what do global warming people want ??

[washamericom]

We want CO2 emissions to slow down so that climate change is limited in extent.

Will lowering CO2 by 10% cut back climate change by the same 10%?

Probably not. Models indicate how much warming would occur under various future emissions scenarios, but as you know the correct answer is very difficult to accurately model. And yet, the overall answer is clear ... if emissions continue at the current rate, global warming will accelerate.

but does that predict entirely or accurately exactly what the sun will do,?? isn't that by definition a variable ? who know's what the sun will do, i mean eventually it will implode, is that something i should be worried about ?? cause i already have a lot on my plate.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why does the OP ask a stupid question as though he has a real interest in the answer?

If he has researched the matter.....which is what he is suggesting.....he should know what it is that scientists suggest be done. It's not a mystery.

This is a troll thread.

sorry you don't like it bozo, but you can't control the conversation here. consider the language tags assingned by your people. what's the fist thing you think about when you hear the word denier.
what about use of the word cult ?

A denier of global warming is a denier of facts and sound science. If you guys were right that data was being faked, then we would not have the melt age of glaciers and polar ice. We would not have the northward migration if insect pests and tropical disease. You guys are denying reality.

If there were sound science i would agree with you. The facts are there is no empirical data to support it. The facts are that it is computer derived fiction that is the evidence being used to push these laws. Furthermore if it were truly as dire as you all claim don't you think there would be some truly draconian laws to you know actually regulate CO2? There are no laws proposed that actually reduce CO2.

Not one.

You are allowed to continue to "pollute", you just have to pay the one percenters for the privilege of living.

I would have though that so called thinking people would have figured this out by now....

I know this is your pet issue. I've shown you the science before. You won't see it.

Enjoy your bubble.

 

[SwimExpert]

Carbon is common to the two major greenhouse gases produced by fossil fuel burning: methane and co2.

Right. So, we should limit carbon because it's found in things that contain carbon.

This is the same kind of circular reasoning that condemns AGW theory to dogmatic nonsense.

 

[IsaacNewton]

We need to stop forcing carbon, in the form of CO2 and CO4 (methane) into the atmosphere....Carbon is the key and there is no alternative. The human race has to stop putting excess carbon into the atmosphere.

Statements like this are so insanely stupid it's actually tragic.

It's really bizarre that you fixate on carbon. Why carbon? What is it about carbon that bothers you so much? Let me give you an introductory chemistry lesson:

Carbon is not methane. Methane is not carbon. They are two entirely distinct substances. When you combine atoms of various elements into compounds, the result is a chemical change. What is produces is an entirely different substance. It is a 100% different substance, just like water is a different substance than hydrogen.

Fixating on one element in a compound is illogical. And in this case, it seems 100% arbitrary. Why fixate on carbon? Why not fixate on oxygen?

If we were to take a tally of the total amount of oxygen atoms in the atmosphere that are part of a greenhouse compound we would find that oxygen by far out numbers and out weights carbon among greenhouse contributing gases. There are twice as many oxygen atoms in carbon dioxide molecules. And there are four times as many oxygen atoms in methane molecules. There is no carbon in nitrous oxide, though approximately 35% of that is oxygen. Ozone is 100% oxygen. Not only that, but the single largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapor, which accounts for some 70% of greenhouse effect IIRC, and oxygen accounts for 97% of the composition of water!

So, while it might make you feel good, or feel accomplished for coming up with an easy answer that doesn't involve having to think too hard, your fixation with carbon is entirely without merit.

You think on a 5th grade level. You don't know what the C is in CO2 and CH4. Its called 'carbon'. Tada!

There is no discussion or argument, the science was settled 15 years ago. I ignorant people like you who seem to want to argue with 10,000 PH.D's around the world and be taken seriously. You aren't. Go find a denier cult thread and peddle your nonsense there. Buh-bye.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The denier cult springs into action on every thread on Global Warming. They have no argument, but they know that just muddying the waters a bit makes people hesitate in accepting reality that has been settled for the last 15 years.

Ignore them, they are the denier cult. Made up of fossil fuel companies and the dupes that carry their water without even knowing the science.

 

[westwall]

Why does the OP ask a stupid question as though he has a real interest in the answer?

If he has researched the matter.....which is what he is suggesting.....he should know what it is that scientists suggest be done. It's not a mystery.

This is a troll thread.

sorry you don't like it bozo, but you can't control the conversation here. consider the language tags assingned by your people. what's the fist thing you think about when you hear the word denier.
what about use of the word cult ?

