Carbon is not the culprit

[Rambunctious]

Carbon can be measured so it can be taxed and traded on wall street. This is why the politicians from all over the world are giving money to scientist that are trying to prove that man produced carbon is the culprit. Still to this day there is no smoking gun to prove that carbon increases are the cause of a warmer planet or just a byproduct of a warmer planet. After all what does water IE oceans release into the atmosphere when it warms? Answer=Carbon

 

[Old Rocks]

What is the cause of the oceans warming? By the way, we are not yet at the point that the oceans emit more than they absorb. When we hit the point that the oceans are emitting more CO2 than they absorbing, we will be in deep trouble, indeed.

The Carbon Cycle

 

[dilloduck]

What is the cause of the oceans warming? By the way, we are not yet at the point that the oceans emit more than they absorb. When we hit the point that the oceans are emitting more CO2 than they absorbing, we will be in deep trouble, indeed.

The Carbon Cycle

We are all going to die too. It's worse than you think.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, Duckydoo, and we should take our children and grandchildren with us.

 

[dilloduck]

Ah yes, Duckydoo, and we should take our children and grandchildren with us.

No----the human race---the whole thing. Dead.

 

[whitehall]

I think Al Gore lost his shirt (and the Nobel prize money?) in a scam designed to corner the market on mythical carbon credits. The market went bust and so did the global warming theory.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. As far as I know, Gore is still very wealthy. And completely irrelevant to the science. This is what is relevant;



The Carbon Cycle

The term “tipping point” commonly refers to a critical threshold at which a tiny perturbation can qualitatively alter the state or development of a system. Here we introduce the term “tipping element” to describe large-scale components of the Earth system that may pass a tipping point. We critically evaluate potential policy-relevant tipping elements in the climate system under anthropogenic forcing, drawing on the pertinent literature and a recent international workshop to compile a short list, and we assess where their tipping points lie. An expert elicitation is used to help rank their sensitivity to global warming and the uncertainty about the underlying physical mechanisms. Then we explain how, in principle, early warning systems could be established to detect the proximity of some tipping points.

 

[whitehall]

LOL. As far as I know, Gore is still very wealthy. And completely irrelevant to the science. This is what is relevant;



The Carbon Cycle

The term “tipping point” commonly refers to a critical threshold at which a tiny perturbation can qualitatively alter the state or development of a system. Here we introduce the term “tipping element” to describe large-scale components of the Earth system that may pass a tipping point. We critically evaluate potential policy-relevant tipping elements in the climate system under anthropogenic forcing, drawing on the pertinent literature and a recent international workshop to compile a short list, and we assess where their tipping points lie. An expert elicitation is used to help rank their sensitivity to global warming and the uncertainty about the underlying physical mechanisms. Then we explain how, in principle, early warning systems could be established to detect the proximity of some tipping points.

I had a tiny perturbation one time and I had it lanced.

 

[Mr. H.]

Too much perturbation will blind you.

 

[westwall]

Indeed it will!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL. As far as I know, Gore is still very wealthy. And completely irrelevant to the science. This is what is relevant;



The Carbon Cycle

The term “tipping point” commonly refers to a critical threshold at which a tiny perturbation can qualitatively alter the state or development of a system. Here we introduce the term “tipping element” to describe large-scale components of the Earth system that may pass a tipping point. We critically evaluate potential policy-relevant tipping elements in the climate system under anthropogenic forcing, drawing on the pertinent literature and a recent international workshop to compile a short list, and we assess where their tipping points lie. An expert elicitation is used to help rank their sensitivity to global warming and the uncertainty about the underlying physical mechanisms. Then we explain how, in principle, early warning systems could be established to detect the proximity of some tipping points.

And yet Science tells us that CO2 rising FOLLOWS warming, it does not precede it.

Perhaps you can explain why the estimated 1 degree increase in temps globally for the 100 years 1900 to 1999 ( estimated long before the claim of Global warming) was no big thing as compared to the actual rise during those years of a little over 1 degree? And the fact that since 1998 there has been no significant increase in global temperatures? After all if CO2 is causing it what happened from 1998 to present? Did CO2 not increase? If it did why no warming according to your professed theory?

