Debunking the Deniers

[gslack]

Salt is absolutely neccessary for life. But too much is salt, and it is a poison. Same for CO2. An atmosphere without CO2 would lead to a world with the oceans frozen over clear down to the equator. This has happened in the geological past.

An atmosphere with CO2 and CH4 added very quickly leads to adrupt climate changes, and feedback loops that poison the land and oceans, this has also happened in the past from natural causes.

Just because that we are the primary cause, does not change the laws of physics.

Two questions:

1. How many times has the "abrupt addition" of CO2 and CH4 started the poisening of land and air in the last 4.5 Billion years and how long ago was the last instance of it happening and, compared to our current climate, what was the global temperature and arrangement of the continents at the time it occurred?

If you are really interested in the answer to your questions, you would have already researched them.

First, the adrupt addition of CO2 and CH4 have happened a number of times. Most notebly in the P-T extinction event, and most recently, in the PETM event.

A23A

2. When man is a contributor of 3% of CO2 which is itself about 3% of all GHG which are as a group only a small portion of the factors that affect climate, how can you claim that those emissions are "the primary cause"?

We have added nearly 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere in the last 150 years, as you well know. We have also increased the CH4 from 700 ppb to 1800 ppb. And we have added numerous industrial GHGs, some of which are more than 20,000 times as effective of a GHG as CO2. The cumulative effect is more that equal to the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2 right now.

150 years ago, the CO2 level stood at 280 ppm. Today it stands at 385 ppm. That is a good deal more than 3%.

Honest answers to these questions will reveal that what you are talking about has no relation to the current situation.

You call for honesty when you lie about the amount of CO2 that we have added by burning fossil fuels?




How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
Link to this pageThe skeptic argument..."The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce." (Jeff Id)

What the science says...
The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.

Two things....

1. I can now post links...

2. Your posting of the article link above, is not exactly what the Science Journal Nature says about the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum Warming...

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum warming : Abstract : Nature Geoscience

"Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming

Richard E. Zeebe1, James C. Zachos2 & Gerald R. Dickens3"

Seems the science journals disagree with you...

Also CO2 gas in only 0.038% of our atmosphere. That's about 380 ppm. Some say its as high as 387 ppm now. but we will go with your 385 ppm for simplicity...

Ok 385 ppm up from 280 ppm about 150 years ago. first lets be very clear what PPM stands for... Its Parts Per Million. As in 385 parts per million. OR 0.0385% up from 0.0280% 150 years ago.... We in agreement so far? Good...

A raise of roughly about 10-10.5% or about 105 ppm from 280 to 385 right? So thats 105 ppm over 150 years resulting in a rise in temperature of about what exactly? LOL, you're kidding right? HAHAHAHA! About 1 degree??? AHAHAHA!

What don't believe it? Well better talk to your guys at Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia or Hadley Center of the UK Meteorological Office. Because they say so...

notice the temp goes from around -0.4 to +0.4 thats not exactly the impression we are getting now is it... About 1 degree thats it so if CO2 is such a powerful GHG, why doesn't the data show this?

 

[code1211]

PETM. Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum

Then, 55 million years ago, the fossil record shows that an extraordinary drop in the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 occurred, indicating that a massive amount of "light" carbon with low levels of the carbon-13 isotope was emitted into the atmosphere in a very short amount of time--just 500 - 20,000 years. The most likely source of carbon-13 depleted carbon would have been methane from ocean sediments or land vegetation. If it was methane, about 1,000 - 2,000 gigatons of carbon would have had to be injected into the atmosphere, in order to account for the observed fossil deposits. For comparison, the total amount of carbon in today's atmosphere, primarily as CO2, is a factor of two or three less--about 810 gigatons. The fossil record shows that extreme climatic warming occurred nearly simultaneously with this massive release of carbon into the atmosphere. Global average temperatures rose 9°F (5°C) in a geological instant--1,000 - 10,000 years (Sluijs et al., 2007). Average sea surface temperatures at the North Pole reached 74°F (23°C). The warmth lasted 120,000 - 220,000 years before weathering of silicate rocks was able to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere and return the climate to its former state. This was the largest global warming event since the time of the dinosaurs, 65 million year ago (Moran et al., 2006). The resulting impact on Earth's climate was so severe that a new geological era was born--the Eocene.

