Climate Change - on Mars

[Damaged Eagle]

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

"What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. "

So what? Terrible denier talking point, laughed at by scientists. What matters is what adding carbon to the carbon cycle does to the climate. And nature can't keep up (as in, "re-fix" it) with the speed at which we are adding it, meaning we will create a driver which warms the climate and acidifies the oceans. These are settled facts. Those numbers are only "small" if you don't know what you are talking about, and you certainly do not.

It's a cycle dumbass. Nature doesn't PREFER to increase the CO2 in the atmos with just MAN's contributions. And we know that temperature drives CO2 as well as vici versi. There are NATURAL yearly emissions of CO2 that are virtually indistinguishable from Man's contributions. So it's NOT as documented and proven as your Clift Notes version that you picked up from your political journals.

"It's a cycle dumbass."

Yet, the scientists that taught you and everyone else about those cycles .... the very scientists who discovered them, described them, named then, delineated them, dedicated their entire lives to learning about them ... they are sounding the alarms about climate change. your implication that they are all somehow ignorant of their own discoveries is bizarre, and you should be laughed out of any serious company. Unless you are explicitly calling them all liars, in which case you should just be insulted out of any serious company.

Still have yet to see you actually discuss any of the science. Seems you prefer to throw shit balls..

COrrect, I will not be litigating the truth of scientific theories with know-nothing hacks on message boards. If you wanted to debate the science, you would be publishing science and speaking at universities and scientific society conventions. You would get laughed out of any of those venues in a matter of minutes. Unless, of course, you decided to really "show your ass" and call them all "liars"... then you would be insulted out of those venues.

Why? Because your major was in creative writing?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Old Rocks]

But again, there's a difference between climate change and MAN MADE climate change.

The biggest problem is we CAN'T control the climate.

Yes we can.
It's called living in a cave.

Living in a cave doesn't control the climate, sorry. You might be able to control the climate in the cave, but not the climate of the world.

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

Of course we can, in some ways. For instance, we can take fixed carbon out of the ground and add it to the climatic carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse effect and acidifying the oceans.

Knock yourself out.
Tell me how everything turned out.
Oh and let me know when you get to the point you can snap your fingers and it starts raining on cue.

Let me know when you can snap your fingers and have a logical thought. We have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to over 400+, raised the CH4 from about 780 ppb to 1800+ ppb. We are currently changing the climate, and the nature of extreme weather events. 56 inches of rain in Houston in six days. Extreme precipitation events are becoming common now.

 

[Old Rocks]

But again, there's a difference between climate change and MAN MADE climate change.

The biggest problem is we CAN'T control the climate.

Yes we can.
It's called living in a cave.

Living in a cave doesn't control the climate, sorry. You might be able to control the climate in the cave, but not the climate of the world.

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

Of course we can, in some ways. For instance, we can take fixed carbon out of the ground and add it to the climatic carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse effect and acidifying the oceans.

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

Mr. Flacaltenn, you are beginning to sound like Mr. Westwall. That is not a compliment. We have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm. Increased the CH4 from 780 ppb to 1800+ ppb. Where are those sinks you speak of? The last time the GHG's were any where near this level, the only ice was in Antarctica, and that was mountain glaciers, not a continental icecap. The present affects that we are feeling are from the GHG levels of about 30 to 50 years ago. So, no matter what we do right now, there are affects in the pipeline that we are going to have to deal with because of our present levels. And people like you are going to try to prevent any measures from being taken to alleviate those effects. And your efforts are going to cost this nation lives and property.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. "

So what? Terrible denier talking point, laughed at by scientists. What matters is what adding carbon to the carbon cycle does to the climate. And nature can't keep up (as in, "re-fix" it) with the speed at which we are adding it, meaning we will create a driver which warms the climate and acidifies the oceans. These are settled facts. Those numbers are only "small" if you don't know what you are talking about, and you certainly do not.

It's a cycle dumbass. Nature doesn't PREFER to increase the CO2 in the atmos with just MAN's contributions. And we know that temperature drives CO2 as well as vici versi. There are NATURAL yearly emissions of CO2 that are virtually indistinguishable from Man's contributions. So it's NOT as documented and proven as your Clift Notes version that you picked up from your political journals.

"It's a cycle dumbass."

Yet, the scientists that taught you and everyone else about those cycles .... the very scientists who discovered them, described them, named then, delineated them, dedicated their entire lives to learning about them ... they are sounding the alarms about climate change. your implication that they are all somehow ignorant of their own discoveries is bizarre, and you should be laughed out of any serious company. Unless you are explicitly calling them all liars, in which case you should just be insulted out of any serious company.

