Gore/global warming supporters.. please explain the following...

[code1211]

So, CO2 levels only went up by 70% during the PETM but the average world temperatures went up 13° F and we've already raised CO2 levels by about 40% over per-industrial levels and we're still pumping about 30 billion tons more fossil carbon into the air every year. But you denier cult nutjobs tell us that there's no real problem and we certainly shouldn't upset the oil and coal industry gravy trains for the sake of the environment or the survival of future generations as well as the Earth's biosphere. You'd be funny if this situation wasn't so tragic.

Just to re-cap, then:

You assert that during the PETM CO2 rose by 70% and caused a 13 degree temperature increase.

You further assert that we are currently at a 40% increase in CO2 and yet we have witnessed a temperature increase of about 0.7 degrees C in 2000 years.

Is your ability to comprehend what you read really that low? Do you really think idiotic verbal tricks like that fool anybody but your fellow denier cult dingbats? No, dumbass, we have actually witnessed a temperature increase of about 1.4° F in a little over a century, not 0.7° F in 2000 years. Are you really that ignorant or are you a paid troll here to spread misinformation, lies and bullshit?

"Measurements show a global temperature increase of 1.4 °F (0.78 °C) between the years 1900 and 2005."

You imply that the PETM is the blueprint for the present and that we may expect a similar increase in temperatures.

When might we expect the other 6.3 degrees C of increase to occur?

If it is impolite of me to ask you to think, I apologize.

LOL. As if you ever"think" before spouting some idiotic nonsense like this.

You really must have a major comprehension problem, code4BS. You're responding to some quotes from an article that I posted so you must have seen this even if you couldn't understand it. Try again, numbnuts. I'll even highlight the part you missed.

"In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years."

It took ten thousand years for that 13° F temperature increase to occur during the PETM and our anthropogenic CO2 surge only started in the 19th century and only really got going in the latter part of the 20th century but you think the temperature increase this time should have been happening even faster than it has been. LOL. Mankind's carbon emissions are driving these changes far faster than natural forces ever have but it is still not instantaneous. It took ten thousand years for a 13° F rise in temperature then but we've managed to achieve about a degree and a half rise in only 105 years but you imagine that since it wasn't even faster, it must not be real. LOL. You are such a confused loon.

My father always told me that profanity is how the uneducated express themselves.

The warming trend that we currently enjoy started between about 1550 to 1650. Due to the sudden drop of temperatures during the Little Ice Age which was caused by the Sun, not terrestrial factors, the recovery to more normal temperatures seems like a rise in temperatures.

The actual baseline, though, is not the downward valley of the LIA, it is the gradual rise continuing for the previous 3000 years.

The net increase in world climate between the years 1000 and 2000 was less than the increase between the years 0 and 1000. We are cooler today than we were 8000 years ago and your cherry picking is less evidence of any natural occurrence than it is of your own limited understanding of the history of the climate.

It could be an intentional effort to deceive, but that is only known in your heart.

The Industrial Revolution started in about 1780 with the spreading use of the coal fired steam engine.

Is the impact of CO2 that you cite so strong that it can cause the temperature to rise before the additional and offending CO2 was even present?

What other examples can you present of the future causing the past?

File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art
File:Global Carbon Emission by Type.png - Global Warming Art

 

[Old Rocks]

It is very interesting that Code uses this chart to flap yap about the temperatures. One immediatly notices many large fluctuations, and most lines seem to indicate a cooling from 1800 to 1850. Yet Code does not attempt to explain that.

Then you look at the line from 1850 to present, and it is almost straight up. Yes, there are some natural variations that affect the temperature. Total Solar Irradiance, aerosols in the atmosphere, amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. The warming prior to 1800 was due to an increase in the TSI as the sun came out of the Maunder Minimum. The cooling from 1800 to 1850 due to aerosols in the atmosphere. And the present very rapid warming due to the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.

But our debates are probably going to be rendered moot. Another increase in the outgassing of the Arctic Ocean Clathrates, such as we saw from Sept 2010 to Sept 2011, and what we do from here on in doesn't really matter.