The rate change in the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere today exceeds that of this period. The continental positions were similiear to what they are today.

The continents were of similar size 50 million years agor but South America was almost touching to Africa. It was not until South America moved to and then actually impacted Central America closing the isthmus of panama that the current cycle of Glacialtion and interglacials started.

The cycle of Glaciation is probably the most notable climatic feature of the last million years on this planet.

The arrangement of the continents was nothing like it is today from a climatic view point so that is simply wrong.

Tutorial 22.1 Evolution of the Continents

Your source indicates that the dramatic outgassing is nearly simultaneous. At the range of 50 to 60 million years into the past, just about any conclusion one would like to draw is available. Did the rise in GHG's produce the higher temps or did the higher temps produce the rise in the GHG's?

As an aside, some time ago I referanced in one of our discussions a guy who was standing on a glacier and musing that the CO2 in the Ice cores seemed to follow the rises and falls of temperature. I could not remember his name, but he is the guy from Penn State that is giving the slide presentation in your previous post's link.

 

[gslack]

The entire premise of AGW theory is steeped in an endless web of deceptive claims all based loosely on some truth but written or shown in a way that gives a much different idea than the data itself.

The truth is in 150 years of recorded temperatures the earth has warmed a little over one degree Celsius. This small amount of temp differential does not support the claims of either out of control warming, or CO2 being such a potent GHG.

0.0385% up from 0.0280% in 150 years of excessive CO2 production does not give the sense of CO2 being a climate controller that surpasses the Sun.

Also we need to be realistic about the percentages of temps rising the last 150 years. 0.0385% up from 0.0280% is a difference of 0.0105%... thats the increase in percent, the overall change in percent would be closer to 33%

The percentage of overall change is a very misleading way to give a false alarm. For instance lets say we add 100 red marbles to a bag with 200 marbles already in it. We increased the overall marble count to 300. SO of that 300 total 100 are our red marbles. There is few ways we could look at it; we could say we added 1/3rd the bag of marbles, or we could say we increased the marbles by 50%.. I am sure a few lights went on because 100 is not 50% of 300, and although you are right the original number was 200, therefore 50% increase is correct.

Thats the kind of thing we see in the math sold on climate change. its not a lie in essence, but it certainly is misleading..

 

[konradv]

What do you find misleading about that math? I think you're being misleading in saying so. What we need is better understanding of math, NOT anti-intellectual rants about there being something wrong with it. I feel the article you posted is doing EXACTLY what you claim AGW proponents do.

 

[gslack]

What do you find misleading about that math? I think you're being misleading in saying so. What we need is better understanding of math, NOT anti-intellectual rants about there being something wrong with it. I feel the article you posted is doing EXACTLY what you claim AGW proponents do.

HAHAHAHA!

I see a pattern with you... You post a rant OP then cry about it being about science. Then when I give you some science you cry about it being wrong. I post a rant OP and you cry about it not being about science, in the same thread you posted a non-scientific rant.....

The ignorance of it is just astounding....

Seriously man, take a bow! You have just debated your own tactics... Bravo!

 

[saveliberty]

Too many that look at seasonal weather or over a short period of time like 100 years and draw conclusions. I made that point awhile ago by noting our region has experienced cool temps this last year. The faithers want to show you areas where it is warmer in retort. They also want to use manipulated data from weather stations that have heat sources near them to back themselves up. Also, instead of recognizing volcaneos, ocean currents and the sun have far more influence than little old us.

 

[Intense]

Too many that look at seasonal weather or over a short period of time like 100 years and draw conclusions. I made that point awhile ago by noting our region has experienced cool temps this last year. The faithers want to show you areas where it is warmer in retort. They also want to use manipulated data from weather stations that have heat sources near them to back themselves up. Also, instead of recognizing volcaneos, ocean currents and the sun have far more influence than little old us.

I told You to ignore the man behind the curtain.

 

[Old Rocks]

Two questions:

1. How many times has the "abrupt addition" of CO2 and CH4 started the poisening of land and air in the last 4.5 Billion years and how long ago was the last instance of it happening and, compared to our current climate, what was the global temperature and arrangement of the continents at the time it occurred?