Still have yet to see you actually discuss any of the science. Seems you prefer to throw shit balls..

COrrect, I will not be litigating the truth of scientific theories with know-nothing hacks on message boards. If you wanted to debate the science, you would be publishing science and speaking at universities and scientific society conventions. You would get laughed out of any of those venues in a matter of minutes. Unless, of course, you decided to really "show your ass" and call them all "liars"... then you would be insulted out of those venues.

Why? Because your major was in creative writing?

*****CHUCKLE*****

"Creative writing"... which is what we typically see you call science. So not really offended over here

 

[Old Rocks]

Living in a cave doesn't control the climate, sorry. You might be able to control the climate in the cave, but not the climate of the world.

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

Of course we can, in some ways. For instance, we can take fixed carbon out of the ground and add it to the climatic carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse effect and acidifying the oceans.

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

"What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. "

So what? Terrible denier talking point, laughed at by scientists. What matters is what adding carbon to the carbon cycle does to the climate. And nature can't keep up (as in, "re-fix" it) with the speed at which we are adding it, meaning we will create a driver which warms the climate and acidifies the oceans. These are settled facts. Those numbers are only "small" if you don't know what you are talking about, and you certainly do not.

It's a cycle dumbass. Nature doesn't PREFER to increase the CO2 in the atmos with just MAN's contributions. And we know that temperature drives CO2 as well as vici versi. There are NATURAL yearly emissions of CO2 that are virtually indistinguishable from Man's contributions. So it's NOT as documented and proven as your Clift Notes version that you picked up from your political journals.

Crap. Mr. Flacaltenn, you never used to lie. Why the change? Yes, the CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is isotopically distinquishable from the natural cyclic CO2.

Natural and human-made CO2 differentiation possible thanks to new monitoring technique

Carbon-14

An important difference between CO2 from natural sources and CO2 from fossil fuels is the age of the carbon it contains. Younger natural sources of CO2 are relatively rich in carbon-14. But since carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5,700 years, it can’t be found in fossil fuels that are millions of years old.

Using this difference, the research team could easily differentiate between natural CO2 emissions and anthropogenic ones. They also measured 22 other atmospheric gasses tied to human activities. The emission source of these gasses could be estimated by using the same ratio as that of fossil fuel and natural originated atmospheric CO2.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

It's a cycle dumbass. Nature doesn't PREFER to increase the CO2 in the atmos with just MAN's contributions. And we know that temperature drives CO2 as well as vici versi. There are NATURAL yearly emissions of CO2 that are virtually indistinguishable from Man's contributions. So it's NOT as documented and proven as your Clift Notes version that you picked up from your political journals.

"It's a cycle dumbass."

Yet, the scientists that taught you and everyone else about those cycles .... the very scientists who discovered them, described them, named then, delineated them, dedicated their entire lives to learning about them ... they are sounding the alarms about climate change. your implication that they are all somehow ignorant of their own discoveries is bizarre, and you should be laughed out of any serious company. Unless you are explicitly calling them all liars, in which case you should just be insulted out of any serious company.

Still have yet to see you actually discuss any of the science. Seems you prefer to throw shit balls..

COrrect, I will not be litigating the truth of scientific theories with know-nothing hacks on message boards. If you wanted to debate the science, you would be publishing science and speaking at universities and scientific society conventions. You would get laughed out of any of those venues in a matter of minutes. Unless, of course, you decided to really "show your ass" and call them all "liars"... then you would be insulted out of those venues.

Why? Because your major was in creative writing?

*****CHUCKLE*****

"Creative writing"... which is what we typically see you call science. So not really offended over here

I call science sticking to the truth when observing the data and throwing out theories when the data does not fit the model.

Unlike a consensus that's in it for the money (grants) by changing the data to fit the theoretical model because of the political agenda.

I don't recall you providing any mathematical equations or scientific observations while I on the other hand have so I would say that your calling what I've provided creative writing is simply another troll post on your part. I'll bet that if I looked at all the posts you've posted this month (approximately 1339 so far this month isn't it?) that over 90% of them fall into that category also.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[mudwhistle]

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

Of course we can, in some ways. For instance, we can take fixed carbon out of the ground and add it to the climatic carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse effect and acidifying the oceans.

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

"What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. "

So what? Terrible denier talking point, laughed at by scientists. What matters is what adding carbon to the carbon cycle does to the climate. And nature can't keep up (as in, "re-fix" it) with the speed at which we are adding it, meaning we will create a driver which warms the climate and acidifies the oceans. These are settled facts. Those numbers are only "small" if you don't know what you are talking about, and you certainly do not.