 

[westwall]

It is very interesting that Code uses this chart to flap yap about the temperatures. One immediatly notices many large fluctuations, and most lines seem to indicate a cooling from 1800 to 1850. Yet Code does not attempt to explain that.

Then you look at the line from 1850 to present, and it is almost straight up. Yes, there are some natural variations that affect the temperature. Total Solar Irradiance, aerosols in the atmosphere, amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. The warming prior to 1800 was due to an increase in the TSI as the sun came out of the Maunder Minimum. The cooling from 1800 to 1850 due to aerosols in the atmosphere. And the present very rapid warming due to the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.

But our debates are probably going to be rendered moot. Another increase in the outgassing of the Arctic Ocean Clathrates, such as we saw from Sept 2010 to Sept 2011, and what we do from here on in doesn't really matter.

Actually Code did address that cooling. Quite correctly ascribing it to a large decrease in solar activity. Or did you miss that part?

 

[RollingThunder]

Just to re-cap, then:

You assert that during the PETM CO2 rose by 70% and caused a 13 degree temperature increase.

You further assert that we are currently at a 40% increase in CO2 and yet we have witnessed a temperature increase of about 0.7 degrees C in 2000 years.

Is your ability to comprehend what you read really that low? Do you really think idiotic verbal tricks like that fool anybody but your fellow denier cult dingbats? No, dumbass, we have actually witnessed a temperature increase of about 1.4° F in a little over a century, not 0.7° F in 2000 years. Are you really that ignorant or are you a paid troll here to spread misinformation, lies and bullshit?

"Measurements show a global temperature increase of 1.4 °F (0.78 °C) between the years 1900 and 2005."

You imply that the PETM is the blueprint for the present and that we may expect a similar increase in temperatures.

When might we expect the other 6.3 degrees C of increase to occur?

If it is impolite of me to ask you to think, I apologize.

LOL. As if you ever"think" before spouting some idiotic nonsense like this.

You really must have a major comprehension problem, code4BS. You're responding to some quotes from an article that I posted so you must have seen this even if you couldn't understand it. Try again, numbnuts. I'll even highlight the part you missed.

"In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years."

It took ten thousand years for that 13° F temperature increase to occur during the PETM and our anthropogenic CO2 surge only started in the 19th century and only really got going in the latter part of the 20th century but you think the temperature increase this time should have been happening even faster than it has been. LOL. Mankind's carbon emissions are driving these changes far faster than natural forces ever have but it is still not instantaneous. It took ten thousand years for a 13° F rise in temperature then but we've managed to achieve about a degree and a half rise in only 105 years but you imagine that since it wasn't even faster, it must not be real. LOL. You are such a confused loon.

My father always told me that profanity is how the uneducated express themselves.

Well, apparently your father was as given to idiotic over-generalizations as you are. Actually, posting clueless drivel on internet forums like you do is how the uneducated express themselves.

The warming trend that we currently enjoy started between about 1550 to 1650.

LOL. Another one of your denier cult myths based on your misunderstanding of the science.

Due to the sudden drop of temperatures during the Little Ice Age which was caused by the Sun, not terrestrial factors, the recovery to more normal temperatures seems like a rise in temperatures.

The actual baseline, though, is not the downward valley of the LIA, it is the gradual rise continuing for the previous 3000 years.

The net increase in world climate between the years 1000 and 2000 was less than the increase between the years 0 and 1000. We are cooler today than we were 8000 years ago and your cherry picking is less evidence of any natural occurrence than it is of your own limited understanding of the history of the climate.

Actually it is you who has no understanding of the history of the Earth's climate. Your drivel has very little connection to the facts.