If you are really interested in the answer to your questions, you would have already researched them.

First, the adrupt addition of CO2 and CH4 have happened a number of times. Most notebly in the P-T extinction event, and most recently, in the PETM event.

A23A

2. When man is a contributor of 3% of CO2 which is itself about 3% of all GHG which are as a group only a small portion of the factors that affect climate, how can you claim that those emissions are "the primary cause"?

We have added nearly 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere in the last 150 years, as you well know. We have also increased the CH4 from 700 ppb to 1800 ppb. And we have added numerous industrial GHGs, some of which are more than 20,000 times as effective of a GHG as CO2. The cumulative effect is more that equal to the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2 right now.

150 years ago, the CO2 level stood at 280 ppm. Today it stands at 385 ppm. That is a good deal more than 3%.

Honest answers to these questions will reveal that what you are talking about has no relation to the current situation.

You call for honesty when you lie about the amount of CO2 that we have added by burning fossil fuels?




How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
Link to this pageThe skeptic argument..."The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce." (Jeff Id)

What the science says...
The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.

Two things....

1. I can now post links...

2. Your posting of the article link above, is not exactly what the Science Journal Nature says about the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum Warming...

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum warming : Abstract : Nature Geoscience

"Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming

Richard E. Zeebe1, James C. Zachos2 & Gerald R. Dickens3"

Seems the science journals disagree with you...

Also CO2 gas in only 0.038% of our atmosphere. That's about 380 ppm. Some say its as high as 387 ppm now. but we will go with your 385 ppm for simplicity...

Ok 385 ppm up from 280 ppm about 150 years ago. first lets be very clear what PPM stands for... Its Parts Per Million. As in 385 parts per million. OR 0.0385% up from 0.0280% 150 years ago.... We in agreement so far? Good...

A raise of roughly about 10-10.5% or about 105 ppm from 280 to 385 right? So thats 105 ppm over 150 years resulting in a rise in temperature of about what exactly? LOL, you're kidding right? HAHAHAHA! About 1 degree??? AHAHAHA!

What don't believe it? Well better talk to your guys at Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia or Hadley Center of the UK Meteorological Office. Because they say so...

notice the temp goes from around -0.4 to +0.4 thats not exactly the impression we are getting now is it... About 1 degree thats it so if CO2 is such a powerful GHG, why doesn't the data show this?

Well, I can certainly tell that I am dealing with someone not able to read even a simple scientific abstract. Also someone that has not done any research at all on what the scientists are saying concerning the effects of rising CO2 levels.

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum warming : Abstract : Nature Geoscience
Nature Geoscience 2, 576 - 580 (2009)
Published online: 13 July 2009 | doi:10.1038/ngeo578


Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming
Richard E. Zeebe1, James C. Zachos2 & Gerald R. Dickens3


Top of pageThe Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 Myr ago) represents a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks1, 2. The key feature of this event is the release of a large mass of 13C-depleted carbon into the carbon reservoirs at the Earth's surface, although the source remains an open issue3, 4. Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5–9 °C within a few thousand years5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Here we use published palaeorecords of deep-sea carbonate dissolution10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and stable carbon isotope composition10, 15, 16, 17 along with a carbon cycle model to constrain the initial carbon pulse to a magnitude of 3,000 Pg C or less, with an isotopic composition lighter than -50. As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.

What they are telling you is that once the warming reaches a certain point, the feedback loops take over, and the original cause becomes insignificant. And the major feedback loop would be release of the ocean clathrates. A release that has already been observed in the Artic Ocean.

Have we passed the tipping point? I really don't know, and so far, have not seen a convincing arguement either way.

For those willing to research, here is a book written by a then post grad student, now a Phd.

Methane catastrophe

 

[saveliberty]

Salt is absolutely neccessary for life. But too much is salt, and it is a poison. Same for CO2. An atmosphere without CO2 would lead to a world with the oceans frozen over clear down to the equator. This has happened in the geological past.

An atmosphere with CO2 and CH4 added very quickly leads to adrupt climate changes, and feedback loops that poison the land and oceans, this has also happened in the past from natural causes.

Just because that we are the primary cause, does not change the laws of physics.

