Climate change deniers explained

[flacaltenn]

Nah I know you're averse to learning or fact as you are a conservative. I knew you wouldn't want to read the facts.

We know global warming is from man-made sources because the carbon isotope content of naturally occurring CO2 is different than the carbon isotope content of CO2 from burned fossil fuels.

You people that try to carry this childish 'hoax' idea have really run up against a wall. The U.S. military has ALREADY started preparing for the effects of Global Warming. Who here do you think is going to take your jibberish on a message board over the U.S. military.

I mean give it up. You are scared children. Go hide, we'll protect you.

But stop with your mindless tantrums and outright lies.

Generally accepted by most all skeptics and warmers alike that a doubling of CO2 in the atmos will give you about 1degC. We are not even at the first doubling since the Industrial Revolution,.

But that's not what YOUR theory says.. It says that CO2 is only the TRIGGER event for magical multipliers that will create a tipping at a 2degC warming. At which point the planet commits irreversible suicide. Hey dude -- EVEN YOUR THEORY doesn't state that man-made CO2 will be the prime factor in a 4 or 8 degC rise. It's all invented "Climate Sensitivity" Numbers that vary from 1 to 5..

If the earth's climate was prone to destroying itself on the basis of 2 degC changes -- we wouldn't be here calling me names..

 

[flacaltenn]

As for your carbon isotope fingerprints --- the markers are well overlapped and hard to quantify. And the BULK of the 300Gtons of CO2 that the OCEAN emits every year isn't some type of young punk carbon that just flew out of an SUV. It's got some monstrous age to it as well..

 

[Crick]

The first one deals specifically with the oceanic uptake of CO2 as levels of fossil-fuel-originated CO2 in the atmosphere have risen.

Oceanic Uptake of Fossil Fuel CO2 Carbon-13 Evidence

Isotopic characterisation of anthropogenic CO2 emissions using isotopic and radiocarbon analysis

What sources do you have that say different FCT

 

[IanC]

a while back crick scoffed at me when I said the climate science head honchos were telling people that CO2 was the climate control knob.

here is the NASA GISS version of the Science paper. NASA GISS CO sub 2 sub The Thermostat that Controls Earth s Temperature . "
CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth's Temperature"
anyone who is actually interested should probably google Pielke, Sr on the subject, to get the lukewarmer's side.

 

[Crick]

And I still scoff. My response at the time - as is borne out by this paper - was that no one had claimed CO2 affected anything in the climate but temperature (ocean pH is not a climate parameter). You wanted to argue that it did not control the Earth's climate. Well, have fun.

 

[Wyatt earp]

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

There you have it, Mr. Bear.

The link you posted didn't answer my question, tell me what percentage of the 402 ppm is man made?? What instruments do they use to divide natural C02 and man made? Since according to the poster Newton its so easy to distinguish

 

[Old Rocks]

Nah I know you're averse to learning or fact as you are a conservative. I knew you wouldn't want to read the facts.

We know global warming is from man-made sources because the carbon isotope content of naturally occurring CO2 is different than the carbon isotope content of CO2 from burned fossil fuels.

You people that try to carry this childish 'hoax' idea have really run up against a wall. The U.S. military has ALREADY started preparing for the effects of Global Warming. Who here do you think is going to take your jibberish on a message board over the U.S. military.

I mean give it up. You are scared children. Go hide, we'll protect you.

But stop with your mindless tantrums and outright lies.

Generally accepted by most all skeptics and warmers alike that a doubling of CO2 in the atmos will give you about 1degC. We are not even at the first doubling since the Industrial Revolution,.

But that's not what YOUR theory says.. It says that CO2 is only the TRIGGER event for magical multipliers that will create a tipping at a 2degC warming. At which point the planet commits irreversible suicide. Hey dude -- EVEN YOUR THEORY doesn't state that man-made CO2 will be the prime factor in a 4 or 8 degC rise. It's all invented "Climate Sensitivity" Numbers that vary from 1 to 5..

If the earth's climate was prone to destroying itself on the basis of 2 degC changes -- we wouldn't be here calling me names..

Mr. Flacaltenn, it most certainly is not generally accepted that 1 C will be the result of a doubling of the CO2. In fact, the more accepted value is 2 to 4.5 C.

