NEWS FLASH: Global Cooling ended 15 minutes ago

Since CO2 composes 0.04% of the atmosphere, and mankind's production is less than 0.6% of that; while keeping in mind that H2O is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and varies between 4 and 8% of the atmospheric composition, please explain how reducing 0.0002% of the overall atmospheric composition will prevent change and preserve the climate of this planet when the instrumentally observed climate of this planet is less than 0.0000000001% of it's existence and impossible to do so just on the basis of scale?

My second question is can you provide for us just ONE solution to global warming that is born of a free market, free choice, free use, and does not require global governance totalitarian tactics; or must there be force of law for all solutions?

To your first question, you're trying to skew the argument with the smallest numbers you can find. While they may be accurate, the absolute numbers aren't as significant as the change in those numbers. We know that without CO2 the earth would be much cooler than it is today, despite its low total concentration. Therefore, a 30-40% change in historical averages with an 11-15% rise in "forcing", if you adhere to the logarithmic increase in additional forcing, would be considered highly significant in scientific circles.

To your second, that's a political question. I address the scientific issues. The political aspects are the realm of the deniers/skeptics. Whatever answer could be given, pro or con, doesn't change the fact that, if the trend towards more CO2 continues, warming is inevitable. It's simple logic based on Conservation of Energy.

Since I've at least attempted to answer both your questions, how about answering ONE of mine? How do you reconcile skepticism of AGW with the known ability of CO2 to absorb IR and the principle of Conservation of Energy? If you come up with an answer, let Westy know. The question has been stumping him for months and what you call "pwned" was actually a full-blown meltdown on his part. :lol::lol::lol:
 
I'd rather be the Typhoid Mary to dumbass lib threads than the Sally Frillypants little bitch you've become.

Wassamatta? Your pucker hurt too much from getting pwned with 2 sentences and elementary logic to actually respond? Oh that's right. That's when Westwall stoves your whole head in with more actual data than you can cope with.

What 2 sentences would that be? I surprised you'd even broach the subject of logic, since the deniers don't really have handle on the subject.

So, you got westy to protect you?!?! Here's a clue for the clueless, he's never laid a glove on me, despite the fantasies swirling around your fevered brain.

I hope that doesn't upset you too much, so that you'll have to run to the mods again. I mean the picture of your get up, shows definite signs of dementia. I guess lingerie just feels good against the skin, eh? :lol::lol::lol:
Okay, two sentences to destroy your Chicken Little warbling of butthurt.

Since CO2 composes 0.04% of the atmosphere, and mankind's production is less than 0.6% of that; while keeping in mind that H2O is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and varies between 4 and 8% of the atmospheric composition, please explain how reducing 0.0002% of the overall atmospheric composition will prevent change and preserve the climate of this planet when the instrumentally observed climate of this planet is less than 0.0000000001% of it's existence and impossible to do so just on the basis of scale?

My second question is can you provide for us just ONE solution to global warming that is born of a free market, free choice, free use, and does not require global governance totalitarian tactics; or must there be force of law for all solutions?

I await your bullshit... I mean >scoff< "logic", Kommiekonnie.

Been explained many times, Fritzy. Just that you are too damned stupid to comprehend it.

As for the percentage of the the CO2 compared to that of the whole atmosphere, a gram of postassium cynide is a very tiny amount compared to the weight of your body, so you are perfectly safe in ingesting that amount, right? Be my guest, Fritzy.

In 1858, Tyndall made the first measurement of the absorption spectra of H2O, and in 1896, Arrhenius included the affects of water vapor feedback in his assesment of the effects of doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere.

But that is science, a subject that Fritzy has yet to meet.
 
To your first question, you're trying to skew the argument with the smallest numbers you can find. While they may be accurate, the absolute numbers aren't as significant as the change in those numbers.

Oh good, but yet you protest and look for some way to ignore the infinitesimally small effect this substance actually has. Good drone. GOOOOOD drone.

It's simple logic based on Conservation of Energy.

Hah. Been debunked over so many threads it's static.

To your second, that's a political question. I address the scientific issues.

Bullshit. You ignore science when it's convenient. I figure there have been enough posts by Westwall, Wirebender, Gslack, Whitehall, Oddball and a cast of several more providing you with scientific information on huge holes in your consensus, I do not need to reiterate anything about that. There are already a half dozen threads on that pile of chewed meat.
 
Looks like you scared him off
No, he's got so much of his ego wrapped up in trying to 'get' me, he'll go even after I get bored and stop responding. It's like getting rid of toenail fungus with clippers.
 
t'was a matter of time before Ole Crocks showed up to defend his butt buddy.
 
Bullshit. You ignore science when it's convenient. I figure there have been enough posts by Westwall, Wirebender, Gslack, Whitehall, Oddball and a cast of several more providing you with scientific information on huge holes in your consensus, I do not need to reiterate anything about that. There are already a half dozen threads on that pile of chewed meat.