Two questions:

1. How many times has the "abrupt addition" of CO2 and CH4 started the poisening of land and air in the last 4.5 Billion years and how long ago was the last instance of it happening and, compared to our current climate, what was the global temperature and arrangement of the continents at the time it occurred?

If you are really interested in the answer to your questions, you would have already researched them.

First, the adrupt addition of CO2 and CH4 have happened a number of times. Most notebly in the P-T extinction event, and most recently, in the PETM event.

A23A

2. When man is a contributor of 3% of CO2 which is itself about 3% of all GHG which are as a group only a small portion of the factors that affect climate, how can you claim that those emissions are "the primary cause"?

We have added nearly 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere in the last 150 years, as you well know. We have also increased the CH4 from 700 ppb to 1800 ppb. And we have added numerous industrial GHGs, some of which are more than 20,000 times as effective of a GHG as CO2. The cumulative effect is more that equal to the equivelant of 450 ppm of CO2 right now.

150 years ago, the CO2 level stood at 280 ppm. Today it stands at 385 ppm. That is a good deal more than 3%.

Honest answers to these questions will reveal that what you are talking about has no relation to the current situation.

You call for honesty when you lie about the amount of CO2 that we have added by burning fossil fuels?




How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
Link to this pageThe skeptic argument..."The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce." (Jeff Id)

What the science says...
The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.

Oh Mr. Wizard! Can you use the same units as the first poster? I mean, unless the talking points guys you use only want it in GTs. Gigatonnes sure sounds impressive doesn't it?

 

[gslack]

You call for honesty when you lie about the amount of CO2 that we have added by burning fossil fuels?




How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
Link to this pageThe skeptic argument..."The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce." (Jeff Id)

What the science says...
The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.

Two things....

1. I can now post links...

2. Your posting of the article link above, is not exactly what the Science Journal Nature says about the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum Warming...

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum warming : Abstract : Nature Geoscience

"Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming

Richard E. Zeebe1, James C. Zachos2 & Gerald R. Dickens3"

Seems the science journals disagree with you...

Also CO2 gas in only 0.038% of our atmosphere. That's about 380 ppm. Some say its as high as 387 ppm now. but we will go with your 385 ppm for simplicity...

Ok 385 ppm up from 280 ppm about 150 years ago. first lets be very clear what PPM stands for... Its Parts Per Million. As in 385 parts per million. OR 0.0385% up from 0.0280% 150 years ago.... We in agreement so far? Good...

A raise of roughly about 10-10.5% or about 105 ppm from 280 to 385 right? So thats 105 ppm over 150 years resulting in a rise in temperature of about what exactly? LOL, you're kidding right? HAHAHAHA! About 1 degree??? AHAHAHA!

What don't believe it? Well better talk to your guys at Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia or Hadley Center of the UK Meteorological Office. Because they say so...

notice the temp goes from around -0.4 to +0.4 thats not exactly the impression we are getting now is it... About 1 degree thats it so if CO2 is such a powerful GHG, why doesn't the data show this?

Well, I can certainly tell that I am dealing with someone not able to read even a simple scientific abstract. Also someone that has not done any research at all on what the scientists are saying concerning the effects of rising CO2 levels.

Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum warming : Abstract : Nature Geoscience
Nature Geoscience 2, 576 - 580 (2009)
Published online: 13 July 2009 | doi:10.1038/ngeo578


Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming
Richard E. Zeebe1, James C. Zachos2 & Gerald R. Dickens3


Top of pageThe Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 Myr ago) represents a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks1, 2. The key feature of this event is the release of a large mass of 13C-depleted carbon into the carbon reservoirs at the Earth's surface, although the source remains an open issue3, 4. Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5–9 °C within a few thousand years5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Here we use published palaeorecords of deep-sea carbonate dissolution10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and stable carbon isotope composition10, 15, 16, 17 along with a carbon cycle model to constrain the initial carbon pulse to a magnitude of 3,000 Pg C or less, with an isotopic composition lighter than -50. As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.

What they are telling you is that once the warming reaches a certain point, the feedback loops take over, and the original cause becomes insignificant. And the major feedback loop would be release of the ocean clathrates. A release that has already been observed in the Artic Ocean.

