling a story with no evidence to back it up.

The second sentence in the third paragraph articulates an immediate policy action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to deal with the possible catastrophic outcomes that could accompany large global temperature increases. Even with the uncertainties in the models, it is increasingly difficult to rule out that non-negligible increases in global temperature are a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2. Thus given the significant risks associated with global climate change, prudent steps should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now while continuing to improve the observational data and the model predictions.

Still just a nice story....I have read all of this already...and watched closely when they asked the 50,000 scientists who make up the APS what they thought about the story...and I was delighted to see their response that the science simply didn't back up such a story and that they were categorically opposed to the statement and that it should be modified heavily in order to jibe with the actual science. I had hoped that the political front office would have the gonads to go with the actual science and make a statement that was supported by the observed, measured evidence...but alas, they did what political types generally do...they bowed to those who hold the power and money and ignored the 50,000 scientists who make up the organization...and it was the last time they ever asked the working scientists what they thought about the statement..and no other scientific body has had the nerve to ask their membership their opinion on the man made climate change hypothesis...the response given by the membership of the most prestigious scientific body on earth scared them out of it.

So you have nothing more than a story that is sufficient to scare people who aren't bright enough to ask to actually see the evidence..

The fourth paragraph, first sentence, recommends an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on Earth's climate. This sentence should be interpreted broadly and more specifically: an enhanced effort is needed to understand both anthropogenic processes and the natural cycles that affect the Earth's climate. Improving the scientific understanding of all climate feedbacks is critical to reducing the uncertainty in modeling the consequences of doubling the CO2-equivalent concentration. In addition, more extensive and more accurate scientific measurements are needed to test the validity of climate models to increase confidence in their projections.

BLAH BLAH BLAH paragraph...paragraph...paragraph...says says says... SHOW ME SOME OF THE PEER REVIEWED, PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, WHICH PROVIDES OBSERVED, MEASURED, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSIONS THAT THE SCIENTISTS DRAW. If you can do that, then you are just repeating Santa Claus stories you have been told without the first bit of empirical evidnece.

With regard to the last sentence of the APS statement, the role of physicists is not just "...to support policies and actions..." but also to participate actively in the research itself. Physicists can contribute in significant ways to understanding the physical processes underlying climate and to developing technological options for addressing and mitigating climate change.*

EVIDENCE...lets see some of the observed, measured evidence which would change that from an alarming piece of fiction, to actual science worth considering...If all these scientists, rather than simply the political heads of their organizations actually believe that statement, then there must be a hell of a lot of published, peer reviewed science which convinced them...it should be filling every page on every blog and opinion piece on the topic...but you know what? It isn't...it isn't anywhere...The substantial body of "evidence" is a fiction...a story with nothing to back it up...and every time you post, you just further prove that there is no actual science out there to support your belief...you just keep telling the story as if repeating it enough times would somehow make it true...

Actual empirical evidence will make it true...and sadly, there isn't any for you to provide...there are only stories out there for you to repeat...Us skeptics will continue to be the ones who are providing actual peer reviewed published science to support our positions.

You like to go on about how the published literature I provide somehow doesn't make the grade because it doesn't say what the consensus says. That is a very weak argument...a good argument would be you providing more peer reviewed, published scientific literature which challenges the literature that I already provided and provides even stronger observed, measured evidence to support the author's conclusions. You aren't doing that though...are you? You aren't doing anything close to that...are you?

You are just telling stories designed to scare stupid people who would't know what actual evidence looked like if it bit them on their ass...and that, in your mind, is a rational, coherent argument in support of your position. Is that really the sort of position you want to defend? One in which you can't provide jack by way of actual evidence...one in which you just have to repeat stories given to you without the evidence to back them up?
 