It's a cycle dumbass. Nature doesn't PREFER to increase the CO2 in the atmos with just MAN's contributions. And we know that temperature drives CO2 as well as vici versi. There are NATURAL yearly emissions of CO2 that are virtually indistinguishable from Man's contributions. So it's NOT as documented and proven as your Clift Notes version that you picked up from your political journals.

Crap. Mr. Flacaltenn, you never used to lie. Why the change? Yes, the CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is isotopically distinquishable from the natural cyclic CO2.

Natural and human-made CO2 differentiation possible thanks to new monitoring technique

Carbon-14

An important difference between CO2 from natural sources and CO2 from fossil fuels is the age of the carbon it contains. Younger natural sources of CO2 are relatively rich in carbon-14. But since carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5,700 years, it can’t be found in fossil fuels that are millions of years old.

Using this difference, the research team could easily differentiate between natural CO2 emissions and anthropogenic ones. They also measured 22 other atmospheric gasses tied to human activities. The emission source of these gasses could be estimated by using the same ratio as that of fossil fuel and natural originated atmospheric CO2.

Oh.....so now you're claiming the Earth gives off only new carbon-14 and man gives off the old stuff?

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes we can.
It's called living in a cave.

Living in a cave doesn't control the climate, sorry. You might be able to control the climate in the cave, but not the climate of the world.

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

Of course we can, in some ways. For instance, we can take fixed carbon out of the ground and add it to the climatic carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse effect and acidifying the oceans.

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

Mr. Flacaltenn, you are beginning to sound like Mr. Westwall. That is not a compliment. We have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm. Increased the CH4 from 780 ppb to 1800+ ppb. Where are those sinks you speak of? The last time the GHG's were any where near this level, the only ice was in Antarctica, and that was mountain glaciers, not a continental icecap. The present affects that we are feeling are from the GHG levels of about 30 to 50 years ago. So, no matter what we do right now, there are affects in the pipeline that we are going to have to deal with because of our present levels. And people like you are going to try to prevent any measures from being taken to alleviate those effects. And your efforts are going to cost this nation lives and property.

Good thing Sun Spot activity is much lower now than say back in the 90s.

 

[alang1216]

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

So if you don't know how to do something then it can't be done? Right.

Is that a serious question?

No it was rhetorical.

 

[alang1216]

Yes, but the climate is so complex we can't even predict what it'll do. Let alone knowing that what action we take will have this consequence. We can send spacecraft to other planets and figure out what's going to happen to their trajectories, we can work out where comets will be in 10,000 years time, and we can't work out where a Hurricane is going to go.

On the contrary, we are pretty good at tracking hurricanes and predicting their paths. Not an exact science but improved greatly in my lifetime. We weren't always able to track comets but we learned.

 

[jon_berzerk]

--LOL

what an idiot like any of the models have had any accuracy

--LOL

like i said before

you have absolutely no proof dim wit

--LOL

Ok pal, you argue with the scientists like you rwnj's always do.

Scientists at the University of East Anglia have made their best estimate for how much longer the Earth will be habitable for human life, barring nuclear war, rogue asteroids, or being destroyed to make room for a hyperspace bypass. Fortunately, you don't need to put your affairs in order any time soon. The researchers estimate that the Earth will remain habitable for another 1.75 to 3.25 billion years.

Their research, which has been published in the journal Astrobiology, is part of the bigger project of looking for life outside of our own solar system. Over the past few years, astronomers have discovered a number of planets that exist within the habitable zones of their stars - meaning that their orbits place them not too far, but not too close, so that temperatures on the surface are just right for life to develop.

But with so many planets in potentially habitable zones, there has to be some priority in trying to determine which planets are most likely to contain life and are therefore more worth devoting additional resources to observing. That's where this research comes in.

Since life took hundreds of millions of years to evolve on Earth, the researchers reason that the best candidates for observation are those with the longest habitable zone lifetimes.


The researchers then studied 34 planets, including Earth, that are thought to exist within the habitable zones of their stars. They then used observations of their orbits and their stars' to arrive at estimates of each planets habitable zone lifetime. There is an astounding range of possibilities - ranging "from significantly less than that of Earth to over five times Earth's HZ lifetime," they wrote.

See, if it were up to you we wouldn't even do this research and we would never learn anything. Just like the Martians.

