NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...

[Redfish]

I guess you forgot about natural cycles. It's funny how the skeptics/deniers will hammer the proponents with the fact that there are natural cycles, but when faced with a consequence, ignore the implications! Of course, natural cycles may blunt the rise in temps from time to time, but if CO2 keeps going up, so will retained IR radiation, making another upturn in temps inevitable and that much more severe, when the natural cycles reverse themselves. You need to study the science of the theory and not just parrot propaganda from biased sources.

Question for you: what % of the atmosphere is CO2? What was the % of CO2 in the years 1700, 700, and 7000 BC?

The important thing to know is that it's been going up since the advent of the Industrial revolution, about 30-40%. Given the known ability of CO2 to absorb IR, what do you think is happening to that absorbed energy?

OK, so you can't or won't answer what % of the atmosphere is CO2. Unless you know that answer, its a waste of time to continue. Look it up or go away.

 

[zeke]

Nobody wants the idea of climate change to be a hoax more than I do. I am not into being inconvenienced by things like floods and severe storms. But....unfortunately, the science is clear. This shit is happening and it would be a good idea to pay attention to it.

Those who are so afraid that they close their eyes are of little use.

Yes, the climate is changing, it has always been changing since the earth was created by the big bang, God, the sun or whatever you believe created our planet.

the point is that man has never had anything to do with it, cannot stop or reverse it, and is an insignificant dot in time in the life of the planet.

Bullshit. There has never, ever, in the history of the world as we know it, been a time when trillions of pounds of oil and coal were burnt and put into the atmosphere.
Never.

And as a result of that never happening, we don't know what will ultimately happen. But so far, the trends are not looking good.

And if mans actions are so insignificent to the world, why did man find it necessary to do things like catalytic converters, smoke stack scrubbers, un leaded gas, the list goes on about the things man did do to offset the termendous amount of air pollution that was happening in the 60ties and 70 ties.

You must not be old enough to remember places like Gary IN. Or Cleveland Ohio, or Pittsburg PA or any other industrial city that used to have a haze of pollution over the city that burnt the paint off your car and caused breathing problems etc etc.

You remember those days? They were created by the very men you claim can't really effect the enviornment.

How could that be?

Or maybe you think the air in Bejing is breathable?

 

[Redfish]

What was it Chicken Little said?.... Oh yeah,

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

hahahahahahaha!!!

The sky doesn't fall, fool, but can man create a very different world and cause it to change so quickly that most species of life will not be able to adapt to such rapid changes? One way to do it is to emit enough carbon dioxide quickly enough into the atmosphere that it causes the Earth to rapidly start emitting it's own carbon to the carbon cycle. There is no theory involved in this, because we can dig up the permafrost and find the organic material frozen inside it. We can find the microbes that convert that organic material to carbon dioxide if oxygen is present or methane if it isn't. We can fly over these areas, like we have done and detect the buildup of gases in remote areas as the permafrost melts.

At some point the amount of these "natural" emissions triggered by the warming we have caused will exceed the Earth's ability to remove carbon, so carbon will increase in the atmosphere unless mankind figures out a way to remove it. There is no doubt this is happening and the uncertainty only involves at what point and at what rate will the Earth start increasing atmospheric carbon without human assistance. We already know of species adapted to cooler climates that are heading for extinction as their habitat continues to decrease and it isn't just a few of the most well known species. Scientists are warning that there is an obvious potential of creating rapid climate change that will cause mass extinction like it has in the past, but this time a supposedly intelligent being is aware of it ahead of time and is contributing to the destruction.

Perhaps the message about Humpty Dumpty was lost on your generation, but it is possible to break something that can't be fixed.