When carbon dioxide CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, approximately 50% remains in the atmosphere, while 25% is absorbed by land plants and trees, and the other 25% is absorbed into certain areas of the ocean. In other areas of the ocean, where the concentration of CO2 is higher in the water than in atmosphere above, CO2 is released to the atmosphere.

where is the bulk, ma
Click to expand...
Like most alarmists, you either have a problem keeping up, or you feel the need to constantly change the goalposts so your position appears to have merit. You asked where the 1000ppm in the atmosphere at the time the present ice age started went...as I said, since the oceans were cooling off, most of it went into the oceans...which is where most of it is coming from today.

No you are missing the point

NOAA report that When carbon dioxide CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, approximately 50% remains in the atmosphere, while 25% is absorbed by land plants and trees, and the other 25% is absorbed into certain areas of the ocean

You see the problem is what man does not what nature does
You are the one trying to dilute the discussion with what nature does
We cannot and should not try to control nature

My point with that 1000 ppm which I mention at the beginning was a point which you assume something but missed the point.

My only point was without mans interference over the millennium of years the carbon cycle (or Mother Nature which I like to use) did it job taking care of that 1000 ppm number over numerous years by the carbon cycle in which CO2 is absorbed by the earth, plant. ocean etc. and some stays in the atmosphere the percentages are from NOAA


yet it is man who digs up this product and release it back into the atmosphere[/qiopte]

Still waiting for you to produce some actual science which says that we are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2...your belief simply isn't enough. You can either support the claim or you can't...thus far you haven't supported anything you have had to say..

keep it simple because by complicating it you dirty the issues by
such statements as oh Scientific Consensus is wrong most of the time

well that is science and if most experts agree based on the data then the come to a consensus. It doesn't mean that there is not disagreement because that what keeps the discussion going. Disagreement is is discussed as the point of the APS story experts discussed the issue and reviewed peer studies and came up with there final statements. Did they all agree no but hey Consensus is what it is

If you disagree present the data.


Is that your conclusion
I provided the conclusions of 7 peer reviewed published papers that said that our contribution to the global CO2 is the next thing to imperceptible...thus far you have provided nothing other than your opinion in argument...and your opinion doesn't carry much weight against actual science..

You are saying that it cannot be perceived or impossible to be perceived

yet the carbon cycle is understood and mans ability to actually measure CO2 has steady progress to the point that they can make predictions

Yet your prediction is it is of no consequences and that is why I reject your 7 peer reviews because you chose the ones that support your view and obvious ignored the rest


Obviously if it was that high then it eventually went down based on how the earth eco system handles things naturally . So there was a decline in CO2 levels in the atmosphere
As I pointed out...most of it went into the cooling oceans..

is that a prediction or is imperceptible

prior to the industrial age it was about in the 19th century, global average CO2 was about 280 ppm.

Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958, global atmospheric carbon dioxide was already 315 ppm
And as has already been pointed out to you...warming oceans out gas the CO2 they absorbed as they cooled going into and during the ice age...what is so hard about that idea that you don't seem to be able to understand it?

There is a very simple experiment you can perform right on your kitchen counter to demonstrate the principle if you care to try it.

still just point to the obvious, the concern is what man does not the oceans.

Man adds an addition that is not NATURAL and if you are such the scientist you would except that conclusion but you make it a minor point that its irrelevant but the CONSENSUS disagrees

its not the little experiments it the conclusion from the whole picture and the conclusion has been reached


So now after the industrial age began it continues to go up and is about 400 PPM
The onset of the industrial age coincides with the end of the little ice age and the warming of the oceans. Look, I have already provided peer reviewed published science that states that our contribution to the total CO2 is trivial...either you can provide some science which is supported by empirical evidence which counters what I provided or you can't.. if you can't, then regardless of what you think, you have lost the point...