The evidence studied by the climate scientists indicates that over the past 10,000 years during the period known as the Holocene, temperatures and sea levels, which have a close connection, have been remarkable stable. Temperatures over this period have have only varied by about 0.5° C up or down. The "Holocene maximum" or the warmest part of this period, was about 8,000 years ago, and according to climate scientists, today’s temperature is about, or slightly above, the Holocene maximum. Global temperatures have increased by about 0.5° C over the past three decades until they are now at least equal to the prior Holocene maximum, or a few tenths of a degree higher. The Arctic ice cap and the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica have been fairly stable during the Holocene until now, when the Arctic ice cap has diminished by over a third and the ice sheets are melting at accelerating rates. Sea levels did not change significantly over the last 3000 years until the late 19th century when the instrumental record of sea level change shows evidence for an onset of sea level rise. Over the last 25 years, the rate of sea level rise has doubled.

The Industrial Revolution started in about 1780 with the spreading use of the coal fired steam engine.

Is the impact of CO2 that you cite so strong that it can cause the temperature to rise before the additional and offending CO2 was even present?

Technically and historically, the Industrial Revolution may have started back then but it is only over the last century or so that mankind has added significant quantities of fossil carbon to the atmosphere. The current very abrupt warming trend, contrary to your moronic denier cult myths, is clearly linked to the rise in CO2 levels.

 

[skookerasbil]

Is your ability to comprehend what you read really that low? Do you really think idiotic verbal tricks like that fool anybody but your fellow denier cult dingbats? No, dumbass, we have actually witnessed a temperature increase of about 1.4° F in a little over a century, not 0.7° F in 2000 years. Are you really that ignorant or are you a paid troll here to spread misinformation, lies and bullshit?

"Measurements show a global temperature increase of 1.4 °F (0.78 °C) between the years 1900 and 2005."





LOL. As if you ever"think" before spouting some idiotic nonsense like this.

You really must have a major comprehension problem, code4BS. You're responding to some quotes from an article that I posted so you must have seen this even if you couldn't understand it. Try again, numbnuts. I'll even highlight the part you missed.

"In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years."

It took ten thousand years for that 13° F temperature increase to occur during the PETM and our anthropogenic CO2 surge only started in the 19th century and only really got going in the latter part of the 20th century but you think the temperature increase this time should have been happening even faster than it has been. LOL. Mankind's carbon emissions are driving these changes far faster than natural forces ever have but it is still not instantaneous. It took ten thousand years for a 13° F rise in temperature then but we've managed to achieve about a degree and a half rise in only 105 years but you imagine that since it wasn't even faster, it must not be real. LOL. You are such a confused loon.

My father always told me that profanity is how the uneducated express themselves.

Well, apparently your father was as given to idiotic over-generalizations as you are. Actually, posting clueless drivel on internet forums like you do is how the uneducated express themselves.





LOL. Another one of your denier cult myths based on your misunderstanding of the science.

Due to the sudden drop of temperatures during the Little Ice Age which was caused by the Sun, not terrestrial factors, the recovery to more normal temperatures seems like a rise in temperatures.

The actual baseline, though, is not the downward valley of the LIA, it is the gradual rise continuing for the previous 3000 years.

The net increase in world climate between the years 1000 and 2000 was less than the increase between the years 0 and 1000. We are cooler today than we were 8000 years ago and your cherry picking is less evidence of any natural occurrence than it is of your own limited understanding of the history of the climate.

Actually it is you who has no understanding of the history of the Earth's climate. Your drivel has very little connection to the facts.

The evidence studied by the climate scientists indicates that over the past 10,000 years during the period known as the Holocene, temperatures and sea levels, which have a close connection, have been remarkable stable. Temperatures over this period have have only varied by about 0.5° C up or down. The "Holocene maximum" or the warmest part of this period, was about 8,000 years ago, and according to climate scientists, today’s temperature is about, or slightly above, the Holocene maximum. Global temperatures have increased by about 0.5° C over the past three decades until they are now at least equal to the prior Holocene maximum, or a few tenths of a degree higher. The Arctic ice cap and the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica have been fairly stable during the Holocene until now, when the Arctic ice cap has diminished by over a third and the ice sheets are melting at accelerating rates. Sea levels did not change significantly over the last 3000 years until the late 19th century when the instrumental record of sea level change shows evidence for an onset of sea level rise. Over the last 25 years, the rate of sea level rise has doubled.