 

[GuyPinestra]

LONDON (Reuters) - Countries are trying to
agree a new package of measures to stem rising greenhouse gas emissions and fund protection from droughts, floods and rising seas at U.N. climate talks in Durban, South Africa.
The two-week negotiations, until December 9, revolve around the willingness of the world's top two emitters China and the United States to curb their emissions of planet-warming carbon dioxide (CO2).
Following are the CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, by country, in 2010, according to the energy company BP.
2010, Mln Pct change vs Pct of total
tonnes CO2 2009
Total World 33,158 5.8 100
China 8,333 10.4 25
US 6,145 4.1 19
European Union 4,143 2.2 13
India 1,708 9.2 5
Russian Federation 1,700 6.1 5
Japan 1,308 6.8 4
Germany 828 3.7 3
South Korea 716 8.5 2
Canada 605 2.6 2
Saudi Arabia 563 7.0 2
Iran 558 2.7 2
United Kingdom 548 3.6 2
Brazil 464 11.4 1
Mexico 447 0.2 1
Italy 439 1.4 1
South Africa 437 1.6 1
Indonesia 424 6.6 1
France 403 1.6 1
Australia 367 -8.2 1
Spain 334 -3.7 1
Taiwan 331 5.9 1
Poland 325 4.2 1

Factbox: Carbon emissions by country | Reuters

30% of total worldwide CO2 emissions come from China and India, who both refuse to agree to ANY cuts in their emissions. (See Kyoto Accords) Their CO2 footprint is growing at better than 10% a year, with no end in sight.

What are you going to do about them, and why should we cripple OUR economy for little to no overall reduction worldwide?

Are we not broke enough YET?

 

[Redfish]

Nobody wants the idea of climate change to be a hoax more than I do. I am not into being inconvenienced by things like floods and severe storms. But....unfortunately, the science is clear. This shit is happening and it would be a good idea to pay attention to it.

Those who are so afraid that they close their eyes are of little use.

Yes, the climate is changing, it has always been changing since the earth was created by the big bang, God, the sun or whatever you believe created our planet.

the point is that man has never had anything to do with it, cannot stop or reverse it, and is an insignificant dot in time in the life of the planet.

Bullshit. There has never, ever, in the history of the world as we know it, been a time when trillions of pounds of oil and coal were burnt and put into the atmosphere.
Never.

And as a result of that never happening, we don't know what will ultimately happen. But so far, the trends are not looking good.

And if mans actions are so insignificent to the world, why did man find it necessary to do things like catalytic converters, smoke stack scrubbers, un leaded gas, the list goes on about the things man did do to offset the termendous amount of air pollution that was happening in the 60ties and 70 ties.

You must not be old enough to remember places like Gary IN. Or Cleveland Ohio, or Pittsburg PA or any other industrial city that used to have a haze of pollution over the city that burnt the paint off your car and caused breathing problems etc etc.

You remember those days? They were created by the very men you claim can't really effect the enviornment.

How could that be?

Or maybe you think the air in Bejing is breathable?

Yes, I am old enough to remember those things. you are confusing pollution with climate change. Pollution is terrible for the planet but does not cause the climate to change.

BTW, with the exception of Bejing, all of those places have been cleaned up.

 

[konradv]

Question for you: what % of the atmosphere is CO2? What was the % of CO2 in the years 1700, 700, and 7000 BC?

The important thing to know is that it's been going up since the advent of the Industrial revolution, about 30-40%. Given the known ability of CO2 to absorb IR, what do you think is happening to that absorbed energy?

OK, so you can't or won't answer what % of the atmosphere is CO2. Unless you know that answer, its a waste of time to continue. Look it up or go away.

Why is the absolute amount in the atmosphere important? How much it's increased is the deciding factor. If X amount of CO2 allows the earth to retain Y of heat, then adding more CO2 will increase Y by some factor. The questions are, by how much and and how soon, NOT 'if'. You obviously don't understand the basics. I think you're the one that needs to go and study up. Your line of argument would get you a 'F' in scientific circles.

 

[Saigon]

Redfish -

The point is that WHEN the climate changes - something CAUSES that change to happen. Climate is not a pendulum. It changes only when forced to change.

This article explains this point rather well - I hope you'll read it.

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

I have read it. Its bunk.

The climate of our planet is controlled by the Sun, the tilt of the earth on its axis, ocean currents, earthquakes, and other natural cycles. The climate is not controlled by soccer moms in SUVs or chinese coal fired power plants. Those things may affect pollution, but not climate.