You point to 7 reviews as poof yet there are numerous more that disagree.

around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

for every 7 reviews that support your conclusion then there are at least 93 reviews that point to another conclusion

Consensus on Consensus - Cook et al. (2016)
Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.



which has been attributed to the activities of man.
Great...lets see the peer reviewed, published literature supported by empirical evidence.

see above as it does appear that you ignore concensus and point to your 7 reviews as proof and then act like there are no other reviews which point to the activities of man that are causing global warming


Prevention is better than the cure
Cure for what? You have yet to provide any empirical evidence which supports the claim that additional CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming...Every ice core ever done demonstrates that raising CO2 is the result of warming...not the cause. If you are going to keep claiming that additional CO2 is causing warming, you are going to need to show some empirical evidence to support the claim...and by now, surely you know that you can't...because there is none. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

Again it is use who miss the point when you cannot even understand

how prevention is better than a having a problem that appears that needs a cure

You say there is no data but there is plenty of data as Scientific Consensus requires data buy still

unless you are a scientist working in the particular field in question, you are probably not even capable of discerning between a conclusion that’s scientifically valid and viable and one that isn’t.

So I do have to depend on what the consensus of experts say not the minority

The science of climate change is still growing and in the end scientific consensus is a starting point for those that follow who will either support the conclusion or come up with a better one



You seem to think that these scientific organization are not doing their homework. Well I disagree they should have discussions and debate with experts and in the end come out with a statement. Will everyone agree no
You are proving that they haven't done their homework...You and every alarmist out there prove it every day. If they had been doing their homework, rather than telling me your opinion, and making political arguments about consensus, you would be slamming me with peer reviewed, published science which was abundantly supported by empirical evidence...

Prevention is better than the cure

you are saying that all these professionals with doctoral degrees
are idiots compare to you

OKay


As all can see, you aren't doing that..nor are any of your alarmist buds...you are all just giving your opinions based on what you have read in the media, and alarmist blogs...in case you haven't noticed, the people who are constantly producing actual science to support their position are us skeptics...the actual science supports our position, not yours...

Still on the alarmist role well look in the mirror



There is a substantial body of peer reviewed scientific research to support the technical aspects of the 2007 APS statement. The purpose of the following commentary is to provide clarification and additional details.
Great...lets see some of it that backs up the statement...lets see a single peer reviewed paper in which the warming that we are supposed to be causing by our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on our greenhouse gas emissions. If there is a "substantial" body of scientific research in support of the consensus claims, it would begin with such a paper which has actually quantified the amount of warming we are responsible for and has provided empirical evidence to support the claim....lets see it. What's that bucky? You can't provide any such paper... Not to worry...I already told you that no such paper existed..

You know you miss the point again they used peer reviews to make there conclusions

i


wow so they used peer review
So you say...but don't seem to be able to provide any of those claimed peer reviewed papers which supposedly support the consensus. Do you have enough functioning brain cells to ask yourself why I seem to be able to produce peer reviewed literature to support my claims, but you don't seem to be able to produce any to support yours? Has that thought ever crossed your mind?

I see your whole denial is abased on why I can show you a peer review report

WOw


Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

So you provided a statement from a political head of a scientific organization...I already pointed out that they asked their membership, the working scientists who make up the APS what they thought and in very short order the political head shut down the conversation because the membership made it abundantly clear that the statement was bullshit...the political head went ahead with their consensus opinion over the screaming voices of the 50,000 working scientists who make up the society telling them that their statement was not supported by the science...

it wasn't a political, they used science but science in a good way


The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
Great...lets see some of the peer reviewed, published literature which provides empirical evidence to support their conclusions...you keep talking about it but don't seem to be able to provide any...I sure don't have any problem providing peer reviewed published literature to support my position..

It is like you are telling me about Santa Clause...among children in Christian nations, there is a consensus that he is real and brings them toys....they believe it as fervently as you believe in man made climate change... but if you ask those children to provide proof, they will show you the toys they found under the tree on Christmas morning, and point out some television shows..and maybe even the NORAD tracking of Santa and his sleigh on Christmas Eve, and then start telling you about the consensus...none of them will ever provide any empirical evidence to support their beliefs.....and neither will you.

