Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We can predict with certainty the impact of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere. It will make the earth warmer.
Anyone who denies that is lying.
This is a pointless debate, I do enjoy the amusement though continue with your deflection without addressing what you just got debunked on. Scientist can't predict what the hell is going to happen. To try to say that x number of CO2 emmissions will cause the earth to rise by y number of degrees is impossible due to the fact of endless other variables.
They predict that the temperature will rise between 1.5 and 6 degrees. I think they are being conservative because of the accelerant factors involved.
What part of " there is no evidence runaway heating can or will occur" and " the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere has a diminishing effect as it continues" do you fail to grasp?
What part of the North Pole is melting don't you grasp?
Once the North Pole is gone, then the ice reflectivity is replaced by open ocean absorption. Then the permafrost melts and methane is released, and methane is 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2.
What part of the North Pole is melting don't you grasp?
Once the North Pole is gone, then the ice reflectivity is replaced by open ocean absorption. Then the permafrost melts and methane is released, and methane is 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2.
What part of the North Pole is melting don't you grasp?
Once the North Pole is gone, then the ice reflectivity is replaced by open ocean absorption. Then the permafrost melts and methane is released, and methane is 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2.
Simple question, Do you agree that the earth has warmed by more than .6 degrees before human made carbon emmissions, in the history of earth?
Except it is not gone and not even CLOSE to gone. The pole has been free of ice before. In fact I suspect that back when Greenland was actually GREEN and not covered in ice as it STILL is today that the north pole was also free of ice during the summer months for that region. We do know that Greenland was NOT covered in Ice just what 600 years ago?
Your scare tactics do not work, your whining and making shit up do not work either. You have been given scientific facts and ignore them. You are a waste of time.
The earth has heated and cooled many times in the past for various reasons. We have had this discussion before.
Could Nature trump the influence of CO2? Of course it could? Is it going to? I doubt it, just because we are increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at a faster and faster rate, and there are accelerant factors in the arctic which will compound the problem.
So, you think that just cuz the north pole has been frozen for the last little while, that it should stay that way forever? Isn't that quaint. The Earth has its own schedule, your plans for it matter little.
The fact that you are so egotistical to think that man can have such a great effect on the Earth is both amusing and sad. In the face of hard science to the you push ahead with these delusions. Lies, Lies Lies for a political agenda.
Ok so you admit that at some point in time, in Earth's history, the Earth has warmed more than our current warming trend. Before human made CO2 emmissions, if you admit this then why didn't the North pole melt in the previous heating trends that were greater than today's heating trends? The answer there are way more variables at work in nature, that is the falliacy with AGW.
This is where we disagree.
I think doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere in 250 years is a powerful variable.
You don't.
Historical data doesn't support your position.
There is no historical data for this situation.
It is unpresidented in human history.
They predict that the temperature will rise between 1.5 and 6 degrees. I think they are being conservative because of the accelerant factors involved.
Man created a hole in the ozone.
We have increased CO2 in the atmosphere 39% in the last 200 years. Within the next 30 years we will have doubled it. That is a very significant increase.
By the way, I have no political agenda with respect to CO2. I think it is too late to do anything about it.
Yes, and those projections are based on ASSUMED positive feedback factors of 20%-80%. That's the critical assumption, and it's shaky at best. If you can find me any long-term stable system that operates under such high positive feedback quotients, then there might be a scientific basis for this assumption.
Even though most climate models assume positive feedback from the net of water processes (water vapor increase, decreased ice albedo, and cloud formation), the IPCC admits they don't even know the net sign of these factors. If feedback is zero, net warming from CO2 is capped at 1.2 degrees C. If it's negative, as all long-term stable natural processes are, net warming should be between 0-1 degrees C.
THAT is the fatal flaw in climate model projections.
I think what is even more important than that is that it takes 300 Sq miles of windmills to replace on conventional power plant. So with 60,000 Sq miles of windmills we would only replace 200 conventional power plants!!!!
Put that in your pipe and smoke it Kirk.
We will see very quickly what the net warming will be when the sun moves back into the high side of the solar cycle, and the Southern Oscillation returns. Each day more and more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, and each day the effect becomes greater than the day before.