And of course the fact that virtually every scientist on earth disagrees with you only means that they are wrong and you are right.

It's hard for me to imagine the arrogance a man has to have to claim he knows more than the American Physical Society et al.

Really - what a child you are.

 

[bripat9643]

So you deny that CO2 and other gases can absorb infra-red radiation? No wonder we've got to import scientists from India, Japan and China!

That sentence is a perfect caricature of the idiocy of liberal understanding of how the climate works.

 

[zeke]

I guess you forgot about natural cycles. It's funny how the skeptics/deniers will hammer the proponents with the fact that there are natural cycles, but when faced with a consequence, ignore the implications! Of course, natural cycles may blunt the rise in temps from time to time, but if CO2 keeps going up, so will retained IR radiation, making another upturn in temps inevitable and that much more severe, when the natural cycles reverse themselves. You need to study the science of the theory and not just parrot propaganda from biased sources.

Question for you: what % of the atmosphere is CO2? What was the % of CO2 in the years 1700, 700, and 7000 BC?[/QUOTE]

The important thing to know is that it's been going up since the advent of the Industrial revolution, about 30-40%. Given the known ability of CO2 to absorb IR, what do you think is happening to that absorbed energy?

This is obviously something you think you can score a big point with. So before I look that info up, here is something for you to look up

How many people were on the earth in those same time periods? How much coal and oil were being burnt, what percentage of the earth was covered by forests, and what fuking difference does it make. Unless you plan on going back in time. You got a way back machine? Lucky you eh?

 

[bripat9643]

Redfish -

The point is that WHEN the climate changes - something CAUSES that change to happen. Climate is not a pendulum. It changes only when forced to change.

This article explains this point rather well - I hope you'll read it.

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

I have read it. Its bunk.

The climate of our planet is controlled by the Sun, the tilt of the earth on its axis, ocean currents, earthquakes, and other natural cycles. The climate is not controlled by soccer moms in SUVs or chinese coal fired power plants. Those things may affect pollution, but not climate.

And of course the fact that virtually every scientist on earth disagrees with you only means that they are wrong and you are right.

It's hard for me to imagine the arrogance a man has to have to claim he knows more than the American Physical Society et al.

Really - what a child you are.

Total bullshit. Because the leadership of some organization makes some statement, it doesn't follow that the entire membership agrees with it. Furthermore, the leadership sucks government butthole.

 

[konradv]

Yes, I am old enough to remember those things. you are confusing pollution with climate change. Pollution is terrible for the planet but does not cause the climate to change.

BTW, with the exception of Bejing, all of those places have been cleaned up.

You don't even seem to understand the argument. Particulate pollution would actually lower temperatures by blocking sunlight. Even if Beijing solves the particulate problem, there's still the problem of CO2 and other GHGs, which add to the energy retention of the atmosphere.

 

[konradv]

So you deny that CO2 and other gases can absorb infra-red radiation? No wonder we've got to import scientists from India, Japan and China!

That sentence is a perfect caricature of the idiocy of liberal understanding of how the climate works.

You're a caricature of a knowledgeable person!

 

[Saigon]

I think this graph answers Redfish's question about CO2, by the way.

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has reached 391 ppm (parts per million) as of October 2012[1][2] and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009 and faster since then. [2][3] This current concentration is substantially higher than the 280 ppm concentration present in pre-industrial times, with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources

 

[Redfish]

For those of you unable or unwilling to address the % of CO2 in the atmosphere

Universal Industrial Gases, Inc:      Composition of Air   -   Components & Properties of Air  -  Answers to "What is air?" - "What is air made up of?" -" What are air products and what are they used for?"

its .039% less than half of 1%.

now please tell us how that tiny amount is destroying the planet.

 

[Saigon]

For those of you unable or unwilling to address the % of CO2 in the atmosphere

Universal Industrial Gases, Inc:***** Composition of Air** -** Components & Properties of Air* -* Answers to "What is air?" - "What is air made up of?" -" What are air products and what are they used for?"

its .039% less than half of 1%.

now please tell us how that tiny amount is destroying the planet.