All these organization yet you stand on your soapbox shouting the world will not end


If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Still telling the story....I am asking for the evidence ...I am not one who simply believes because some government agencies asked me to. I would like to see some observed, measured, empirical evidence, and the published, peer reviewed literature that goes with it...Why don't you seem to be able to produce any?

Evidence is all around you but you choose to ignore all that is opposed to your beliefs,

Alarmist or Faker


Adopted by the Council on November 18, 2007
Category: National Policy

in 2010 they formed a committee of various people chosen to review the 2007 statement

The first sentence of the APS statement is broadly supported by observational data, physical principles, and global climate models. Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years). Historical records indicate that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun’s radiative output, changes in Earth’s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century. Warming is observed in land-surface temperatures, sea-surface temperatures, and for the last 30 years, lower-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite. The second sentence is a definition that should explicitly include water vapor. The third sentence notes various examples of human contributions to greenhouses gases. There are, of course, natural sources as well.

The evidence for global temperature rise over the last century is compelling. However, the word "incontrovertible" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2007 APS statement is rarely used in science because by its very nature science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century. (Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html)
Click to expand...




Nice story...but with out supporting empirical evidence, it is just a pretty piece of fiction...and then there is the fact that the working scientists who make up the APS wholeheartedly objected to that statement...but the front office went with it anyway...Does that inconvenient fact mean nothing to you?


Denying a basic story of truism because that is what you get paid for

why don't you go to all these sources of disagreement and ask for a peer review and proof

it really is that simple but don't look to me for salvation because I see what you think and it does not concern me nor change my mind.

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS its not the cure but it does hurt
 
Last edited:
NOAA report that When carbon dioxide CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, approximately 50% remains in the atmosphere, while 25% is absorbed by land plants and trees, and the other 25% is absorbed into certain areas of the ocean

Do you know the difference between a report in which an entity makes a statement, and peer reviewed, published research which provides empirical data to support the premise of the paper?

Lets see the peer reviewed, published papers which support the claim that mankind is a significant contributor to the global atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Providing me someone else's opinion is no more convincing than your own...either you can produce peer reviewed, published data based on empirical evidence or you can't...and by now, we both know that you can't...

My only point was without mans interference over the millennium of years the carbon cycle (or Mother Nature which I like to use) did it job taking care of that 1000 ppm number over numerous years by the carbon cycle in which CO2 is absorbed by the earth, plant. ocean etc. and some stays in the atmosphere the percentages are from NOAA

Thus far, you have not provided any empirical evidence to support that claim...you have provided an opinion which remains unsupported by any empirical evidence and which runs counter to actual peer reviewed, published science....

well that is science and if most experts agree based on the data then the come to a consensus. It doesn't mean that there is not disagreement because that what keeps the discussion going. Disagreement is is discussed as the point of the APS story experts discussed the issue and reviewed peer studies and came up with there final statements. Did they all agree no but hey Consensus is what it is

Based on which data? You haven't shown any data yet..thus far, you have provided your own unsupported opinions, and the unsupported opinions of various agencies...where is the empirical evidence which is required to move these statements from the realm of opinion to actual scientific statements? I keep asking for data and you keep providing opinions.

If you disagree present the data.

Which data? Clearly you hold a strong belief that there is data, but by now, even you should be getting a clue that talking about data doesn't make it real. When I said that our CO2 contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 was vanishingly small, I provided actual peer reviewed, published scientific literature which was based on observations, and measurements...ie empirical data which supported the claims being made. When you make the claim that we are having a profound effect on atmospheric CO2, you give me your opinion, and you give the various other opinions...what you don't seem to grasp is that you are not providing any actual science...

Maybe you believe in AGW because you don't know the difference between opinions and actual science. Stop giving me opinions...start giving me actual observed, measured data from peer reviewed, published scientific literature which supports your beliefs..and perhaps wake up to the fact that you can't provide any empirical evidence to support your beliefs or claims because no empirical evidence exists...