Scientists Estimate How Much Longer The Earth Can Support Life

so far all models have been proven wrong

why would this one be any different

making a model is not research

it is guess work at best

What a fucked up liar you are, jon. Prior to 2000 all your assholes were saying there was no global warming. With 1998, they had to change their lies. Then they said, yes, there is global warming, but it is all natural. But none of you could name a single natural cause for the warming. In 1981, Dr. Hansen predicted the Northwest Passage would open up by the end of the 21st Century. But it opened up in 2007, and in 2016 a 1000 passenger luxury liner transited the Passage.

fuck you shit for brains

there is no man made global warming you retard

all the models had been faked

all the data fudged

LOL What a silly person you are. I have walked some of the glaciers in the Cascades and the Rockies. I have seen, up close and personal, how fast they are melting. The scientists that have measured that regression confirm what I have observed. You yap on like a person that has had zero education on this issue. Do you understand what the absorption spectra tell us about GHG's? I doubt that you even know what an absorption spectra is.

i dont believe a word you say shit for brains

you have proved over and over again that you are a idiot

 

[jon_berzerk]

On the contrary, I'm saying that we could bring man's carbon footprint to zero and the climate will still change. We need to stop trashing the planet. We need to mitigate any climate change effects (levees, sea walls, etc.). We need to be able to control the climate so it stays approximately where it is now. Any change, even a minor one, would be catastrophic.

But again, there's a difference between climate change and MAN MADE climate change.

The biggest problem is we CAN'T control the climate.

Yes we can.
It's called living in a cave.

Living in a cave doesn't control the climate, sorry. You might be able to control the climate in the cave, but not the climate of the world.

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

You are the fucking idiot. We have already had a profound effect on the climate. And that will increase, even in the near term future.

--LOL

sure pal

--LOL

retard

 

[Votto]

How can that be? - There's no humans on Mars to jack up the temperatures...

Scientists find evidence of global warming on Mars
Tuesday, May 31, 2016 - Earth isn’t the only planet grappling with climate change, although this other orb doesn’t have much in the way of fossil fuel emissions or a 97 percent of scientific “consensus” on global warming. Newly published evidence suggests Mars is experiencing global warming as it emerges from an ice age.

The red planet, which moved closer to the Earth on Monday than at any other time since 2005, has retreated from a glacial period that would have covered large areas in white before the thaw about 370,000 years ago, according to a study published Friday in the journal Science. The research was conducted using an instrument on board the NASA Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter that allowed an unprecedented examination of “the most recent Martian ice age recorded in the planet’s north polar ice cap,” according to a NASA press release. Research was led by planetary scientist Isaac B. Smith at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado. “We found an accelerated accumulation rate of ice in the uppermost 100 to 300 meters of the polar cap,” Mr. Smith said in a statement on the SRI website. “The volume and thickness of ice matches model predictions from the early 2000s. Radar observations of the ice cap provide a detailed history of ice accumulation and erosion associated with climate change.”

Mars experiences seasons as does the Earth, resulting in the advance and retreat of carbon dioxide ice and snow over the poles during the Martian year. But the red planet also undergoes larger variations over thousands of years that result in “substantial shifts in the planet’s climate, including ice ages,” said the NASA Mars Exploration statement. NASAattributed the changes to the planet’s orbit and significant tilt. “Earth has similar, but less variable, phases called Milankovitch cycles,” said NASA. “On Earth, ice ages take hold when the polar regions and high latitudes become cooler than average for thousands of years, causing glaciers to grow toward the mid-latitudes,” said NASA. “In contrast, the Martian variety occurs when — as a result of the planet’s increased tilt — its poles become warmer than lower latitudes.” Water vapor moves toward the planet’s equator and forms ice and glaciers at mid-latitudes, said NASA. “As the warm polar period ends, polar ice begins accumulating again, while ice is lost from mid-latitudes. This retreat and regrowth of polar ice is exactly what Smith and colleagues see in the record revealed by the [Shallow Subsurface Radar] images,” said NASA.

This May 12, 2016, file image provided by NASA shows the planet Mars.​

While models have predicted the occurrence of ice ages on Mars, “evidence has been scant,” Science said in its description of the study, “An Ice Age Recorded in the Polar Deposits of Mars. “The layers in the upper few hundred meters display features that indicate a period of erosion, followed by a period of rapid accumulation that is still occurring today,” said Mr. Smith. Speculation about climate change on Mars has heightened since 2001 photographs from the Mars Global Surveyor suggested that ice caps near the planet’s South Pole were receding. A 2007 study by Russian physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov concluded that the caps had been in decline for three summers in a row and attributed the decline to solar irradiance. The question of whether Mars is experiencing climate change has spilled into the global warming debate on Earth, fueling discussion over whether both planets are heating up as a result of solar activity.