A denier of global warming is a denier of facts and sound science. If you guys were right that data was being faked, then we would not have the melt age of glaciers and polar ice. We would not have the northward migration if insect pests and tropical disease. You guys are denying reality.

If there were sound science i would agree with you. The facts are there is no empirical data to support it. The facts are that it is computer derived fiction that is the evidence being used to push these laws. Furthermore if it were truly as dire as you all claim don't you think there would be some truly draconian laws to you know actually regulate CO2? There are no laws proposed that actually reduce CO2.

Not one.

You are allowed to continue to "pollute", you just have to pay the one percenters for the privilege of living.

I would have though that so called thinking people would have figured this out by now....

I know this is your pet issue. I've shown you the science before. You won't see it.

Enjoy your bubble.

No, you have shown me opinion and computer derived science fiction. You have never yet presented a single piece of empirical data. Not once. It is you who are living in the bubble silly boy. Do you even KNOW what empirical data means, or are you so ignorant of science and scientific methodology, that you truly don't know a thing about it?

 

[washamericom]

We need to stop forcing carbon, in the form of CO2 and CO4 (methane) into the atmosphere....Carbon is the key and there is no alternative. The human race has to stop putting excess carbon into the atmosphere.

Statements like this are so insanely stupid it's actually tragic.

It's really bizarre that you fixate on carbon. Why carbon? What is it about carbon that bothers you so much? Let me give you an introductory chemistry lesson:

Carbon is not methane. Methane is not carbon. They are two entirely distinct substances. When you combine atoms of various elements into compounds, the result is a chemical change. What is produces is an entirely different substance. It is a 100% different substance, just like water is a different substance than hydrogen.

Fixating on one element in a compound is illogical. And in this case, it seems 100% arbitrary. Why fixate on carbon? Why not fixate on oxygen?

If we were to take a tally of the total amount of oxygen atoms in the atmosphere that are part of a greenhouse compound we would find that oxygen by far out numbers and out weights carbon among greenhouse contributing gases. There are twice as many oxygen atoms in carbon dioxide molecules. And there are four times as many oxygen atoms in methane molecules. There is no carbon in nitrous oxide, though approximately 35% of that is oxygen. Ozone is 100% oxygen. Not only that, but the single largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapor, which accounts for some 70% of greenhouse effect IIRC, and oxygen accounts for 97% of the composition of water!

So, while it might make you feel good, or feel accomplished for coming up with an easy answer that doesn't involve having to think too hard, your fixation with carbon is entirely without merit.

You think on a 5th grade level. You don't know what the C is in CO2 and CH4. Its called 'carbon'. Tada!

There is no discussion or argument, the science was settled 15 years ago. I ignorant people like you who seem to want to argue with 10,000 PH.D's around the world and be taken seriously. You aren't. Go find a denier cult thread and peddle your nonsense there. Buh-bye.

what amount exactly of CO2 is beneficial ? what do the warmalist cult people think is appropriate.

 

[leftwinger]

The denier cult springs into action on every thread on Global Warming. They have no argument, but they know that just muddying the waters a bit makes people hesitate in accepting reality that has been settled for the last 15 years.

Ignore them, they are the denier cult. Made up of fossil fuel companies and the dupes that carry their water without even knowing the science.

If they got to Issac, is anyone safe? My goodness, he is not stupid? What they give you Issac? You running on some sort of "grant" outa' your garage? Come on. you on some FED hand-out. level with us.

 

[leftwinger]

They drive SUV over to the GW riots to bash Chevron? It just don't smell right? oooh oooh that smell. Can't ya smell that smell......


in the immortal words of BJ Slick Willie...........I gotsta pay dose' bills.

 

[washamericom]

We need to stop forcing carbon, in the form of CO2 and CO4 (methane) into the atmosphere....Carbon is the key and there is no alternative. The human race has to stop putting excess carbon into the atmosphere.

Statements like this are so insanely stupid it's actually tragic.

It's really bizarre that you fixate on carbon. Why carbon? What is it about carbon that bothers you so much? Let me give you an introductory chemistry lesson:

Carbon is not methane. Methane is not carbon. They are two entirely distinct substances. When you combine atoms of various elements into compounds, the result is a chemical change. What is produces is an entirely different substance. It is a 100% different substance, just like water is a different substance than hydrogen.

Fixating on one element in a compound is illogical. And in this case, it seems 100% arbitrary. Why fixate on carbon? Why not fixate on oxygen?

