****, you are really a dense little twit, aren't you?
I can't tell you how much it means to get that sort of comment from you. I really, really can't.
No one in their right mind, with any knowledge and understanding of the atmosphere and how it works, is arguing there isn't a greenhouse effect.
SSDD just told us that the Greenhouse Effect would require that the different planets have different physics. That sounds like a rejection to me. Are you suggesting that SSDD and WestWall have no knowledge or understanding of the atmosphere and how it works?
Without the greenhouse effect, we would all DIE! Do you not comprehend that? Your "argument" is not that there IS a greenhouse effect. Your "argument" is that man's contribution of CO2, is causing an amplification of the effect, resulting in global warming.
That is my position. That is also the position of 97% of the world's climate scientists. Radical, eh?
To a very small degree, you may be correct, but the results are so insignificant, it doesn't warrant concern. We may have increased the median global temperature by 1 degree in a century, if you attribute ALL the warming to man. This is completely insignificant, and will not cause catastrophic results. Even if every theory you've presented is true and valid, the results are not worth noting in comparison to what industrialization has done for mankind.
You say I may be right "to a very small degree", then concede to every facet of AGW I'd think of proposing. If you accept that human GHG emissions have raised the Earth's temperature roughly 1C over the last century or so, you've bought the whole kit and caboodle. You are forced to accept that it will continue to rise as humans continue to add GHGs to the atmosphere and those GHGs continue to accumulate thermal energy.
This whole entire AGW nonsense is a liberal socialists ploy to extort money from large corporations.
I'm sorry but that is complete nonsense.
This is why you have virtually NO viable "solution" to the problem, and yammer on and on about a "carbon offset" which is nothing but a shake down.
Pretend for a second that AGW is valid and tell us what viable solution presents itself to
your non-extorting, non-greedy, non-yammmering mind.
All you are after, is the profits and money from rich greedy
corporations, but you can't be honest about that.
By what route would money from those rich greedy corporations reach my wee little pocket? I'd really like to know. I'm not that well off and I've got bills.
You have to generate fear and alarmism, over a made up "crisis" that doesn't exist. It's been rebuked, and it's been rebutted, but you people just keep right on marching! You all need to be roundly dismissed for the frauds and fakes you are, and called out on your stupidity every time you open your traps.
You can keep the rebukes. No one cares. But rebuttals might make us wonder - had we actually seen any. You've already conceded to everything mainstream climate science currently claims: human GHG emissions have raised global temperatures about 1C. That you don't think that significant or a threat is just the product of some intellectual misprision.
************************************************************************
Abraham3 said:
If all that CO2 came from the oceans, why does it have the isotopic signature of fossil fuels?
What happened to all the CO2 that humans DID produce burning fossil fuels?
What you should do is shut the **** up.
Oh my GOD! You are just
precious! I couldn't dream up a better debating opponent if I tried.
All you have done is spew science like you know what the hell you're talking about.
Well, in this case, all I've "spewed" are two simple, fundamental questions. If you're having trouble answering them, perhaps you need to figure out why. As to whether or not I know what I'm talking about, I think a quick scoring of who is correcting whose mistakes might tell the tale.
The isotopic signature of every CO2 molecule has not been examined and found to be the result of man burning fossil fuel, idiot.
I really hope you weren't under the impression that was necessary. You've never taken a class in statistics or probability, have you. Why don't you look up "SAMPLING" and see what it tells you that you might apply here.
Why don't YOU answer your own question Mr. Science? What has happened to the tons and tons of CO2 man has produced through industrialization, it's obviously not still floating around in the atmosphere, or we'd all be dead.
It is present in the mix of the atmosphere, in oceanic solution and precipitate and incorporated into organic and inorganic solids. The proportion of CO2 in all sinks has increased. CO2 is constantly being emitted and absorbed by all these different domains. After all, the CO2 and other GHGs we emit were originally incorporated into petroleum and coal. We didn't mine it from the asteroids. And if it had been left there, it wouldn't hurt us one bit. But we burned great honking wads of the stuff which moved it from the earth to the air and allowed it to work its wee Greenhouse Magic.
Nor is the tons and tons of sulfur dioxide and volcanic ash produced by thousands of volcanoes over the years. What happens to it all? Do you believe every element and compound released into the atmosphere just stays there for all of eternity? Matter never changes?
Now I KNOW you're too smart to believe that volcanoes produce more GHGs then humans. But, as to your question: No, it doesn't stay there for all eternity. But are you under the impression that NONE of it stays in the atmosphere?
Lots of things happen to carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere, most of them are absorbed by plant life and the ocean, and yes... some dissipate into space, as you earlier laughed about, carried away by the solar winds, never to be seen or heard from again.
Regarding your dissipation into space: Gas molecules do leave the planet now and then, but CO2 has no special propensity to abandon molecules to the solar wind. Every other gas also leaves now and then. The process will have NO effect on the proportions of the various gases in the Earth's atmosphere. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is not - as you suggested - controlled by dissipation to space.
The proportion of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has risen from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. 120 ppm of it bears the isotopic signature of fossil fuels. The excess CO2 is anthropogenic, period.
For every million parts of atmosphere we have, three-hundred to four-hundred are carbon dioxide.
We actually have between 390 and 400 ppm.
That depends on your frame of reference. It means nothing to, say, a cow or a lizard, but it could mean everything to a plant and I'm led to understand that it means a fair bit to the world's climate scientists and those who take the radical position that the experts on our climate are the folks most likely to be correct.
there have been times on the planet where we've had MORE carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.
Not in
AT LEAST the last
800,000 years and very likely at no time since homo climbed down out of the trees.
Earth had endured much warmer and colder climates, and the ecosystem didn't collapse, the icecaps didn't all melt away, the convection currents in the ocean didn't cease to function, the polar bears survived.
The Earth
has endured all manner of changes. Modern human culture has not. And you said you like to read: why don't you read what happened to life on this planet during the major ice ages. There were massive die-offs. Extinctions. On occasions the icecaps DID all melt away and the major ocean currents have undergone major changes. And that is with climatic change taking place at a tiny fraction of the current rate of change. The Earth's climate cycles have not been benign - the universe could care less about life. But very little of that is pertinent. The human culture and our infrastructure has never before existed. At no time in the human history - and likely at any time since the KT Boundary Event, have hydrocarbons been burned at the rate at which we have burned them. What we are looking forward to is novel and unique. If looking backwards makes you feel better it's only because you're not looking at what's coming at you from the other direction.
Your whole shtick is talking down to people and trying to sound intelligent, but you are an abject idiot, who is promoting a sham and a lie.
I'd love to keep at this, but I'm starting to feel... soiled. No, just kidding. Look, I'm perfectly willing to teach you a little science, a little physics. But you need to be willing to learn and I'd appreciate it a great deal if you stopped calling me an idiot and a liar. I've got a tendency to take those personal. Y'know?