 

[wirebender]

What is the cause of the oceans warming? By the way, we are not yet at the point that the oceans emit more than they absorb. When we hit the point that the oceans are emitting more CO2 than they absorbing, we will be in deep trouble, indeed.

The Carbon Cycle

There is only one energ source rocks, so there can be only one cause of the oceans warming. Take a guess.

 

[wirebender]

The term “tipping point” commonly refers to a critical threshold at which a tiny perturbation can qualitatively alter the state or development of a system.

Tell me rocks, what do you imagine that "tipping point" to be? How many ppm?

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. As far as I know, Gore is still very wealthy. And completely irrelevant to the science. This is what is relevant;



The Carbon Cycle

The term “tipping point” commonly refers to a critical threshold at which a tiny perturbation can qualitatively alter the state or development of a system. Here we introduce the term “tipping element” to describe large-scale components of the Earth system that may pass a tipping point. We critically evaluate potential policy-relevant tipping elements in the climate system under anthropogenic forcing, drawing on the pertinent literature and a recent international workshop to compile a short list, and we assess where their tipping points lie. An expert elicitation is used to help rank their sensitivity to global warming and the uncertainty about the underlying physical mechanisms. Then we explain how, in principle, early warning systems could be established to detect the proximity of some tipping points.

I had a tiny perturbation one time and I had it lanced.

That was your brain, I take it.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. As far as I know, Gore is still very wealthy. And completely irrelevant to the science. This is what is relevant;



The Carbon Cycle

The term “tipping point” commonly refers to a critical threshold at which a tiny perturbation can qualitatively alter the state or development of a system. Here we introduce the term “tipping element” to describe large-scale components of the Earth system that may pass a tipping point. We critically evaluate potential policy-relevant tipping elements in the climate system under anthropogenic forcing, drawing on the pertinent literature and a recent international workshop to compile a short list, and we assess where their tipping points lie. An expert elicitation is used to help rank their sensitivity to global warming and the uncertainty about the underlying physical mechanisms. Then we explain how, in principle, early warning systems could be established to detect the proximity of some tipping points.

And yet Science tells us that CO2 rising FOLLOWS warming, it does not precede it.

Only at the beginning of the upswing in the Milankovic Cycles. Perhaps if you would actually read what the scientists write, instead of political talking points, you would not come off as an ignoramous.

Perhaps you can explain why the estimated 1 degree increase in temps globally for the 100 years 1900 to 1999 ( estimated long before the claim of Global warming) was no big thing as compared to the actual rise during those years of a little over 1 degree? And the fact that since 1998 there has been no significant increase in global temperatures?

Perhaps you can explain why you are repeating such a baldfaced lie?

UAH Temperature Update for May, 2011: +0.13 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

After all if CO2 is causing it what happened from 1998 to present? Did CO2 not increase? If it did why no warming according to your professed theory?

CO2 has increased, the temperature has increased, the cryosphere worldwide has decreased, and the cost of the weather disasters have increased.

 

[westwall]

LOL. As far as I know, Gore is still very wealthy. And completely irrelevant to the science. This is what is relevant;



The Carbon Cycle

The term “tipping point” commonly refers to a critical threshold at which a tiny perturbation can qualitatively alter the state or development of a system. Here we introduce the term “tipping element” to describe large-scale components of the Earth system that may pass a tipping point. We critically evaluate potential policy-relevant tipping elements in the climate system under anthropogenic forcing, drawing on the pertinent literature and a recent international workshop to compile a short list, and we assess where their tipping points lie. An expert elicitation is used to help rank their sensitivity to global warming and the uncertainty about the underlying physical mechanisms. Then we explain how, in principle, early warning systems could be established to detect the proximity of some tipping points.

And yet Science tells us that CO2 rising FOLLOWS warming, it does not precede it.

Only at the beginning of the upswing in the Milankovic Cycles. Perhaps if you would actually read what the scientists write, instead of political talking points, you would not come off as an ignoramous.

Perhaps you can explain why the estimated 1 degree increase in temps globally for the 100 years 1900 to 1999 ( estimated long before the claim of Global warming) was no big thing as compared to the actual rise during those years of a little over 1 degree? And the fact that since 1998 there has been no significant increase in global temperatures?