The Industrial Revolution started in about 1780 with the spreading use of the coal fired steam engine.

Is the impact of CO2 that you cite so strong that it can cause the temperature to rise before the additional and offending CO2 was even present?

Technically and historically, the Industrial Revolution may have started back then but it is only over the last century or so that mankind has added significant quantities of fossil carbon to the atmosphere. The current very abrupt warming trend, contrary to your moronic denier cult myths, is clearly linked to the rise in CO2 levels.

Nobody cares about "the facts" except the OCD environmental nutters on the internet..................


Prevent Disease.com - Global Warming Alarmists Are Losing Their Case


Climate scientists are losing ground against deniers' disinformation | Joss Garman | Environment | guardian.co.uk



LOL.......even the hard left group "Democracy Now" says last week's climate summit in South Africa was a disaster.................Climate Activists: Durban Deal is "Very Weak" Agreement, Lacks "Ambition, Equity, Justice"



Even the noted and famous warming big Robert Socolow said recently, 'Warmists' lost the 'argument' because their claims were proven to be sub-prime science. The public knew instinctively they were being conned by global warming fear activists. 'Losing the argument' is not a result of bad communication -- but a result of bad science'



Warmist Robert Socolow laments: 'We are losing the argument with the general public, big time...I think the climate change activists, myself included, have lost the American middle' | Climate Depot





Meanwhile, the evidence mounts that the climate k00ks on this forum are beyond fcukking naive as they think their BS rhetoric matters..............here is an update on the current market for carbon in the EU ( hint: Its at an all time low)

Celebrate Failing Sub-Prime Economics! EU carbon price hits all-time low: 'I still don't see any bottom to this market' | Climate Depot




Indeed..........if you are a skeptic, it is a wonderful holiday season!!!!!!!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

Nobody cares about "the facts" except the...

...intelligent people of the world. We already know that category doesn't include you, kookster. You reinforce that fact every time you post.

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody cares about "the facts" except the...

...intelligent people of the world. We already know that category doesn't include you, kookster. You reinforce that fact every time you post.

still waitin' for that link s0n............you know.......the one that is showing the "the consensus" mattering one iota with its positive effect on the public policy desires of the bomb throwers?

Whats it now? 5 months?


Gassing Up: Why America's Future Job Growth Lies In Traditional Energy Industries | Newgeography.com

Like Ive been saying for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. The science matters...........but only to the internet OCD fringe!!

 

[code1211]

Is your ability to comprehend what you read really that low? Do you really think idiotic verbal tricks like that fool anybody but your fellow denier cult dingbats? No, dumbass, we have actually witnessed a temperature increase of about 1.4° F in a little over a century, not 0.7° F in 2000 years. Are you really that ignorant or are you a paid troll here to spread misinformation, lies and bullshit?

"Measurements show a global temperature increase of 1.4 °F (0.78 °C) between the years 1900 and 2005."





LOL. As if you ever"think" before spouting some idiotic nonsense like this.

You really must have a major comprehension problem, code4BS. You're responding to some quotes from an article that I posted so you must have seen this even if you couldn't understand it. Try again, numbnuts. I'll even highlight the part you missed.

"In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years."

It took ten thousand years for that 13° F temperature increase to occur during the PETM and our anthropogenic CO2 surge only started in the 19th century and only really got going in the latter part of the 20th century but you think the temperature increase this time should have been happening even faster than it has been. LOL. Mankind's carbon emissions are driving these changes far faster than natural forces ever have but it is still not instantaneous. It took ten thousand years for a 13° F rise in temperature then but we've managed to achieve about a degree and a half rise in only 105 years but you imagine that since it wasn't even faster, it must not be real. LOL. You are such a confused loon.

My father always told me that profanity is how the uneducated express themselves.

Well, apparently your father was as given to idiotic over-generalizations as you are. Actually, posting clueless drivel on internet forums like you do is how the uneducated express themselves.