Most of them don't post science at all. They just regurgitate whatever they've read on a blog. You say holes have been blown in my consensus? So what, I'd be more concerned if holes were blown in my logic. To date no one has managed to do that. If they could, they would have answered the Conservation of Energy question long ago. Care to try? :eusa_whistle:
 
Bullshit. You ignore science when it's convenient. I figure there have been enough posts by Westwall, Wirebender, Gslack, Whitehall, Oddball and a cast of several more providing you with scientific information on huge holes in your consensus, I do not need to reiterate anything about that. There are already a half dozen threads on that pile of chewed meat.

Most of them don't post science at all. They just regurgitate whatever they've read on a blog. You say holes have been blown in my consensus? So what, I'd be more concerned if holes were blown in my logic. To date no one has managed to do that. If they could, they would have answered the Conservation of Energy question long ago. Care to try? :eusa_whistle:
They just regurgitate whatever they've read on a blog.

Oh? Now that's beneath you? When the sudden desire for intellectual integrity?

So what, I'd be more concerned if holes were blown in my logic.

Get some first. Then maybe you'd start holding EAU to some standards above shilling for your politics.

To date no one has managed to do that.

Of course not. Denial is your special friend.

If they could, they would have answered the Conservation of Energy question long ago. Care to try?

Why would I bother? You've made up your mind and nothing anyone says or does changes it. Post after post of science, discussion and refutation has been given you and you have steadily and stubbornly refused to accept ANY of it. I quit reading those posts because it's as predictable as a skipped record.
 
Bullshit. You ignore science when it's convenient. I figure there have been enough posts by Westwall, Wirebender, Gslack, Whitehall, Oddball and a cast of several more providing you with scientific information on huge holes in your consensus, I do not need to reiterate anything about that. There are already a half dozen threads on that pile of chewed meat.

Most of them don't post science at all. They just regurgitate whatever they've read on a blog. You say holes have been blown in my consensus? So what, I'd be more concerned if holes were blown in my logic. To date no one has managed to do that. If they could, they would have answered the Conservation of Energy question long ago. Care to try? :eusa_whistle:

Why would I bother? You've made up your mind and nothing anyone says or does changes it. Post after post of science, discussion and refutation has been given you and you have steadily and stubbornly refused to accept ANY of it. I quit reading those posts because it's as predictable as a skipped record.

Why would you bother? Maybe to prove you know something about the topic and weren't just posting as a political exercise. If I'm stubborn, it's because no one has refuted the logical syllogism I've posted repeatedly. If you've really read "post after post" of my stuff, you'll know what I'm talking about. Care to take stab at that, since the Conservation of Energy question is obviously over your head? Go ahead, consult that list of brainiacs you touted earlier. I can wait. :eusa_whistle:
 
Warm front travels across country setting a "new normal" for January. Break out the golf clubs, we've seen the last of winter.


*DISCLAIMER* Makes as much sense as clueless "Global Cooling" predictions. Funny how the deniers ignore "natural cycles" when it becomes inconvenient. :cool:

Its @ 70 F in "this great nation's" capital (Palin-speak ;) )
 
Warm front travels across country setting a "new normal" for January. Break out the golf clubs, we've seen the last of winter.


*DISCLAIMER* Makes as much sense as clueless "Global Cooling" predictions. Funny how the deniers ignore "natural cycles" when it becomes inconvenient. :cool:

Its @ 70 F in "this great nation's" capital (Palin-speak ;) )


Awesome...................

And up here in New York...........had a bee fly into my car as I was sipping a cup of Joe this PM. I said, "WTF???!!!..........outgoing LaNina FTMFW!!!"






Then I thought of those poor fuckers in Nome Alaska last night...........80 below zero!!!:wtf::wtf::wtf::ack-1:



winning
 
The Earth has never experienced unusual weather before, has it?

LOL. Here we go again, ol' dumb fuck Pattycake yapping again because he has not the brains to do otherwise.

Duuuuhhhhh . . . . Pattycake stoopit! <Drool>

FINALLY.....(and I've been watching and waiting)....after all this time on the forum.....you finally post something that's accurate....must be a fluke....I'm sure you'll be back to posting your usual ignorant, insane and meaningless drivel right away....
 
For any lurkers, here is what the American Institute of Physics has to say on the subject;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


You mean that's what the toadies who run the American Institute of Physics have to say on the subject. They don't speak for the rank and file.

Is that one of your denier cult myths or did you just pull that bullshyt out of your butt on the spot? It's really a shame you're so insane.

Statement on Human Impacts on Climate Change

In April 2004, the Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003. The statement follows:

"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

"Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.

"The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some aspects of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur, exactly how much it will change, and exactly where those changes will take place. In contrast, scientists are confident in other predictions. Mid-continent warming will be greater than over the oceans, and there will be greater warming at higher latitudes. Some polar and glacial ice will melt, and the oceans will warm; both effects will contribute to higher sea levels. The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify, leading to changes in water supply as well as flood and drought patterns. There will be considerable regional variations in the resulting impacts.