Have we passed the tipping point? I really don't know, and so far, have not seen a convincing arguement either way.

For those willing to research, here is a book written by a then post grad student, now a Phd.

Methane catastrophe

So once again we see the "I have a perfectly good excuse for that" tactic.... So then why didn't you try this when I posted it? HAHAHA! couldn't think of a way to defend it while I was here or at the time of the post so you wait and think, and THIS is all you can come up with?

HAHAHAHAHAHAA!

Dude the title tells the tale, and the excerpt clarifies it.

"Top of pageThe Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 Myr ago) represents a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks1, 2. The key feature of this event is the release of a large mass of 13C-depleted carbon into the carbon reservoirs at the Earth's surface, although the source remains an open issue3, 4. Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5–9 °C within a few thousand years5, 6, 7, 8, 9."

Want me to explain that to you? okay basically it tells us that during the PETM a large mass of 13C-depleted carbon into the carbon reservoirs at the earths surface. And the source of the mass of carbon is a mystery. This Mystery caused surface temps to rise 5-9 degrees Celsius over a few thousand years.

Simply put; something dumped a bunch of CO2 on the earths surface and it warmed the planet up over a few thousand years some where between 5-9 degrees Celsius. And they don't know what that was...

No... Really? HAHAHAHA!

"Here we use published palaeorecords of deep-sea carbonate dissolution10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and stable carbon isotope composition10, 15, 16, 17 along with a carbon cycle model to constrain the initial carbon pulse to a magnitude of 3,000 Pg C or less, with an isotopic composition lighter than -50. As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account."

Want me to explain this part too? Okay since you're a science wiz and all, least I can do...

basically it says the CO2 increased by a little less than 70% at the main part of this occurrence. And that despite that 70% increase, only account for 1 to 3.5 degrees of the warming. They determine that the rest of the warming came from an as of yet unknown factor or driving force....

So again even simpler the paper confirms what I said it did. YOU sir are either a willing liar or just completely ignorant and incapable of comprehending this the way it was written.

SO which is it are you a willing liar or just an ignorant one?

 

[saveliberty]

Old Rocks is a faither Gslack. His peer reviewed science friends say its so.

 

[gslack]

Old Rocks is a faither Gslack. His peer reviewed science friends say its so.

LOL, his peer review process is grabbing it off a google blog search and asking the rest of the local green party chapter members if its "green" or not...

 

[Old Rocks]

The entire premise of AGW theory is steeped in an endless web of deceptive claims all based loosely on some truth but written or shown in a way that gives a much different idea than the data itself.

The truth is in 150 years of recorded temperatures the earth has warmed a little over one degree Celsius. This small amount of temp differential does not support the claims of either out of control warming, or CO2 being such a potent GHG.

0.0385% up from 0.0280% in 150 years of excessive CO2 production does not give the sense of CO2 being a climate controller that surpasses the Sun.

Also we need to be realistic about the percentages of temps rising the last 150 years. 0.0385% up from 0.0280% is a difference of 0.0105%... thats the increase in percent, the overall change in percent would be closer to 33%

The percentage of overall change is a very misleading way to give a false alarm. For instance lets say we add 100 red marbles to a bag with 200 marbles already in it. We increased the overall marble count to 300. SO of that 300 total 100 are our red marbles. There is few ways we could look at it; we could say we added 1/3rd the bag of marbles, or we could say we increased the marbles by 50%.. I am sure a few lights went on because 100 is not 50% of 300, and although you are right the original number was 200, therefore 50% increase is correct.

Thats the kind of thing we see in the math sold on climate change. its not a lie in essence, but it certainly is misleading..

Whee.......... When you get over confusing yourself with 5th grade math, you need to look at your statements.

Nobody has said that GHGs control the temperature more than the sun. What has been said is that the TSI, Total Solar Irradiance, has not changed enough to cause the increases that we are seeing. In fact, for the last fifty years, is has decreased an insignificant amount.

 

[Old Rocks]

gslack;

Want me to explain this part too? Okay since you're a science wiz and all, least I can do...

basically it says the CO2 increased by a little less than 70% at the main part of this occurrence. And that despite that 70% increase, only account for 1 to 3.5 degrees of the warming. They determine that the rest of the warming came from an as of yet unknown factor or driving force....

