Arguments con harmful global warming countered by pro harmful global warming

[Robert W]

You will witness both sides of man caused harmful global warming. Side A says Man is not at fault. Side B blames man.
Be that as it may, your challenge is to pick a side that you can defend and tell us your defense.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

You will witness both sides of man caused harmful global warming. Side A says Man is not at fault. Side B blames man.
Be that as it may, your challenge is to pick a side that you can defend and tell us your defense.

So what is it Globull Warming or Climate Change? That right there makes the whole argument fail....If Globull Warming was real, it would of stayed real and not have to morph into some other snake oil wording just because of the way weather doesnt work the same as the Globull Warming predictions were said to be.

 

[Cougarbear]

You will witness both sides of man caused harmful global warming. Side A says Man is not at fault. Side B blames man.
Be that as it may, your challenge is to pick a side that you can defend and tell us your defense.

So, It's obvious that Jeff is over his head. Craig knows what he's talking about and has the evidence with him. The use of Venus compared to Earth was stupid. The temperature change controls the CO2, not the other way around. Craig has the evidence and Jeff just has a former vice president who made hundreds of millions of dollars lying and so did the stupid former secretary of state.

 

[Crick]

You will witness both sides of man caused harmful global warming. Side A says Man is not at fault. Side B blames man.
Be that as it may, your challenge is to pick a side that you can defend and tell us your defense.

Robert, did you actually watch this video? Craig Idso affirms that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that its level in the atmosphere is increasing due to human emissions and that it is warming the planet. The only point under debate here is whether or not the current temperature increase is "dangerous". That is not the "both sides" you claim is being debated here. Both Idso and Bennett agree that man is responsible for the increased CO2 and that increased CO2 is the cause of the contemporary warming.

Do you have any comment Robert?

 

[ding]

Robert, did you actually watch this video? Craig Idso affirms that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that its level in the atmosphere is increasing due to human emissions and that it is warming the planet. The only point under debate here is whether or not the current temperature increase is "dangerous".

That's not entirely true. The debate is how much of the warming is due to 120 ppm of a weak GHG and how much is due to the planet naturally warming back up to its pre-glacial temperature.

 

[Crick]

That's not entirely true. The debate is how much of the warming is due to 120 ppm of a weak GHG and how much is due to the planet naturally warming back up to its pre-glacial temperature.

You're simply unteachable. Why do you continue to expect undefined terms to be satisfactory in such a conversation? What "natural warming"?

 

[ding]

You're simply unteachable. Why do you continue to expect undefined terms to be satisfactory in such a conversation? What "natural warming"?

The natural warming from a glacial period to an interglacial period that has been occurring regularly for 3 million years.

 

[Crick]

The natural warming from a glacial period to an interglacial period that has been occurring regularly for 3 million years.

View attachment 886533

So again, one thing is magically happening because something else is magically happening. That you are unable to produce a prime mover even after having been nabbed for it repeatedly should even convince YOU something is wrong with your ideas.

 

[ding]

So again, one thing is magically happening because something else is magically happening. That you are unable to produce a prime mover even after having been nabbed for it repeatedly should even convince YOU something is wrong with your ideas.

No magic necessary. Are you arguing glacial cycles didn't happen or that they happened magically? Because I am arguing it has to do with heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic and when that gets disrupted temperatures in the NH drop enough to trigger extensive NH continental glaciation.

1. The vast majority of the heat is in the ocean, not the atmosphere.
2. The NH is uniquely configured for extensive continental glaciation when heat flow gets disrupted to the Arctic.
3. It is well understood that the gulf stream makes the northern latitudes 2C warmer than it would be without it.

 

[Crick]

No magic necessary. Are you arguing glacial cycles didn't happen or that they happened magically? Because I am arguing it has to do with heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic and when that gets disrupted temperatures in the NH drop enough to trigger extensive NH continental glaciation.

1. The vast majority of the heat is in the ocean, not the atmosphere.
2. The NH is uniquely configured for extensive continental glaciation when heat flow gets disrupted to the Arctic.
3. It is well understood that the gulf stream makes the northern latitudes 2C warmer than it would be without it.

Despite your many attempts and despite the many times I have made this observation, you have yet to produce any mechanism that could cause glacial periods to come and glacial periods to go. You have no periodic forcing function. You consistently present things happening with no identified causation. Terms like "natural warming" are meaningless and you know it. But you continue to use such terms because you have nothing else.

 

[skookerasbil]

Robert, did you actually watch this video? Craig Idso affirms that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that its level in the atmosphere is increasing due to human emissions and that it is warming the planet. The only point under debate here is whether or not the current temperature increase is "dangerous". That is not the "both sides" you claim is being debated here. Both Idso and Bennett agree that man is responsible for the increased CO2 and that increased CO2 is the cause of the contemporary warming.

Do you have any comment Robert?

Dang......s0n, how many similar posts have you thrown up in this forum in the past 5 years? 20,000? To what end exactly?

Where is there any evidence your side is winning?