How Much Will The Planet Warm If We Double CO2 - Dan s Wild Wild Science Journal - AGU Blogosphere


Climate sensitivity is an important and often poorly understood concept. Put simply, it is usually defined as the amount of global surface warming that will occur when atmospheric CO2 concentrations double. These estimates have proven remarkably stable over time, generally falling in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C per doubling of CO2.* Using its established terminology, IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report slightly narrowed this range, arguing that climate sensitivity was “likely” between 2 C to 4.5 C, and that it was “very likely” more than 1.5 C.

The wide range of estimates of climate sensitivity is attributable to uncertainties about the magnitude of climate feedbacks (e.g., water vapor, clouds, and albedo). Those estimates also reflect uncertainties involving changes in temperature and forcing in the distant past. But based on the radiative properties, there is broad agreement that, all things being equal, a doubling of CO2 will yield a temperature increase of a bit more than 1 C if feedbacks are ignored. However, it is known from estimates of past climate changes and from atmospheric physics-based models that Earth’s climate is more sensitive than that. A prime example: Small perturbations in orbital forcings resulting in vast ice ages could not have occurred without strong feedbacks.

Water Vapor: Major GHG and Major Feedback
Water vapor is responsible for the major feedback, increasing sensitivity from 1 C to somewhere between 2 and 4.5 C. Water vapor is itself a powerful greenhouse gas, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is in part determined by the temperature of the air. As the world warms, the absolute amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will increase and therefore so too will the greenhouse effect.

That increased atmospheric water vapor will also affect cloud cover, though impacts of changes in cloud cover on climate sensitivity are much more uncertain. What is clear is that a warming world will also be a world with less ice and snow cover. With less ice and snow reflecting the Sun’s rays, melting will decrease Earth’s albedo, with a predictable impact: more warming.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nah I know you're averse to learning or fact as you are a conservative. I knew you wouldn't want to read the facts.

We know global warming is from man-made sources because the carbon isotope content of naturally occurring CO2 is different than the carbon isotope content of CO2 from burned fossil fuels.

You people that try to carry this childish 'hoax' idea have really run up against a wall. The U.S. military has ALREADY started preparing for the effects of Global Warming. Who here do you think is going to take your jibberish on a message board over the U.S. military.

I mean give it up. You are scared children. Go hide, we'll protect you.

But stop with your mindless tantrums and outright lies.

Generally accepted by most all skeptics and warmers alike that a doubling of CO2 in the atmos will give you about 1degC. We are not even at the first doubling since the Industrial Revolution,.

But that's not what YOUR theory says.. It says that CO2 is only the TRIGGER event for magical multipliers that will create a tipping at a 2degC warming. At which point the planet commits irreversible suicide. Hey dude -- EVEN YOUR THEORY doesn't state that man-made CO2 will be the prime factor in a 4 or 8 degC rise. It's all invented "Climate Sensitivity" Numbers that vary from 1 to 5..

If the earth's climate was prone to destroying itself on the basis of 2 degC changes -- we wouldn't be here calling me names..

Mr. Flacaltenn, it most certainly is not generally accepted that 1 C will be the result of a doubling of the CO2. In fact, the more accepted value is 2 to 4.5 C.

How Much Will The Planet Warm If We Double CO2 - Dan s Wild Wild Science Journal - AGU Blogosphere


Climate sensitivity is an important and often poorly understood concept. Put simply, it is usually defined as the amount of global surface warming that will occur when atmospheric CO2 concentrations double. These estimates have proven remarkably stable over time, generally falling in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C per doubling of CO2.* Using its established terminology, IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report slightly narrowed this range, arguing that climate sensitivity was “likely” between 2 C to 4.5 C, and that it was “very likely” more than 1.5 C.

The wide range of estimates of climate sensitivity is attributable to uncertainties about the magnitude of climate feedbacks (e.g., water vapor, clouds, and albedo). Those estimates also reflect uncertainties involving changes in temperature and forcing in the distant past. But based on the radiative properties, there is broad agreement that, all things being equal, a doubling of CO2 will yield a temperature increase of a bit more than 1 C if feedbacks are ignored. However, it is known from estimates of past climate changes and from atmospheric physics-based models that Earth’s climate is more sensitive than that. A prime example: Small perturbations in orbital forcings resulting in vast ice ages could not have occurred without strong feedbacks.