The consensus view is that the warming trend on the planets is coincidental and that climate change on Earth can be attributed primarily to increased greenhouse-gas emissions in the atmosphere. “Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now,” National Geographic News said in a 2007 article. Mr. Abdussamatov has disputed that explanation. “Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” he told LiveScience in 2007. In 2014, Kentucky state Sen. Brandon Smith pointed to evidence of warming on Mars as evidence that global warming is being driven by factors other than carbon dioxide emissions, prompting ClimateProgress to declare that “there is absolutely no scientific evidence that one sole instance of melting [on Mars] is the result of a planet-wide trend.” Mars came within 48.6 million miles of Earth at 5:34 p.m. EDT Sunday when Mars and the sun lined up on opposite sides of Earth. The next close encounter is projected for 2018, when Mars is expected to come within 35.8 million miles of Earth, NASA reported.

Mars also undergoing climate change as ice age retreats, study shows

See also:

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
February 28, 2007 - Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures. In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories. "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said. By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars. Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

To be fair, the earth did send probes to Mars that provided CO2 emissions.

Face it, we are destroying the fragile climate of Mars. Somebody stop them!

 

[Votto]

That's it. We HAVE to stop driving cars!

No, no, we just have to stop driving SUV's and it fixes everything.

 

[flacaltenn]

Look, retard. Nobody can control the climate.

Fucking idiot!!

Of course we can, in some ways. For instance, we can take fixed carbon out of the ground and add it to the climatic carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse effect and acidifying the oceans.

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

"What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. "

So what? Terrible denier talking point, laughed at by scientists. What matters is what adding carbon to the carbon cycle does to the climate. And nature can't keep up (as in, "re-fix" it) with the speed at which we are adding it, meaning we will create a driver which warms the climate and acidifies the oceans. These are settled facts. Those numbers are only "small" if you don't know what you are talking about, and you certainly do not.

It's a cycle dumbass. Nature doesn't PREFER to increase the CO2 in the atmos with just MAN's contributions. And we know that temperature drives CO2 as well as vici versi. There are NATURAL yearly emissions of CO2 that are virtually indistinguishable from Man's contributions. So it's NOT as documented and proven as your Clift Notes version that you picked up from your political journals.

Crap. Mr. Flacaltenn, you never used to lie. Why the change? Yes, the CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is isotopically distinquishable from the natural cyclic CO2.

Natural and human-made CO2 differentiation possible thanks to new monitoring technique

Carbon-14

An important difference between CO2 from natural sources and CO2 from fossil fuels is the age of the carbon it contains. Younger natural sources of CO2 are relatively rich in carbon-14. But since carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5,700 years, it can’t be found in fossil fuels that are millions of years old.

Using this difference, the research team could easily differentiate between natural CO2 emissions and anthropogenic ones. They also measured 22 other atmospheric gasses tied to human activities. The emission source of these gasses could be estimated by using the same ratio as that of fossil fuel and natural originated atmospheric CO2.

Sorry to interrupt your ad homs with facts, but I've told you before and I'll say it again...

1) A large chunk of the emissions charged to man is agricultural use and specifically domesticated animal farting and breaking down of waste. This is not OLD CARBON -- yet it's charged to man. EVEN THO those herds are REPLACEMENTS for the heavily populated WILD stocks that they replaced.

In addition, the accounting for land use change due to agricultural development is heavily bogus. A cornfield is an EXCELLENT carbon sink. It clears the volume of CO2 every couple hours. YET -- the accounting entry is always primitive and negative. Without reference to what USE that particular man-change replaced.

2) The Earth farts out HUGE amounts of OLD carbon in every annual cycle. So detecting the NATURAL seeps in the Gulf of Mexico from man's use is extremely tricky. In addition, the DEEP OCEAN stores OLD CO2 as far down as they go.. MORE CO2 the deeper you go. And currents cause upwelling in places to make the surface CO2 rich with "old carbon".

3) The "markers" for the isotopes are heavily overlapped in detection leading to LARGE brackets of uncertainty.

It's not as clear as you've been told.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's it. We HAVE to stop driving cars!

No, no, we just have to stop driving SUV's and it fixes everything.

Well, good thing you two "deep thinkers" aren't in charge of anything, anywhere....

 

[Old Rocks]

"It's a cycle dumbass."

Yet, the scientists that taught you and everyone else about those cycles .... the very scientists who discovered them, described them, named then, delineated them, dedicated their entire lives to learning about them ... they are sounding the alarms about climate change. your implication that they are all somehow ignorant of their own discoveries is bizarre, and you should be laughed out of any serious company. Unless you are explicitly calling them all liars, in which case you should just be insulted out of any serious company.