In the real world.....outside of internet community forums.....the AGW crowd continues to get its clock cleaned. Not debatable. Solar/wind still a joke on the energy landscape and many companies in the US bailing on wind.

Fossil fuels still dominate........its the only thing that matters Munch....munch.

 

[Crick]

Robert, did you actually watch this video? Craig Idso affirms that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that its level in the atmosphere is increasing due to human emissions and that it is warming the planet. The only point under debate here is whether or not the current temperature increase is "dangerous". That is not the "both sides" you claim is being debated here. Both Idso and Bennett agree that man is responsible for the increased CO2 and that increased CO2 is the cause of the contemporary warming.

Do you have any comment Robert?

Robert? Anything? This IS your thread.

 

[ding]

Despite your many attempts and despite the many times I have made this observation, you have yet to produce any mechanism that could cause glacial periods to come and glacial periods to go. You have no periodic forcing function. You consistently present things happening with no identified causation. Terms like "natural warming" are meaningless and you know it. But you continue to use such terms because you have nothing else.

I have. Many times.

Disruption of heat flow from the Atlantic to the Arctic due to decreased water salinity, decreased water density and changes to wind patterns due to changes in solar radiation.

Then a return of heat flow from the Atlantic to the Arctic due to increased water salinity, increased water density and changes to wind patterns due to changes in solar radiation.

 

[Crick]

I have. Many times.

Disruption of heat flow from the Atlantic to the Arctic due to decreased water salinity, decreased water density and changes to wind patterns due to changes in solar radiation.

WHAT changes in solar radiation?

Then a return of heat flow from the Atlantic to the Arctic due to increased water salinity, increased water density and changes to wind patterns due to changes in solar radiation.

WHAT changes in solar radiation?

I can suggest an answer but let's see yours first.

 

[ding]

WHAT changes in solar radiation?

Orbital forcing, solar output variation and solar flare frequency. These can have temperature impacts and impacts on wind patterns which affect ocean currents. Which affects heat distribution to the Arctic from the Atlantic (along with changes in salinity and density).

But that's not the only phenomenon at work. Feedback from glaciers receding is a component too. Just as it is in the glacial period when glaciation is spreading.

 

[Crick]

Orbital forcing, solar output variation and solar flare frequency. These can have temperature impacts and impacts on wind patterns which affect ocean currents. Which affects heat distribution to the Arctic from the Atlantic (along with changes in salinity and density).

But that's not the only phenomenon at work. Feedback from glaciers receding is a component too. Just as it is in the glacial period when glaciation is spreading.

Milankovitch. Got it.

 

[Foxfyre]

You will witness both sides of man caused harmful global warming. Side A says Man is not at fault. Side B blames man.
Be that as it may, your challenge is to pick a side that you can defend and tell us your defense.

Without carbon dioxide, most life as we know it on this planet ends. It is essential to life.

Too much carbon dioxide is poisonous just as too much Vitamin A or too much Vitamin D is poisonous or too much of most life saving medications are poisonous.

Around volcanic activity, CO2 can be concentrated enough to kill trees and wildlife. But this is extremely localized in the grand scheme of things.

At the rate carbon dioxide has been increasing in our atmosphere, it will take millions of years before it becomes concentrated enough to be any kind of problem to flora and fauna on Planet Earth.

 

[Robert W]

Without carbon dioxide, most life as we know it on this planet ends. It is essential to life.

Too much carbon dioxide is poisonous just as too much Vitamin A or too much Vitamin D is poisonous or too much of most life saving medications are poisonous.

Around volcanic activity, CO2 can be concentrated enough to kill trees and wildlife. But this is extremely localized in the grand scheme of things.

At the rate carbon dioxide has been increasing in our atmosphere, it will take millions of years before it becomes concentrated enough to be any kind of problem to flora and fauna on Planet Earth.

Normally during Climate discussions, one encounters the Mauna Loa claim as to amount of CO2. Well hell, it sits on the same island as does 2 active volcanos.

Without carbon dioxide, most life as we know it on this planet ends. It is essential to life.

Too much carbon dioxide is poisonous just as too much Vitamin A or too much Vitamin D is poisonous or too much of most life saving medications are poisonous.

Around volcanic activity, CO2 can be concentrated enough to kill trees and wildlife. But this is extremely localized in the grand scheme of things.

At the rate carbon dioxide has been increasing in our atmosphere, it will take millions of years before it becomes concentrated enough to be any kind of problem to flora and fauna on Planet Earth.

Carbon Dioxide is Earths most important gas.

 

[Robert W]

So, It's obvious that Jeff is over his head. Craig knows what he's talking about and has the evidence with him. The use of Venus compared to Earth was stupid. The temperature change controls the CO2, not the other way around. Craig has the evidence and Jeff just has a former vice president who made hundreds of millions of dollars lying and so did the stupid former secretary of state.

Thanks for your ill informed opinion.

 

[Cougarbear]

Thanks for your ill informed opinion.

It’s all true. Just the facts. Temperatures go up first, not the other way around