No question that co2 is a postive forcing

[Old Rocks]

I work with models and its effect on the environment as a chemical engineer dipshit. Climatology deals with past events and trends not the current reality. They are no more than a biologist or a historian; citing old information in order to attempt to make a claim.

So you claim. The reality is far differant. As for your claim of credentials, anyone can claim whatever they choose on the web. Only after you post a while would I consider stating anything about your claims, although you have made a very negative start.

The reality is I have worked for Environment Canada and have a scientific background and one can easily see that you lack said background on how science is conducted. That Sir, is the reality.

This is the reality, dumb ass;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Old Rocks]

More reality

A42D

 

[Old Rocks]

And more yet

A23A

 

[mdn2000]

The reality is I have worked for Environment Canada and have a scientific background and one can easily see that you lack said background on how science is conducted. That Sir, is the reality.

Yeah I'm a geologist and an agnostic but because I don't "believe" in the dogma I am labeled a "unscientific religious rightwinger" So sayeth the "Defender of the Faith"

So you believe that the warming was caused by the earth coming out of the ice age and that would make it natural. The forcing that got us out of it is the sun...I think most of it was up until 1950 or so.

Matthew, in all seriousness, how can you, "thank" a post of Old Crock"s".

 

[Muhammed]

More reality

A42D

Sounds like idiots who in reality took way too much LSD.

 

[Old Rocks]

More reality

A42D

Sounds like idiots who in reality took way too much LSD.

Well, dingleberry, perhaps you should try listening to real science as presented by real scientists.

 

[Muhammed]

More reality

A42D

Sounds like idiots who in reality took way too much LSD.

Well, dingleberry, perhaps you should try listening to real science as presented by real scientists.

Fuck off! Don't call me names you fucking poser. Your idiocy has shown that you are a poser and your ridiculous monicker "Old Rocks" gives you away as a mooonbat loon posing as a "scientist". You, in fact, are a brainwashed idiot and you know it.

Are you too stoooopid to understand that you dumb little fuckwad?

Or are you are a ????

Fuck off bitch.

 

[ScienceRocks]

More reality

A42D

Sounds like idiots who in reality took way too much LSD.

WTF? These idiots as you say have spent there lifes in this field of climate science and put up science that may or may not be accurate at the end of the day, and what do you do instead of proving them wrong is this shit. We would not have the ice cores that we have today or the knowledge of the med evil or ice ages if it was not for these people. Disagree if you went, but do so respectful.

Yes the understanding of climate and geology of our planet is science.

 

[westwall]

Hey Walleyes, I thought that you earlier said that there was going to be a revolt in both the Royal Society and the American Geophysical Union against the "warmers". So what happened? Why did both come out even more strongly concerning global warming and the effects we are seeing right now. Could it be that real scientists are all in on a conspiracy? Surely you could not be full of shit?

Uhh because you are lying? The Royal Society has greatly moderated their position or is "there is some doubt" as opposed to "there is no question" stronger on your planet?
The AGU will take some time because the leadership is too dependant on grants and too lazy to do real work. Give it a couple of years and it too will fall. After all, trying to reverse 30 years of BS doesn't happen overnight now does it.

 

[westwall]

So you claim. The reality is far differant. As for your claim of credentials, anyone can claim whatever they choose on the web. Only after you post a while would I consider stating anything about your claims, although you have made a very negative start.

The reality is I have worked for Environment Canada and have a scientific background and one can easily see that you lack said background on how science is conducted. That Sir, is the reality.

This is the reality, dumb ass;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Not anymore dumber asser

 

[westwall]

More reality

A42D

Sounds like idiots who in reality took way too much LSD.

Well, dingleberry, perhaps you should try listening to real science as presented by real scientists.

You mean the ones falsifying data all over the place, those frauds? Riiiiight. Intelligent people don't pay attention to frauds.

 

[IanC]

Sounds like idiots who in reality took way too much LSD.

Well, dingleberry, perhaps you should try listening to real science as presented by real scientists.

You mean the ones falsifying data all over the place, those frauds? Riiiiight. Intelligent people don't pay attention to frauds.

I loved your point from a few weeks ago. The alarmists were screeching catastrope and impending doom because of the retreat of glaciers, while at the same time they were studying the left behind vegetation that was being uncovered. lol

 

[Old Rocks]

Let's see. I have repeatedly stated that the danger in rapid climate change is damage to agriculture in a world with nearly 7 billion people. So, what are we seeing now? Loss of crops in Russia from an extreme heat event, loss of nearly the whole of Pakistans agriculture because of an extreme precipitation event. Loss of grazing areas, thereby forcing a thinning of herds, and loss of crops, in Argentina and Uraguay due to heat and drought. In Australia, after a ten year drought in Queensland, a precipition event that has just about destroyed the crops there. All in one year.