Still have yet to see you actually discuss any of the science. Seems you prefer to throw shit balls..

COrrect, I will not be litigating the truth of scientific theories with know-nothing hacks on message boards. If you wanted to debate the science, you would be publishing science and speaking at universities and scientific society conventions. You would get laughed out of any of those venues in a matter of minutes. Unless, of course, you decided to really "show your ass" and call them all "liars"... then you would be insulted out of those venues.

Why? Because your major was in creative writing?

*****CHUCKLE*****

"Creative writing"... which is what we typically see you call science. So not really offended over here

I call science sticking to the truth when observing the data and throwing out theories when the data does not fit the model.

Unlike a consensus that's in it for the money (grants) by changing the data to fit the theoretical model because of the political agenda.

I don't recall you providing any mathematical equations or scientific observations while I on the other hand have so I would say that your calling what I've provided creative writing is simply another troll post on your part. I'll bet that if I looked at all the posts you've posted this month (approximately 1339 so far this month isn't it?) that over 90% of them fall into that category also.

*****CHUCKLE*****

My, my, first of all, you are obviously another ignorant fuck that gets his science from 'Conservative' talking points. You want math, OK, here is math from 1981 with some very accurate predictions.

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

Full article at the link. Those predictions for the 21st Century have already taken place. And the article has supporting math for those predictions. From a real scientist, not a fake British Lord, or obese junkie on the AM radio.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course we can, in some ways. For instance, we can take fixed carbon out of the ground and add it to the climatic carbon cycle, increasing the greenhouse effect and acidifying the oceans.

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

"What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. "

So what? Terrible denier talking point, laughed at by scientists. What matters is what adding carbon to the carbon cycle does to the climate. And nature can't keep up (as in, "re-fix" it) with the speed at which we are adding it, meaning we will create a driver which warms the climate and acidifies the oceans. These are settled facts. Those numbers are only "small" if you don't know what you are talking about, and you certainly do not.

It's a cycle dumbass. Nature doesn't PREFER to increase the CO2 in the atmos with just MAN's contributions. And we know that temperature drives CO2 as well as vici versi. There are NATURAL yearly emissions of CO2 that are virtually indistinguishable from Man's contributions. So it's NOT as documented and proven as your Clift Notes version that you picked up from your political journals.

Crap. Mr. Flacaltenn, you never used to lie. Why the change? Yes, the CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is isotopically distinquishable from the natural cyclic CO2.

Natural and human-made CO2 differentiation possible thanks to new monitoring technique

Carbon-14

An important difference between CO2 from natural sources and CO2 from fossil fuels is the age of the carbon it contains. Younger natural sources of CO2 are relatively rich in carbon-14. But since carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5,700 years, it can’t be found in fossil fuels that are millions of years old.

Using this difference, the research team could easily differentiate between natural CO2 emissions and anthropogenic ones. They also measured 22 other atmospheric gasses tied to human activities. The emission source of these gasses could be estimated by using the same ratio as that of fossil fuel and natural originated atmospheric CO2.

Sorry to interrupt your ad homs with facts, but I've told you before and I'll say it again...

1) A large chunk of the emissions charged to man is agricultural use and specifically domesticated animal farting and breaking down of waste. This is not OLD CARBON -- yet it's charged to man. EVEN THO those herds are REPLACEMENTS for the heavily populated WILD stocks that they replaced.

In addition, the accounting for land use change due to agricultural development is heavily bogus. A cornfield is an EXCELLENT carbon sink. It clears the volume of CO2 every couple hours. YET -- the accounting entry is always primitive and negative. Without reference to what USE that particular man-change replaced.

2) The Earth farts out HUGE amounts of OLD carbon in every annual cycle. So detecting the NATURAL seeps in the Gulf of Mexico from man's use is extremely tricky. In addition, the DEEP OCEAN stores OLD CO2 as far down as they go.. MORE CO2 the deeper you go. And currents cause upwelling in places to make the surface CO2 rich with "old carbon".

3) The "markers" for the isotopes are heavily overlapped in detection leading to LARGE brackets of uncertainty.

It's not as clear as you've been told.

What the fuck is not clear about a measured increase in CO2 and CH4, and the fact that enough of that measured increase has the isotopic signature of old carbon. 280 ppm to 400+ ppm for CO2 is a larger jump than the 180 ppm to 280 ppm that is the difference between and interglacial and an ice age. As for CH4, the difference between 800 ppb and 1800+ ppb is far greater than the difference between interglacial and an ice age for that gas.

Like hell the earth 'farts' a huge amount of old carbon. The volcanic emissions are now less than 1% of that of mankind of CO2 and CH4. I know of no ocean currents that take 50,000 years to cycle between surface and the depths. Almost all of the old carbon is from the burning of fossil fuels.