You are saying that it cannot be perceived or impossible to be perceived

The peer reviewed papers support my position...they make the statements for me...I don't have to make up anything, or present you with my opinion or anyone else opinion...I provided you with empirical evidence to support the claim that our contribution to the atmospheric CO2 is vanishingly small..

It is obvious that you didn't even look at the published science I provided for you because apparently you can't bear to view anything that challenges your beliefs..here are some clips from the papers...

  • [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”
  • The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).
  • CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
  • “[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero.

This is not what I say...this is what the actual peer reviewed, published science says...can you grasp the difference between that and mere opinion?

yet the carbon cycle is understood and mans ability to actually measure CO2 has steady progress to the point that they can make predictions[/qipte]

Of course we can measure it...which is why scientists are able to provide empirical evidence showing that we are not a significant contributor to atmospheric CO2...

Yet your prediction is it is of no consequences and that is why I reject your 7 peer reviews because you chose the ones that support your view and obvious ignored the rest

What rest? Where are the rest that supposedly show something different.. Lets see some of the rest. Lets see some actual peer revved published science that contradicts the papers I provided...your faith that such papers exist out there somewhere is no substitute for actually providing them...You make all manner of claims but don't seem to be able to provide any actual sceince to back any of them up...you can't even provide the "current data" which you so fervently believe exists that contradicts the actual science i have provided..


is that a prediction or is imperceptible[/qipte]

It is demonstrable science...

still just point to the obvious, the concern is what man does not the oceans.

Based on the empirical, observed, measured science, what we do is insiginifigant in relation to the total CO2 in the system and the amount of CO2 that the earth produces...geez guy, even termites produce more CO2 than we do..

Man adds an addition that is not NATURAL and if you are such the scientist you would except that conclusion but you make it a minor point that its irrelevant but the CONSENSUS disagrees

How is man made CO2 different from "natural" CO2...and since the natural CO2 levels have been as high as 7000 ppm, describe what we are doing and by all means describe how our CO2 is different from "natural" CO2..

its not the little experiments it the conclusion from the whole picture and the conclusion has been reached

At this point, it is clear that you are squirming like you have ants in your pants...weaseling to be best of your ability and failing miserably...your opinions are worthless and very small indeed unless backed up by actual science...lets see it.

You point to 7 reviews as poof yet there are numerous more that disagree.

So lets see some of them...I provided 7...lets see just 7 out of the numerous papers that you believe exist...thus far, you have provided none...

around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

Great...so lets see some of their published, peer reviewed work that contradicts what I provided...the papers I provided were written and published by climate researchers..lets see some publishes work that disagrees with them. Telling me about all the science that disagrees, but not being able to provide any of it shows clearly that you are just blowing smoke...

for every 7 reviews that support your conclusion then there are at least 93 reviews that point to another conclusion

Great...lets see just 7 that contradict what i have provided...forget 7 show me 3. Based on the empirical evidence so far, you are not going to even be able to produce 1..prove me wrong..

The rest of your paper is just gibberish about consensus...if the consensus is real, and is based on actual science...observed, measured, empirical evidence, then lets see some of it...if it is consensus based on something other than actual observed, measured evidence which supports that consensus position then it is of no more value than your own opinion since it isn't science...

Can you, or can you not provide any actual peer reviewed, published scientific literature that contradicts any of the papers that I have provided?

My bet is that the answer is no...and your belief that such papers exist even though you can't seem to produce any of them...and I have certainly never found any and I actually do look, doesn't make them real... Your belief in the papers is irrelevant...you can't produce any of them because no such papers exist..if they did, then the papers I provided probably would not have passed peer review..

Your position is based on a belief in science..and not any actual science...if it were based on actual science, you could provide some of it to support your position...
 
Sitting idle because the wind is blowing too hard! This is west of Amarillo at 9:54 Veterans Day 2019.
And it has so affected the market for wind energy that is continues to grow, and will grow even more. In fact, it's only competitor is solar.

Wind Energy Facts at a Glance | AWEA

Thank you for this link.

