Climate "Science" Question

[saveliberty]

By long view, I mean human terms, not the millions of years when humans weren't around. What's your explanation for the rise in CO2?

CO2 cycle.

Link? Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

So you don't think CO2 goes in cycles?

 

[wirebender]

Except we aren't talking weather or, at least, we shouldn't be. The poles are melting regardless of the weather or season, if you take the long view.

If you take the long view, then you should be concerned over the fact that there is ice at the poles. Those of us who take the long view know that ice at one or both of the poles is the anomoly on earth,, not the norm.

Really? During what part of human history or pre-history have the poles been ice-free?

Geez konradv, think1 Use your brain for just a minute every once in a while. I promise that it won't deplete your intellectual capacity. In fact, if you use your brain daily, you will find that the resivor increases.

If you guys are to be believed, and fractional temperature increases are going to melt the ice in the arctic, then during the periods of the holocene optimum, the arctic would have surely been ice free as it was at least a couple of degrees warmer than the present climate and probably more degrees.

Then there was the roman warm period and the medieval warm period which were both warmer than the present. And don't even claim that those two periods were not global in nature because I have already provided more than enough peer reviewed studies from all over the world to prove that they were both warmer and global regardless of what mann's idiot stick says.

The holocene optimum made the bronze age possible and gave us the toehold necessary to begin forming civilizations.

 

[editec]

How does global warming both cause CO2 to leech out of the oceans in a "Feedback loop", but simultaneously make the oceans absorb more CO2, turning them acidic?

"Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought"

Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought - environment - 25 April 2011 - New Scientist

"Carbon emissions creating acidic oceans not seen since dinosaurs"

Carbon emissions creating acidic oceans not seen since dinosaurs | Environment | guardian.co.uk

"A lie ain't a side of a story. It's just a lie."

Magic?

 

[wirebender]

Link? Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

Geez rocks, even a doofus like you should know that you can't go to the church and expect unbiased data. Did you even read that hogwash.

Look at the first graphic upon which the rest is built:

439 gigatons outgassed from the land and 332 gigatons outgassed from the ocean. Bullshit right there, but never mind. That is a total of 771 gigatons. Then they claim 450 taken up by the land and 338 taken up by the oceans. Again, bullshit, but lets look at the numbers. They are claiming 788 gigatons taken up by both land and oceans.

What is wrong with this picture? 771 gigatons outgassed, 788 gigatons taken up. That leaves a deficit of 17 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Add the 29 gigatons produced by man and that leaves 12 gigatons of CO2 for the atmosphere.

If you consume that sort of crap, no wonder you aren't very bright rocks.

 

[skookerasbil]

wire domination

 

[saveliberty]

Time and time again, we use their own sources and cut them apart. Why don't I cite sources very often? Cause its more fun to use theirs and Faithers are just too fun.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

To the right wing, ALL science is questionable. Not "mysticism". The supernatural is true because, since there is no evidence, it can't really be questioned.

But science? It makes the right wing feel smarter pointing out imaginary flaws in things they refuse to understand.

Real scientists alter the model to fit the data.

Climate scientists alter the data to fit the model.

"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."

When the evidence fails to justify your theory, you change the evidence; that's climate "science"

 

[daveman]

To the right wing, ALL science is questionable. Not "mysticism". The supernatural is true because, since there is no evidence, it can't really be questioned.

But science? It makes the right wing feel smarter pointing out imaginary flaws in things they refuse to understand.

Real scientists alter the model to fit the data.

Climate scientists alter the data to fit the model.

"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."

When the evidence fails to justify your theory, you change the evidence; that's climate "science"

In case of a discrepancy between reality and the model -- reality is wrong.

Yes, they really do think -- sorry, wrong word -- FEEL that way.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Real scientists alter the model to fit the data.

Climate scientists alter the data to fit the model.

"The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009)."

When the evidence fails to justify your theory, you change the evidence; that's climate "science"

In case of a discrepancy between reality and the model -- reality is wrong.

Yes, they really do think -- sorry, wrong word -- FEEL that way.

I have peer reviewed this post and it is accurate to the 99.9999999% level

Awesome too

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Link? Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

Geez rocks, even a doofus like you should know that you can't go to the church and expect unbiased data. Did you even read that hogwash.

Look at the first graphic upon which the rest is built:

439 gigatons outgassed from the land and 332 gigatons outgassed from the ocean. Bullshit right there, but never mind. That is a total of 771 gigatons. Then they claim 450 taken up by the land and 338 taken up by the oceans. Again, bullshit, but lets look at the numbers. They are claiming 788 gigatons taken up by both land and oceans.

What is wrong with this picture? 771 gigatons outgassed, 788 gigatons taken up. That leaves a deficit of 17 gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere. Add the 29 gigatons produced by man and that leaves 12 gigatons of CO2 for the atmosphere.

If you consume that sort of crap, no wonder you aren't very bright rocks.

ZOMFG!!

That chart shows 6 gigatons of CO2 getting absorbed by the ocean!

6 gigatons!!1 I had no idea it was so much, maybe enough to turn the oceans to acid after all.

Wowzers 6 gigaton

I wonder whats that in relation to the weight of the oceans?

Gee, all water on Earth weighs 1.4 X 10^9 gigatons.

So 6/1.4X10^9 is whats turning the oceans to acid?

Are you Warmers and Decline Hider really sure about that?

 

[saveliberty]

Gee, should I pull the aquarium out of the basement for the poor dears?