So again even simpler the paper confirms what I said it did. YOU sir are either a willing liar or just completely ignorant and incapable of comprehending this the way it was written.

SO which is it are you a willing liar or just an ignorant one

...................................................................................................................................

What the paper is stating is that the carbon is telling us that it was sequestered for a long time, long enough for the C14 to expend it's half lives. Now that either means that the carbon came from fossil fuels, unlikely as there is no evidence of a lack of those from times prior to that event, or from the one other source, ocean methane clathrates.

Now if you were not so full of your willfull ignorance, you would have found in the online book on prior periods of very rapid warming, information that indicated that the source was the clathrates.

Also covered in that book are the many proxy methods for determining ancient CO2 and CH4 levels.

 

[saveliberty]

gslack;

Want me to explain this part too? Okay since you're a science wiz and all, least I can do...

basically it says the CO2 increased by a little less than 70% at the main part of this occurrence. And that despite that 70% increase, only account for 1 to 3.5 degrees of the warming. They determine that the rest of the warming came from an as of yet unknown factor or driving force....

So again even simpler the paper confirms what I said it did. YOU sir are either a willing liar or just completely ignorant and incapable of comprehending this the way it was written.

SO which is it are you a willing liar or just an ignorant one

Actually I think you just got owned by Gslack. By admitting that something else other than CO2 was responsible for the temperature increase, you devalue the influence of CO2 in that process. We also know CO2 is discharged from plants, volcaneos and other nonman sources. Man's contribution is marginal. Basically, you just disproved man as the cause of global warming. Welcome to our side.

 

[konradv]

basically it says the CO2 increased by a little less than 70% at the main part of this occurrence. And that despite that 70% increase, only account for 1 to 3.5 degrees of the warming. They determine that the rest of the warming came from an as of yet unknown factor or driving force....
---------------------------------

I don't really see where this helps your position. The 1-3.5 degrees warming could easily lead to ice melting that releases trapped methane, like we're seeing in Siberia today. While added warming wouldn't be the direct result of CO2. it's definitely an indirect result and, therefore, more proof that high levels of CO2, DO LEAD TO WARMING!!!

 

[saveliberty]

basically it says the CO2 increased by a little less than 70% at the main part of this occurrence. And that despite that 70% increase, only account for 1 to 3.5 degrees of the warming. They determine that the rest of the warming came from an as of yet unknown factor or driving force....
---------------------------------

I don't really see where this helps your position. The 1-3.5 degrees warming could easily lead to ice melting that releases trapped methane, like we're seeing in Siberia today. While added warming wouldn't be the direct result of CO2. it's definitely an indirect result and, therefore, more proof that high levels of CO2, DO LEAD TO WARMING!!!

CO2 is not the primary contributor according to this article. That makes it secondary, but it doesn't stop people like you from trying to show a direct relationship. Make up your mind, does CO2 cause warming or LEAD to warming as you suggested?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is more real science supporting the notion that the Moon is hollow than there is for Mankind warming the planet by burning imaginary "Fossil fuels"

 

[gslack]

The entire premise of AGW theory is steeped in an endless web of deceptive claims all based loosely on some truth but written or shown in a way that gives a much different idea than the data itself.

The truth is in 150 years of recorded temperatures the earth has warmed a little over one degree Celsius. This small amount of temp differential does not support the claims of either out of control warming, or CO2 being such a potent GHG.

0.0385% up from 0.0280% in 150 years of excessive CO2 production does not give the sense of CO2 being a climate controller that surpasses the Sun.

Also we need to be realistic about the percentages of temps rising the last 150 years. 0.0385% up from 0.0280% is a difference of 0.0105%... thats the increase in percent, the overall change in percent would be closer to 33%

The percentage of overall change is a very misleading way to give a false alarm. For instance lets say we add 100 red marbles to a bag with 200 marbles already in it. We increased the overall marble count to 300. SO of that 300 total 100 are our red marbles. There is few ways we could look at it; we could say we added 1/3rd the bag of marbles, or we could say we increased the marbles by 50%.. I am sure a few lights went on because 100 is not 50% of 300, and although you are right the original number was 200, therefore 50% increase is correct.