 

[flacaltenn]

What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. And nature SINKS about 1/2 of that. And 1/2 of what's charged to MAN is just phony accounting anyways.

The yearly NATURAL VARIATION of carbon cycling is bigger than man's contribution.

So looking for say 2% of the SOURCE side of the carbon cycle is a pretty damn small number compared to our ability to measure the SINK side of the cycle. I'd say this experiment is "poorly documented"..

"What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. "

So what? Terrible denier talking point, laughed at by scientists. What matters is what adding carbon to the carbon cycle does to the climate. And nature can't keep up (as in, "re-fix" it) with the speed at which we are adding it, meaning we will create a driver which warms the climate and acidifies the oceans. These are settled facts. Those numbers are only "small" if you don't know what you are talking about, and you certainly do not.

It's a cycle dumbass. Nature doesn't PREFER to increase the CO2 in the atmos with just MAN's contributions. And we know that temperature drives CO2 as well as vici versi. There are NATURAL yearly emissions of CO2 that are virtually indistinguishable from Man's contributions. So it's NOT as documented and proven as your Clift Notes version that you picked up from your political journals.

Crap. Mr. Flacaltenn, you never used to lie. Why the change? Yes, the CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is isotopically distinquishable from the natural cyclic CO2.

Natural and human-made CO2 differentiation possible thanks to new monitoring technique

Carbon-14

An important difference between CO2 from natural sources and CO2 from fossil fuels is the age of the carbon it contains. Younger natural sources of CO2 are relatively rich in carbon-14. But since carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5,700 years, it can’t be found in fossil fuels that are millions of years old.

Using this difference, the research team could easily differentiate between natural CO2 emissions and anthropogenic ones. They also measured 22 other atmospheric gasses tied to human activities. The emission source of these gasses could be estimated by using the same ratio as that of fossil fuel and natural originated atmospheric CO2.

Sorry to interrupt your ad homs with facts, but I've told you before and I'll say it again...

1) A large chunk of the emissions charged to man is agricultural use and specifically domesticated animal farting and breaking down of waste. This is not OLD CARBON -- yet it's charged to man. EVEN THO those herds are REPLACEMENTS for the heavily populated WILD stocks that they replaced.

In addition, the accounting for land use change due to agricultural development is heavily bogus. A cornfield is an EXCELLENT carbon sink. It clears the volume of CO2 every couple hours. YET -- the accounting entry is always primitive and negative. Without reference to what USE that particular man-change replaced.

2) The Earth farts out HUGE amounts of OLD carbon in every annual cycle. So detecting the NATURAL seeps in the Gulf of Mexico from man's use is extremely tricky. In addition, the DEEP OCEAN stores OLD CO2 as far down as they go.. MORE CO2 the deeper you go. And currents cause upwelling in places to make the surface CO2 rich with "old carbon".

3) The "markers" for the isotopes are heavily overlapped in detection leading to LARGE brackets of uncertainty.

It's not as clear as you've been told.

What the fuck is not clear about a measured increase in CO2 and CH4, and the fact that enough of that measured increase has the isotopic signature of old carbon. 280 ppm to 400+ ppm for CO2 is a larger jump than the 180 ppm to 280 ppm that is the difference between and interglacial and an ice age. As for CH4, the difference between 800 ppb and 1800+ ppb is far greater than the difference between interglacial and an ice age for that gas.

Like hell the earth 'farts' a huge amount of old carbon. The volcanic emissions are now less than 1% of that of mankind of CO2 and CH4. I know of no ocean currents that take 50,000 years to cycle between surface and the depths. Almost all of the old carbon is from the burning of fossil fuels.

The entire premise of an anthropogenic signature based on a C13/C12 ratio is weak and undeveloped. The concept is that plant-based carbons have a minuscule smaller ratio in GENERAL. Thus the "signature" in coal emissions. But the entire SPECTRUM of C13/C12 emissions in any particular fuel varies considerably with respect to this (.5 to 1.5%) dip in the ratio. And it's KNOWN that CO2 from BACTERIA assisted breakdown of carbons looks WAY more anthropogenic than normal burning of coal or gas.

Ocean is FULL of bacteria decomposing CH4. Take you volcano gas and stuff it back up your ass. I don't care about volcanoes.

This 1% diff in C13/C12 ratio is a theory. Not developed with the hard work of cataloguing the spectrum found in the fuels we burn vs what nature produces by various processes.