LOL. Another one of your denier cult myths based on your misunderstanding of the science.

Due to the sudden drop of temperatures during the Little Ice Age which was caused by the Sun, not terrestrial factors, the recovery to more normal temperatures seems like a rise in temperatures.

The actual baseline, though, is not the downward valley of the LIA, it is the gradual rise continuing for the previous 3000 years.

The net increase in world climate between the years 1000 and 2000 was less than the increase between the years 0 and 1000. We are cooler today than we were 8000 years ago and your cherry picking is less evidence of any natural occurrence than it is of your own limited understanding of the history of the climate.

Actually it is you who has no understanding of the history of the Earth's climate. Your drivel has very little connection to the facts.

The evidence studied by the climate scientists indicates that over the past 10,000 years during the period known as the Holocene, temperatures and sea levels, which have a close connection, have been remarkable stable. Temperatures over this period have have only varied by about 0.5° C up or down. The "Holocene maximum" or the warmest part of this period, was about 8,000 years ago, and according to climate scientists, today’s temperature is about, or slightly above, the Holocene maximum. Global temperatures have increased by about 0.5° C over the past three decades until they are now at least equal to the prior Holocene maximum, or a few tenths of a degree higher. The Arctic ice cap and the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica have been fairly stable during the Holocene until now, when the Arctic ice cap has diminished by over a third and the ice sheets are melting at accelerating rates. Sea levels did not change significantly over the last 3000 years until the late 19th century when the instrumental record of sea level change shows evidence for an onset of sea level rise. Over the last 25 years, the rate of sea level rise has doubled.

The Industrial Revolution started in about 1780 with the spreading use of the coal fired steam engine.

Is the impact of CO2 that you cite so strong that it can cause the temperature to rise before the additional and offending CO2 was even present?

Technically and historically, the Industrial Revolution may have started back then but it is only over the last century or so that mankind has added significant quantities of fossil carbon to the atmosphere. The current very abrupt warming trend, contrary to your moronic denier cult myths, is clearly linked to the rise in CO2 levels.

You confirm what i say and yet deny that it means what it means.

The CO2 was not sufficient in your opinion to change climate until 100 years ago and yet the temperature started rising before that by a pretty good amount of time.

Future causes the past?

 

[code1211]

It is very interesting that Code uses this chart to flap yap about the temperatures. One immediatly notices many large fluctuations, and most lines seem to indicate a cooling from 1800 to 1850. Yet Code does not attempt to explain that.

Then you look at the line from 1850 to present, and it is almost straight up. Yes, there are some natural variations that affect the temperature. Total Solar Irradiance, aerosols in the atmosphere, amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. The warming prior to 1800 was due to an increase in the TSI as the sun came out of the Maunder Minimum. The cooling from 1800 to 1850 due to aerosols in the atmosphere. And the present very rapid warming due to the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.

But our debates are probably going to be rendered moot. Another increase in the outgassing of the Arctic Ocean Clathrates, such as we saw from Sept 2010 to Sept 2011, and what we do from here on in doesn't really matter.

When it suits you, natural cycles are present and when it does not, they are not.

In either event, the cooling of the LIA stopped and reversed prior to the Industrial Revolution and the warming we now enjoy continues even though the natural cycles which always overpower the effects of CO2 continue.

Ignoring evidence does not make it go away.

 

[konradv]

It is very interesting that Code uses this chart to flap yap about the temperatures. One immediatly notices many large fluctuations, and most lines seem to indicate a cooling from 1800 to 1850. Yet Code does not attempt to explain that.

Then you look at the line from 1850 to present, and it is almost straight up. Yes, there are some natural variations that affect the temperature. Total Solar Irradiance, aerosols in the atmosphere, amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. The warming prior to 1800 was due to an increase in the TSI as the sun came out of the Maunder Minimum. The cooling from 1800 to 1850 due to aerosols in the atmosphere. And the present very rapid warming due to the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.