Thats the kind of thing we see in the math sold on climate change. its not a lie in essence, but it certainly is misleading..

Whee.......... When you get over confusing yourself with 5th grade math, you need to look at your statements.

Nobody has said that GHGs control the temperature more than the sun. What has been said is that the TSI, Total Solar Irradiance, has not changed enough to cause the increases that we are seeing. In fact, for the last fifty years, is has decreased an insignificant amount.

Total solar irradiance isn't the ONLY ISSUE, we are also talking about the sun position relative to ourselves, the solar system at large, and the position of all in the galaxy. YOUR side likes to diminish this concept and pretend we are talking about solar output alone so they can dismiss it.

Its BS and its an oversimplification bordering an out right lie by omission. YOU and your BS side has been pulling this crap far too long and its really getting tiresome.

Don't show your ignorance on this any more if you don't understand the difference between the concepts thats fine, but don't try and pretend you do in a lie by ignorance. All you do is show how little you actually know, compared to what you think you know.

Do you understand how an orbital path works? We and the rest of the planets in this solar system are in an orbital path around the sun. And that orbital path is elliptical, meaning we have a long end side and a short. this is a two dimensional plane. They call this the Ecliptic... Follow me so far? The Earth's Orbit

We also have a tilt to our orbital path. Which combined with the Ecliptic give us our seasons. The Earth's Rotation

Follow me? Hope so....

Just as we have seasons due to the tilt and rotation on our axis in relation to our position relative to the sun. Our solar system has a similar pattern due to its respective tilt and rotation on its axis in relation to its position in the galaxy. And even further the same applies to our galaxy and its rotation, axis and position along its respective path through the universe at large.

In other words everything spins, revolves, rotates, orbits and tracks around another object which does the same around another and another ad infinitum. Got it?

This constant state of movement causes changes in polarity, energy, gravitational pulls, electro-magnetic fields and just about everything you can think of. In this constant change there are patterns though. Much like seasons on earth. these patterns go through their cycles as we go about our own. All related, all interlinked and all change one moment to the next.

Now look, if you are not going to take any of this into account when you try and theorize on climate. You are already going to be wrong. If you deny the importance of these basic truths and pretend its all one thing and easily dismissed. You are forgoing the scientific process and truth for the ease and comfort of a predetermined outcome based on half truths and only a small part of the actual data.

More simply it looks more like a religion than science... And you sir are a zealot...

 

[gslack]

gslack;

Want me to explain this part too? Okay since you're a science wiz and all, least I can do...

basically it says the CO2 increased by a little less than 70% at the main part of this occurrence. And that despite that 70% increase, only account for 1 to 3.5 degrees of the warming. They determine that the rest of the warming came from an as of yet unknown factor or driving force....

So again even simpler the paper confirms what I said it did. YOU sir are either a willing liar or just completely ignorant and incapable of comprehending this the way it was written.

SO which is it are you a willing liar or just an ignorant one

...................................................................................................................................

What the paper is stating is that the carbon is telling us that it was sequestered for a long time, long enough for the C14 to expend it's half lives. Now that either means that the carbon came from fossil fuels, unlikely as there is no evidence of a lack of those from times prior to that event, or from the one other source, ocean methane clathrates.

Now if you were not so full of your willfull ignorance, you would have found in the online book on prior periods of very rapid warming, information that indicated that the source was the clathrates.

Also covered in that book are the many proxy methods for determining ancient CO2 and CH4 levels.

Alright now you are flat lying.... Making it bold won't make it true....

I explained what the excerpt meant, and you are trying to claim it says something else. You are either lying or too ignorant to really understand it so you got some crazy green party explanation for it from somewhere.

look buddy just read it, its not complex really at all. Thats one of the things an excerpt is for. It explains the article in a quick easy to grasp manner so if you do look at it you have a scope or frame of reference in mind.

The excerpt said plainly and without any ambiguity that, the CO2 could only account for the initial 1-3.5 degrees rise in temperature, all the rest was unknown.... Its a fact, you have been bullsh_ted by your party and hero the Goracle. I am very sorry but its a fact, the scientists (the real ones) in reality say this, the problem is the politicians and the media need it to sound different. So they make it so....