Oh my word.....THAT is your argument? Seriously?

 

[Redfish]

Yes, I am old enough to remember those things. you are confusing pollution with climate change. Pollution is terrible for the planet but does not cause the climate to change.

BTW, with the exception of Bejing, all of those places have been cleaned up.

You don't even seem to understand the argument. Particulate pollution would actually lower temperatures by blocking sunlight. Even if Beijing solves the particulate problem, there's still the problem of CO2 and other GHGs, which add to the energy retention of the atmosphere.

have you ever flown across the pacific or atlantic oceans? have you ever flown across the USA? have you ever flown across saudi arabia or russia? I have. Man's footprint on the earth is tiny.

BTW, CO2 makes up ,039% of the atmosphere.

 

[konradv]

For those of you unable or unwilling to address the % of CO2 in the atmosphere

Universal Industrial Gases, Inc:***** Composition of Air** -** Components & Properties of Air* -* Answers to "What is air?" - "What is air made up of?" -" What are air products and what are they used for?"

its .039% less than half of 1%.

now please tell us how that tiny amount is destroying the planet.

Like I said, it's known that CO2 acts as insulation, keeping the planet warmer than it would be without its presence. Therefore the important figure is the % increase, NOT the absolute value. You're argument makes as much sense as questioning why a few micrograms of a poison would kill a 200 lb. man. What's important is the demonstrated effect.

 

[Redfish]

For those of you unable or unwilling to address the % of CO2 in the atmosphere

Universal Industrial Gases, Inc:***** Composition of Air** -** Components & Properties of Air* -* Answers to "What is air?" - "What is air made up of?" -" What are air products and what are they used for?"

its .039% less than half of 1%.

now please tell us how that tiny amount is destroying the planet.

Oh my word.....THAT is your argument? Seriously?

Oh my word----YOUR argument is that the % of CO2 is being increased by the activities of man, but you cannot provide any proof that the % is higher now than it was 500,000,000 years ago.

 

[GuyPinestra]

You can argue about it until you're blue in the face, but unless you can get China and India on board, NOTHING we do will make a damned bit of difference!

Are we to destroy our own economy for that??

 

[zeke]

Yes, the climate is changing, it has always been changing since the earth was created by the big bang, God, the sun or whatever you believe created our planet.

the point is that man has never had anything to do with it, cannot stop or reverse it, and is an insignificant dot in time in the life of the planet.

Bullshit. There has never, ever, in the history of the world as we know it, been a time when trillions of pounds of oil and coal were burnt and put into the atmosphere.
Never.

And as a result of that never happening, we don't know what will ultimately happen. But so far, the trends are not looking good.

And if mans actions are so insignificent to the world, why did man find it necessary to do things like catalytic converters, smoke stack scrubbers, un leaded gas, the list goes on about the things man did do to offset the termendous amount of air pollution that was happening in the 60ties and 70 ties.

You must not be old enough to remember places like Gary IN. Or Cleveland Ohio, or Pittsburg PA or any other industrial city that used to have a haze of pollution over the city that burnt the paint off your car and caused breathing problems etc etc.

You remember those days? They were created by the very men you claim can't really effect the enviornment.

How could that be?

Or maybe you think the air in Bejing is breathable?

Yes, I am old enough to remember those things. you are confusing pollution with climate change. Pollution is terrible for the planet but does not cause the climate to change.

BTW, with the exception of Bejing, all of those places have been cleaned up.

No, it is important. You contend that man can't effect climate. Yet somehow man has the ability to effect local climate by polluting with carbon based pollutants. And it needed to be stopped. Even according to you, polution was not a good thing.

All we did in the cleanup process was remove the particulants. Just because you burn a solid or a liquid, it doesn't cease to exist.

Where do you think those trillions of pounds of oil and coal are going? What are they doing after they become a gas?

How could burning all the oil and coal and cutting down all the forests that used to trap carbon, how do you think that could not have an effect? Water temps in the ocean are increasing. How could that not have an effect?

Do you really think that, even though we live in a closed enviornmental system, that man can't harm that system? Really?