Result;

World Food Prices Jump to Record on Sugar, Oilseeds - Bloomberg

World food prices rose to a record in December on higher sugar, grain and oilseed costs, the United Nations said, exceeding levels reached in 2008 that sparked deadly riots from Haiti to Egypt.

An index of 55 food commodities tracked by the Food and Agriculture Organization gained for a sixth month to 214.7 points, above the previous all-time high of 213.5 in June 2008, the Rome-based UN agency said in a monthly report. The gauges for sugar and meat prices advanced to records.

Sugar climbed for a third year in a row in 2010, and corn jumped the most in four years in Chicago. Food prices may rise more unless the world grain crop increases “significantly” in 2011, the FAO said Nov. 17. At least 13 people died last year in Mozambique in protests against plans to lift bread prices.

“There is still, unfortunately, the potential for grain prices to strengthen on the back of a lot of uncertainty,” Abdolreza Abbassian, senior economist at the FAO, said by phone from Rome today. “If anything goes wrong with the South American crop, there is plenty of room for them to increase.”

 

[Old Rocks]

Ian, you are capable of reasonable thought. Is that left behind vegitation something that we could get food from? And, if not, where are we going to make up the shortfall in food? Or do we just not worry about the rest of the world? After all, we still have food. If we don't sell it to China while we have hungry people here.

In the meantime, because of the ever increasing price of oil, and the competition for it, food will become more expensive on that front, also.

Some of the nations already affected in a dire manner by the increasing precipitation events are nuclear armed. So what happens if hunger causes a revolution in those nations and the radicals take power? Perhaps you should read some of the scenerios that the military is now presenting concerning both rapid climate change, and peak oil.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sounds like idiots who in reality took way too much LSD.

Well, dingleberry, perhaps you should try listening to real science as presented by real scientists.

You mean the ones falsifying data all over the place, those frauds? Riiiiight. Intelligent people don't pay attention to frauds.

You mean liars like you impugning the names of real scientists. As time goes on, we will see just how much idiocy you have posted. Like that statement that the sea ice around Antarctica is three orders of magnitudes greater than normal, and the day you posted it, the ice there had a negative anamoly.

You are the fraud, Walleyes. You present arcticles from people with no degrees, and from political blogs. NASA, NOAA, USGS, and NAS all state just the opposite of what you post. As do the equivelent agencies and societies of every other nation.

 

[IanC]

Ian, you are capable of reasonable thought. Is that left behind vegitation something that we could get food from? And, if not, where are we going to make up the shortfall in food? Or do we just not worry about the rest of the world? After all, we still have food. If we don't sell it to China while we have hungry people here.

In the meantime, because of the ever increasing price of oil, and the competition for it, food will become more expensive on that front, also.

Some of the nations already affected in a dire manner by the increasing precipitation events are nuclear armed. So what happens if hunger causes a revolution in those nations and the radicals take power? Perhaps you should read some of the scenerios that the military is now presenting concerning both rapid climate change, and peak oil.

You dont understand my amusement over the discovery of tree stumps and icemen from 1000 years ago uncovered by glacier retreat while simultaneously predicting the end of the world? if you have to explain its just not funny anymore.

you're worried about the price of oil and food? I thought you wanted to get rid of oil and turn the farmlands into ethynol production. Prices for both are going up because of green commitments.

you dont even understand that the poor and precarious countries are the ones most in need of energy. you would deny them on the slim chance of catastrophe.

 

[rdean]

You gotta admit, right wingers explaining science is pretty damn entertaining.

 

[Cuyo]

You gotta admit, right wingers explaining science is pretty damn entertaining.

Seems all 6% of them somehow found their way to USMB

 

[BenNatuf]

There is no question that it is being a green house gas...So 800 thousand years going from 160 to 300 ppm...Remember the 160-200 ppm happens during the ice ages as the ocean temperature went down they could store more co2...With the growing glaciers This my friends worked to compound the ice ages. The main forcing is the orbit around our star, so imagine the energy going down=decreased amount of energy into our oceans=oceans becoming better co2 stores=enhanced ice ages.