If we were to take a tally of the total amount of oxygen atoms in the atmosphere that are part of a greenhouse compound we would find that oxygen by far out numbers and out weights carbon among greenhouse contributing gases. There are twice as many oxygen atoms in carbon dioxide molecules. And there are four times as many oxygen atoms in methane molecules. There is no carbon in nitrous oxide, though approximately 35% of that is oxygen. Ozone is 100% oxygen. Not only that, but the single largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is water vapor, which accounts for some 70% of greenhouse effect IIRC, and oxygen accounts for 97% of the composition of water!

So, while it might make you feel good, or feel accomplished for coming up with an easy answer that doesn't involve having to think too hard, your fixation with carbon is entirely without merit.

You think on a 5th grade level. You don't know what the C is in CO2 and CH4. Its called 'carbon'. Tada!

There is no discussion or argument, the science was settled 15 years ago. I ignorant people like you who seem to want to argue with 10,000 PH.D's around the world and be taken seriously. You aren't. Go find a denier cult thread and peddle your nonsense there. Buh-bye.

There is no discussion or argument, the science was settled 15 years ago.


so are your saying the last fifteen years of study & expensive taxpayer funded research was unnecessary ? can we fix that ??

 

[leftwinger]

All i worry about is the Sun going out and Mexicans taking dumps in the Artichoke fields. Their ain't no GW Otis. Clean up China India air pollution if you want a job.

 

[Political Junky]

...and say their is no consensus...

typical stupid liberfool who does not know the differnce between "their" and " THERE!!

you need to start over in the second grade and learn English.

Hey, look! It's a grammar nazi! Cool, bro.

Who probably makes fun of education.

 

[washamericom]

All i worry about is the Sun going out and Mexicans taking dumps in the Artichoke fields. Their ain't no GW Otis. Clean up China India air pollution if you want a job.

if the sun burns out we won't need that wall.

 

[SwimExpert]

The denier cult springs into action on every thread on Global Warming.0

When you make statements like this, you lose all right to talk about science. You just want to believe. That's it. You can't be bothered to support your position. All you do is tell people that they're not allowed to think differently than you. You're the one who resembles a cult.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We want CO2 emissions to slow down so that climate change is limited in extent.

Yet none of you seem to embrace nuclear power

funny that

 

[washamericom]

this is amazing, it's a little dry, but tells the story well.



after listening to this, i still think it's a hoax. this is the most definitive thing i've heard yet.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The denier cult springs into action on every thread on Global Warming.0

When you make statements like this, you lose all right to talk about science. You just want to believe. That's it. You can't be bothered to support your position. All you do is tell people that they're not allowed to think differently than you. You're the one who resembles a cult.

Riiight. Go read every thread on this site about Global Warming, the denier cult says all the same things over and over and over. And all of it has been proven wrong. By scientists around the world.

YOU rely on your own opinion, I rely on the PH.D's in myriad scientific fields that have studied this and everything involved.

An equivalent would be if you had cancer, but you wanted to believe you didn't so you ignored your doctor and the opinion of 10,000 other doctors, because you 'know' better.

Your's is a cult of denial either because the reality is too scary, you simply carp what you hear on con media, or you are an active denier for he fossil fuel industry.

And please dimbledore, don't tell anyone they 'lose the right to...', you don't make the determination scrub.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Funding From Exxon or Koch Brothers Gave Deniers a Megaphone in Climate Change Debate

The people that make up the denier cult should be charged with crimes against humanity, and in the future they may very well be.

 

[mamooth]

Yet none of you seem to embrace nuclear power

Where did you get such an idea?

I've always been very pro-nuclear.

And as for others ...

Environmental scientists tout nuclear power to avert climate change - CNN.com

 

[mamooth]

No, you have shown me opinion and computer derived science fiction. You have never yet presented a single piece of empirical data. Not once. It is you who are living in the bubble silly boy. Do you even KNOW what empirical data means, or are you so ignorant of science and scientific methodology, that you truly don't know a thing about it?

That's delusional and ignorant at best, deliberately dishonest at worst.

Even if no computer models existed, global warming science would be proven. The stratospheric cooling, increasing backradiation and decreasing OLR in the GHG bands are all directly measured smoking guns that prove global warming theory. No "natural cycles" theory explains that data, hence all such theories are disproved.

Deniers don't seem to get how science works. The theory that successfully explains all the observed data and which successfully makes predictions becomes the accepted theory. Global warming theory is the only theory that successfully explains all of the observed data, and it has made consistently successful predictions for over 50 years now, hence it is the accepted theory. Deniers, they don't even have a theory. Some of them mumble about fraud, some of them mumble about natural cycles, but none of them come up with anything resembling actual science.