Water Vapor: Major GHG and Major Feedback
Water vapor is responsible for the major feedback, increasing sensitivity from 1 C to somewhere between 2 and 4.5 C. Water vapor is itself a powerful greenhouse gas, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is in part determined by the temperature of the air. As the world warms, the absolute amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will increase and therefore so too will the greenhouse effect.

That increased atmospheric water vapor will also affect cloud cover, though impacts of changes in cloud cover on climate sensitivity are much more uncertain. What is clear is that a warming world will also be a world with less ice and snow cover. With less ice and snow reflecting the Sun’s rays, melting will decrease Earth’s albedo, with a predictable impact: more warming.

You completely miss the statement that I made.. Perhaps you don't understand GWarming theory as well as you think you do.

Those ancient studies you repeatedly post from the 1860s were speaking of the warming power of CO2 BY ITSELF in causing an immediate (decadal time scale) temperature rise at the surface. I have REPEATEDLY posted from several Atmospheric Physics textbook with the actual math exercise for calculating the CO2 ONLY temperature rise. This has nothing really to do with manufactured theories about LONGER TERM "climate sensitivity" effects due to different temperature triggers that might occur..

If you are genuinely interested in the UNIVERSAL acceptance of the ACTUAL warming power of CO2 (minus the hysteria and the contested magic multipliers that give you those scary larger numbers) tell me and I;'ll repost..

CO2 by itself is merely the trigger to your theory. We (man) will not ever manufacture CO2 in any type of quantity to DIRECTLY cause a 4 to 8degC rise at the surface.. Starting with the logarithmic nature of the warming power of CO2. It's superpowers are already quite saturated at 400ppm. NEXT doubling will require TWICE as much CO2. Roughly 1120ppm from the pre-industrial levels. WHEN do you suppose that will be? At the ACTUAL rates that we are pumping out or continue to pummp out...

THERE is where I'm a skeptic.

 

[Yarddog]

Climate change isn't only happening, but we're beyond the point-of-no-return and doomed. the deniers know this. But if they don't oppose CG enough to allow 'reasonable doubt' people would panic, work less, and only speed up our demise.

Just a theory. Stay calm.

Were not doomed, the continent of Antartica and what is known as Greenland will become Lush garden paradise and The survivors of humanity will thank us. The world will survive. The rains will come back to Austrailia when the weather patterns change , and it will also become a lush garden paradise as a matter of fact, the more it rains in Australia , the more the sea level drops. The earth has a way of finding balance. Eventually it will recycle us all

 

[Crick]

I think the point is we'd rather it didn't.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Nah I know you're averse to learning or fact as you are a conservative. I knew you wouldn't want to read the facts.

We know global warming is from man-made sources because the carbon isotope content of naturally occurring CO2 is different than the carbon isotope content of CO2 from burned fossil fuels.

You people that try to carry this childish 'hoax' idea have really run up against a wall. The U.S. military has ALREADY started preparing for the effects of Global Warming. Who here do you think is going to take your jibberish on a message board over the U.S. military.

I mean give it up. You are scared children. Go hide, we'll protect you.

But stop with your mindless tantrums and outright lies.

Generally accepted by most all skeptics and warmers alike that a doubling of CO2 in the atmos will give you about 1degC. We are not even at the first doubling since the Industrial Revolution,.

But that's not what YOUR theory says.. It says that CO2 is only the TRIGGER event for magical multipliers that will create a tipping at a 2degC warming. At which point the planet commits irreversible suicide. Hey dude -- EVEN YOUR THEORY doesn't state that man-made CO2 will be the prime factor in a 4 or 8 degC rise. It's all invented "Climate Sensitivity" Numbers that vary from 1 to 5..

If the earth's climate was prone to destroying itself on the basis of 2 degC changes -- we wouldn't be here calling me names..

the black line is models, the red line is reality. Above 400ppm it is esentialy a flat line in rate of warming that can be casued by CO2.

The climate sensitively numbers are half (0.46 Degrees C per doubling in earths atmosphere) the touted 1 deg C per doubling, showing that other items in our atmosphere are acting negatively, not positively. Exactly the opposite of all IPCC and NOAA models, which is most likely the source of their 100% failure to predict anything.