Now the opposite occurs during interglacial periods in which co2 goes up to 280-300 ppm...This occurs because oceans warm becoming less abe to store co2, which forces them to release the co2 into the Atmosphere, which increases the co2 in the Atmosphere and causes the warm periods to compound and increases the rate of warming.

On a shorter time span our climate is controlled by the sun spot cycles, which have cycles of 11, 22, and some believe even longer cycles. Mid evil warm period was a period of very warm weather and occurred during high sun spot activity. We had a short term ice age from 1300-1800 ad which occurred during a time of weaker activity of our sun...

So we proved that the sun has a negative or positive forcing on our climate. We proved that the orbit of our planet has a effect on temperature of our planet and co2 moves up and down and may have a compounding effect on them.

Now what got us out of the short term ice age that we where in? You got that right the strongest increase in sun spot activity in 2,000 years. BUT it peaked in 1950 and has been decreasing ever since. Between 1950-2000 it was decreasing! What does decreasing activity equal? decreasing temperatures. But we went up. Meaning there is a positive forcing, which is stronger then the negative forcing of the decrease in sun spot activity.

To make things even more interesting the decade between 2000-2010 the suns activity has dropped into the crapper, 1910-1915 was the decade which had the lowest temperatures of the 130 years record period. Why? Because it had the lowest sun spot activity, which is much like todays. So that is a huge negative forcing on our planet and what do we find? A less but rising temperature of our planet. So if you think about it, every fucking year this goes on means a compounding. Meaning our temperatures should be decreasing at a ever faster rate, but what do we got...Read above. A stable or even a raise in earths avg temperature.

So here we sit at 390 ppm going up 2 ppm per year within the weakest fucking sun spot cycle possible since the Dalton of 1810-1840 and we are warming, even so at a weaker rate of doing so. Screw 1998 that is .4c+ outside the norm...1998 was not normal and in fact was a monster that we may not see for another 50 or 100 fucking year...2005 was .3 outside the norm, but what be this year? Thats right...Not even .25c outside the avg baseline. So the enso has a effect on temperature and guess what most of this year was within a mother fucking nina that is stronger then 2008, 1999-2001. You would have to search back to the mid 70s to find a monster like where seeing now, but here we sit discusing the warmest or second warmest year of the 130 year record and quite possible the hottest year in 1,000 years. In people think co2 is not even a fucking green house gas? WTF? A warmer earth=more co2 which enhances the effect to...And add methane. Now we got something. Water vapor increases too for you water vapor people. In guess what more warming.

I don't know of anybody who says CO2 has no effect, thats not the argument, it is however the red herring you warmists like to throw out there so you can scream "denier" at the top of your lungs. Unfortunately for you the science just doesn't back up the alarmist rhetoric. Recent studies by Spencer and Lindzen both point to clouds as a source of warming (not an effect of it). Its new and being debated hotly but so far the only person looking like an idiot in the debate is Andy Dressler who attempted to come out with a competing study thats so full of wholes one has to question why Science let it into print.

Also Scafetta's new work points to 69% of current warming and 88% of warming over the last 400 years being attributable to solar variables (other than irradiation) and so far it's standing pretty well. Gavin Schmidt did try to "debunk" it with his own study, but that was a piece of trash and Scafetta had no proble shredding it. Schmidt is currently acting out making all sortds of irrational demands to cover his ass, and looks quite the fool doing it. Of course with the fine people over at realclimate.propoganda behind him I have no doubt he'll manage to keep some of the wavering in the faith.

Yes, CO2 does have an effect, but its so miniscule that its irrelevant.

BTW, in the past 15 years there has been no global warming, in fact, there's been a slight cooling. Of course thast itself is dependent on the veracity of the records which appear to have been manipulated so badly its getting hard to trust even them.

you also seem to have conveniently left out the coupling between CO2 and temperature... which does not support the AGW mythos. CO2 increases follow temperature increases, noit the other way around.

And finally CO2 records built on a stomatal index proxie show that CO2 was not stable at all durring the hoilocene but in fact varried from a low of 200ppmv (during the Maunder minimum) to a high of around 340ppmv (many times) following temperature of course, as it always does. However, the holocene has not been completely mapped with this methodology including the period following the holocene maxima (climactic optima) so their still may be higher measurement out there yet.

 

[Big Fitz]

Greenhouses pump up their CO2 to 1400ppm for maximum growth potential. My question then is, what's the problem if this actually was true?

Of course, without glass and sun, it would be a very cold 1400ppm.