The ocean is FULL of "old carbon" and is biologically active. The natural CH4 seeps are oxidized into biologically a LOT. And it's virtually indistiguishable and a much larger component of the annual cycle than man-made CO2.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"What MAN puts up yearly into the atmosphere is only 5% of what NATURE puts up there. "

So what? Terrible denier talking point, laughed at by scientists. What matters is what adding carbon to the carbon cycle does to the climate. And nature can't keep up (as in, "re-fix" it) with the speed at which we are adding it, meaning we will create a driver which warms the climate and acidifies the oceans. These are settled facts. Those numbers are only "small" if you don't know what you are talking about, and you certainly do not.

It's a cycle dumbass. Nature doesn't PREFER to increase the CO2 in the atmos with just MAN's contributions. And we know that temperature drives CO2 as well as vici versi. There are NATURAL yearly emissions of CO2 that are virtually indistinguishable from Man's contributions. So it's NOT as documented and proven as your Clift Notes version that you picked up from your political journals.

Crap. Mr. Flacaltenn, you never used to lie. Why the change? Yes, the CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is isotopically distinquishable from the natural cyclic CO2.

Natural and human-made CO2 differentiation possible thanks to new monitoring technique

Carbon-14

An important difference between CO2 from natural sources and CO2 from fossil fuels is the age of the carbon it contains. Younger natural sources of CO2 are relatively rich in carbon-14. But since carbon-14 has a half-life of about 5,700 years, it can’t be found in fossil fuels that are millions of years old.

Using this difference, the research team could easily differentiate between natural CO2 emissions and anthropogenic ones. They also measured 22 other atmospheric gasses tied to human activities. The emission source of these gasses could be estimated by using the same ratio as that of fossil fuel and natural originated atmospheric CO2.

Sorry to interrupt your ad homs with facts, but I've told you before and I'll say it again...

1) A large chunk of the emissions charged to man is agricultural use and specifically domesticated animal farting and breaking down of waste. This is not OLD CARBON -- yet it's charged to man. EVEN THO those herds are REPLACEMENTS for the heavily populated WILD stocks that they replaced.

In addition, the accounting for land use change due to agricultural development is heavily bogus. A cornfield is an EXCELLENT carbon sink. It clears the volume of CO2 every couple hours. YET -- the accounting entry is always primitive and negative. Without reference to what USE that particular man-change replaced.

2) The Earth farts out HUGE amounts of OLD carbon in every annual cycle. So detecting the NATURAL seeps in the Gulf of Mexico from man's use is extremely tricky. In addition, the DEEP OCEAN stores OLD CO2 as far down as they go.. MORE CO2 the deeper you go. And currents cause upwelling in places to make the surface CO2 rich with "old carbon".

3) The "markers" for the isotopes are heavily overlapped in detection leading to LARGE brackets of uncertainty.

It's not as clear as you've been told.

What the fuck is not clear about a measured increase in CO2 and CH4, and the fact that enough of that measured increase has the isotopic signature of old carbon. 280 ppm to 400+ ppm for CO2 is a larger jump than the 180 ppm to 280 ppm that is the difference between and interglacial and an ice age. As for CH4, the difference between 800 ppb and 1800+ ppb is far greater than the difference between interglacial and an ice age for that gas.

Like hell the earth 'farts' a huge amount of old carbon. The volcanic emissions are now less than 1% of that of mankind of CO2 and CH4. I know of no ocean currents that take 50,000 years to cycle between surface and the depths. Almost all of the old carbon is from the burning of fossil fuels.

The entire premise of an anthropogenic signature based on a C13/C12 ratio is weak and undeveloped. The concept is that plant-based carbons have a minuscule smaller ratio in GENERAL. Thus the "signature" in coal emissions. But the entire SPECTRUM of C13/C12 emissions in any particular fuel varies considerably with respect to this (.5 to 1.5%) dip in the ratio. And it's KNOWN that CO2 from BACTERIA assisted breakdown of carbons looks WAY more anthropogenic than normal burning of coal or gas.

Ocean is FULL of bacteria decomposing CH4. Take you volcano gas and stuff it back up your ass. I don't care about volcanoes.

This 1% diff in C13/C12 ratio is a theory. Not developed with the hard work of cataloguing the spectrum found in the fuels we burn vs what nature produces by various processes.

The ocean is FULL of "old carbon" and is biologically active. The natural CH4 seeps are oxidized into biologically a LOT. And it's virtually indistiguishable and a much larger component of the annual cycle than man-made CO2.

"The entire premise of an anthropogenic signature based on a C13/C12 ratio is weak and undeveloped"

Shameless, ridiculous lie. It is extremely well-supported by several different lines of observation and evidence.