"Scientists' understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has greatly improved during the last decade, including better representation of carbon, water, and other biogeochemical cycles in climate models. Yet, model projections of future global warming vary, because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models. Actions that decrease emissions of some air pollutants will reduce their climate effects in the short term. Even so, the impacts of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would remain.

"The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states as an objective the ' . . . stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.' AGU believes that no single threshold level of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere exists at which the beginning of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system can be defined. Some impacts have already occurred, and for increasing concentrations there will be increasing impacts. The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern.

"Enhanced national and international research and other efforts are needed to support climate related policy decisions. These include fundamental climate research, improved observations and modeling, increased computational capability, and very importantly, education of the next generation of climate scientists. AGU encourages scientists worldwide to participate in climate research, education, scientific assessments, and policy discussions. AGU also urges that the scientific basis for policy discussions and decision-making be based upon objective assessment of peer-reviewed research results.

"Science provides society with information useful in dealing with natural hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and drought, which improves our ability to predict and prepare for their adverse effects. While human-induced climate change is unique in its global scale and long lifetime, AGU believes that science should play the same role in dealing with climate change. AGU is committed to improving the communication of scientific information to governments and private organizations so that their decisions on climate issues will be based on the best science.

"The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change. Scientific research is required to improve our ability to predict climate change and its impacts on countries and regions around the globe. Scientific research provides a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices), technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events."


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
 
For any lurkers, here is what the American Institute of Physics has to say on the subject;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


You mean that's what the toadies who run the American Institute of Physics have to say on the subject. They don't speak for the rank and file.

Is that one of your denier cult myths or did you just pull that bullshyt out of your butt on the spot? It's really a shame you're so insane.

Statement on Human Impacts on Climate Change

In April 2004, the Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003. The statement follows:

"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.

"Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer.

"The complexity of the climate system makes it difficult to predict some aspects of human-induced climate change: exactly how fast it will occur, exactly how much it will change, and exactly where those changes will take place. In contrast, scientists are confident in other predictions. Mid-continent warming will be greater than over the oceans, and there will be greater warming at higher latitudes. Some polar and glacial ice will melt, and the oceans will warm; both effects will contribute to higher sea levels. The hydrologic cycle will change and intensify, leading to changes in water supply as well as flood and drought patterns. There will be considerable regional variations in the resulting impacts.

"Scientists' understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has greatly improved during the last decade, including better representation of carbon, water, and other biogeochemical cycles in climate models. Yet, model projections of future global warming vary, because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models. Actions that decrease emissions of some air pollutants will reduce their climate effects in the short term. Even so, the impacts of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would remain.

"The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change states as an objective the ' . . . stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.' AGU believes that no single threshold level of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere exists at which the beginning of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system can be defined. Some impacts have already occurred, and for increasing concentrations there will be increasing impacts. The unprecedented increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, together with other human influences on climate over the past century and those anticipated for the future, constitute a real basis for concern.

"Enhanced national and international research and other efforts are needed to support climate related policy decisions. These include fundamental climate research, improved observations and modeling, increased computational capability, and very importantly, education of the next generation of climate scientists. AGU encourages scientists worldwide to participate in climate research, education, scientific assessments, and policy discussions. AGU also urges that the scientific basis for policy discussions and decision-making be based upon objective assessment of peer-reviewed research results.

"Science provides society with information useful in dealing with natural hazards such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and drought, which improves our ability to predict and prepare for their adverse effects. While human-induced climate change is unique in its global scale and long lifetime, AGU believes that science should play the same role in dealing with climate change. AGU is committed to improving the communication of scientific information to governments and private organizations so that their decisions on climate issues will be based on the best science.

"The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change. Scientific research is required to improve our ability to predict climate change and its impacts on countries and regions around the globe. Scientific research provides a basis for mitigating the harmful effects of global climate change through decreased human influences (e.g., slowing greenhouse gas emissions, improving land management practices), technological advancement (e.g., removing carbon from the atmosphere), and finding ways for communities to adapt and become resilient to extreme events."


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o]Thomas Dolby - She Blinded Me With Science - YouTube[/ame]



Statement fAiL
 
Last edited:
Warm front travels across country setting a "new normal" for January. Break out the golf clubs, we've seen the last of winter.


*DISCLAIMER* Makes as much sense as clueless "Global Cooling" predictions. Funny how the deniers ignore "natural cycles" when it becomes inconvenient. :cool:

Excellent! I always wanted warmer weather in Chicago.
The last ice age here really sucked! :clap2:
 
Warm front travels across country setting a "new normal" for January. Break out the golf clubs, we've seen the last of winter.


*DISCLAIMER* Makes as much sense as clueless "Global Cooling" predictions. Funny how the deniers ignore "natural cycles" when it becomes inconvenient. :cool:

Excellent! I always wanted warmer weather in Chicago.
The last ice age here really sucked! :clap2:




Notice too..........none of the k00ks have come even close to responding to the fact that it is like 1,000 degrees below zero in Alaska tonight!!!:banana:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top