Perhaps you can explain why you are repeating such a baldfaced lie?

UAH Temperature Update for May, 2011: +0.13 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

After all if CO2 is causing it what happened from 1998 to present? Did CO2 not increase? If it did why no warming according to your professed theory?

CO2 has increased, the temperature has increased, the cryosphere worldwide has decreased, and the cost of the weather disasters have increased.

CO2 has indeed risen, but faster than Hansen predicted. The temps however have not. He also predicted that right now parts of New York would be under water and there is no noticeable increase in ocean levels. It takes a very precise measurement to see a rise and in some cases the levels have actually dropped.

The cryosphere worldwide appears to be rebounding multi year old ice is very thick in the Arctic and increasing in extent, glaciers are advancing worldwide, and the cost of disasters has increased thanks to inflation. In the 1960's a nice house would set you back 10 grand, today that same house will set you back a cool quarter million or more depending on where you live. Nice try but as usual you let a little thing like fact elude you.

 

[flacaltenn]

To be fair OldRocks..

CO2 has increased, the temperature has increased, the cryosphere worldwide has decreased, and the cost of the weather disasters have increased.

The current counter argument of "NO rise" since 1998 IS false. It's a misreading of the good data presented in Huntsville. HOWEVER -- the .3 degree rise per decade per decade does show that the models are far from correct. And my larger issue is that as a scientist and engineer I'm APPALLED that such a complex question can be answered by a SINGLE number such as Avg Global Temperature. That on its face is troubling. Even with satellite monitoring, and without the bias from surface reporting, it ignores the significance of the weather pattern as a whole and the temporal issue of WHEN the temperature is observed. Surely, even satellite coverage doesn't begin to acheive a daily average in a sampling manner that is consistent with the magnitude of the effect we are trying to measure. It's more complex than ONE freakin' graph.

And don't drag in cost of disasters here. It also is incapable of measuring such small deviations with any accuracy approaching what is required..

 

[Rambunctious]

It's one thing when someone tells you the sky is falling, it's another thing when they tell you they need your money to stop it.

 

[RWatt]

To be fair OldRocks..

I'm APPALLED that such a complex question can be answered by a SINGLE number such as Avg Global Temperature.

It's used as an indicator of the extent of climate change. Considering we know roughly how much temperature of the Earth has changed in the past, it's useful to know how much it's changing today and to try and predict how much it will change in the future.

 

[Old Rocks]

And yet Science tells us that CO2 rising FOLLOWS warming, it does not precede it.

Only at the beginning of the upswing in the Milankovic Cycles. Perhaps if you would actually read what the scientists write, instead of political talking points, you would not come off as an ignoramous.

Perhaps you can explain why the estimated 1 degree increase in temps globally for the 100 years 1900 to 1999 ( estimated long before the claim of Global warming) was no big thing as compared to the actual rise during those years of a little over 1 degree? And the fact that since 1998 there has been no significant increase in global temperatures?

Perhaps you can explain why you are repeating such a baldfaced lie?

UAH Temperature Update for May, 2011: +0.13 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

After all if CO2 is causing it what happened from 1998 to present? Did CO2 not increase? If it did why no warming according to your professed theory?

CO2 has increased, the temperature has increased, the cryosphere worldwide has decreased, and the cost of the weather disasters have increased.

CO2 has indeed risen, but faster than Hansen predicted. The temps however have not. He also predicted that right now parts of New York would be under water and there is no noticeable increase in ocean levels. It takes a very precise measurement to see a rise and in some cases the levels have actually dropped.

The cryosphere worldwide appears to be rebounding multi year old ice is very thick in the Arctic

A really stupid lie. Link to a creidible scientific site that says this is so.

and increasing in extent, glaciers are advancing worldwide,

Again, a really stupid lie. USGS states just the opposite.

and the cost of disasters has increased thanks to inflation. In the 1960's a nice house would set you back 10 grand, today that same house will set you back a cool quarter million or more depending on where you live. Nice try but as usual you let a little thing like fact elude you.

The facts are your enemy, Walleyes.

http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson290511.pdf