Unfortunately, no where in any of this data, in all of these nice colorful maps, did it show what percentage of tax breaks did the wind industry get.

HOW COME?
 
Where are you kilroy? Surely you have some more stories to tell...some more proclamations of your faith in the science that you can't deliver. Tell me more..
 
Where are you kilroy? Surely you have some more stories to tell...some more proclamations of your faith in the science that you can't deliver. Tell me more..

miss me

Faith in science well it seems that you have no faith in science

any peer review you show is still in the minority of peer reviews and it really doesn't address who wrote the paper and who did the reviews but hey if you have that much time then go for it

1991–2011

66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW,
32.6% endorsed AGW,
0.7% rejected AGW
0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming

Consensus is there but that does not mean that those who disagree cannot have a say

Your still in the minority but hey if you want to say that you have no position then you would be in the majority

So take a chill pill and relax
 

What do you know....more stories about the mythical consensus....Still none of that science you believe so fervently exists. How unsurprising is that?

Faith in science well it seems that you have no faith in science

Science isn't about faith..science is about evidence. As I have shown, science has produced data that supports my position. Science has produced none that supports yours. Had science produced actual empirical data that supports your position, then you and I would hold the same position. I believe the actual observed, measured evidence that science produces...

You on the other hand, believe in the fantasy which is provided to you by alarmists, blogs, the media, and politicians that claims that science supports the story you have been listening to. Obviously you can find no actual science to support your belief, so you are left simply believing, and telling others the story about what you believe rather than simply showing them the empirical evidence which supports your position.

any peer review you show is still in the minority of peer reviews and it really doesn't address who wrote the paper and who did the reviews but hey if you have that much time then go for it

So you keep saying...except that you can't produce any peer reviewed literature which challenges the materials I have already provided...you can only tell stories about the science that you imagine exists that contradicts the materials I have provided..but those are just stories...there is no peer reviewed papers which challenge those I have provided which support their claims with empirical evidence...

1991–2011
66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW,
32.6% endorsed AGW,
0.7% rejected AGW
0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming

2011? Are you kidding. It is almost 2020. This year, more than 200 papers have been published which are skeptical of the "consensus" opinion..and opinion is what it is since there is no actual empirical evidence whatsoever that backs it up.. More than 500 papers were published in 2018 that were skeptical of the consensus opinion... More than 480 were published in 2017 which were skeptical of the consensus opinion... More than 500 papers were published in 2016 which were skeptical of the consensus opinion...250 were published in 2015 which cast doubt on the consensus opinion, and more than 250 were published in 2014 which were skeptical of the consensus opinion...

That is almost 2200 published papers which I can lay my hands on which are skeptical of the consensus opinion..and you can't even lay your hands on one which provides empirical evidence to support what you believe. Face it guy...you have been duped...and you are so duped that you won't even question the fact that you have been duped for fear of finding out the truth..how sad is that?

Now tell me some more stories about the science that you imagine exists...

Consensus is there but that does not mean that those who disagree cannot have a say

Consensus based on what? Certainly not empirical evidence...certainly not actual scientific field work...if the consensus isn't based on empirical evidence, what is it based on?

Your still in the minority but hey if you want to say that you have no position then you would be in the majority

History has shown us on every topic of science there is, that the minority has always been right...the minority who don't accept the "consensus" opinion have always been the ones who moved whichever branch of science is in question forward... There has never been a single field of science which has sprung forth complete, perfect, and unmistaken in its belief...what on earth would make you think a soft, unregulated science like climate science would be the first? Tell me a story about that...

So take a chill pill and relax

I am relaxed...I have actual peer reviewed, published science based on empirical evidence to support my position...you are the one who has to live under the pressure of making up stories about the science you believe exists somewhere even though you can't seem to lay your hands on any of it...even here in the information age when more scientific research is at your fingertips than at any time in history...ask yourself why I can provide peer reviewed, published science to support my position and you can do nothing but tell me stories about the science you believe exists...... somewhere...
 

Forum List

Back
Top