But our debates are probably going to be rendered moot. Another increase in the outgassing of the Arctic Ocean Clathrates, such as we saw from Sept 2010 to Sept 2011, and what we do from here on in doesn't really matter.

When it suits you, natural cycles are present and when it does not, they are not.

In either event, the cooling of the LIA stopped and reversed prior to the Industrial Revolution and the warming we now enjoy continues even though the natural cycles which always overpower the effects of CO2 continue.

Ignoring evidence does not make it go away.

You're assuming that natural cycles and increased CO2 have some sort of connection in this case. We're talking about CO2 of an origin not seen before in earth's history, so strict reliance on what happened in the past isn't valid. The whole point is to find out how much natural cycles are being altered by increases in absorbed energy due to added CO2. Other instances of warmimg and cooling in the past may be interesting as natural huistory, but aren't a template for our time, because of changes in underlying conditions.

 

[westwall]

It is very interesting that Code uses this chart to flap yap about the temperatures. One immediatly notices many large fluctuations, and most lines seem to indicate a cooling from 1800 to 1850. Yet Code does not attempt to explain that.

Then you look at the line from 1850 to present, and it is almost straight up. Yes, there are some natural variations that affect the temperature. Total Solar Irradiance, aerosols in the atmosphere, amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. The warming prior to 1800 was due to an increase in the TSI as the sun came out of the Maunder Minimum. The cooling from 1800 to 1850 due to aerosols in the atmosphere. And the present very rapid warming due to the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.

But our debates are probably going to be rendered moot. Another increase in the outgassing of the Arctic Ocean Clathrates, such as we saw from Sept 2010 to Sept 2011, and what we do from here on in doesn't really matter.

When it suits you, natural cycles are present and when it does not, they are not.

In either event, the cooling of the LIA stopped and reversed prior to the Industrial Revolution and the warming we now enjoy continues even though the natural cycles which always overpower the effects of CO2 continue.

Ignoring evidence does not make it go away.

You're assuming that natural cycles and increased CO2 have some sort of connection in this case. We're talking about CO2 of an origin not seen before in earth's history, so strict reliance on what happened in the past isn't valid. The whole point is to find out how much natural cycles are being altered by increases in absorbed energy due to added CO2. Other instances of warmimg and cooling in the past may be interesting as natural huistory, but aren't a template for our time, because of changes in underlying conditions.

So, when the CO2 levels were orders of magnitude higher then they are now....how did they get that way?

 

[taichiliberal]

Answers in bold face in the body of your email below. - M of B (Lord Monckton, former advisor to PM Margaret Thatcher)

My responses colored as such----- Original Message -----
From: ******
To: [email protected]
Subject: questions on global warming
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:54:36 EST

Dear Lord Monckton,


A few decades ago in America, environmental scientist pointed out that a few hundred lakes in America were dying or dead due to acid rain......rain that was loaded with the chemical pollutants that can be found in the smoke stacks of manufacturing factories. To stop this, it was suggested that all industrial smokestacks be fitted with additional filtration systems that would greatly curtail the pollutants.

Rather than pay for the installation, many industries came up with this hair splitting defense, "If you can't prove that pollutants from my particular plant ended up in a particular lake that killed its wild life, then I'm not libel, and therefore I don't have to change".

In other words, the death by pollution of American lakes via acid rain wasn't exactly being denied....the buck was just being passed....and the corporations just kept making bucks regardless of the consequences.


Now I have consistently asked all those that deny global warming these specific questions, and to date have not gotten a straight answer. Maybe you could answer the following:



1 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing pollutants from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Pollution is damaging: but carbon dioxide, which is what the "global warming" theory is about, is not pollution. It is actually plant food and, in the past million years, concentrations have been at near-starvation levels for trees and plants. Carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere is entirely beneficial to the biosphere, and - once the numerous errors in the IPCC's method of calculation are corrected - causes only a very small and generally beneficial warming.

You are in effect saying that CO2 emissions from industrial smokestacks and car exhausts is beneficial to the environment….which is perplexing given that you have a market decrease in the very natural system of turning that into oxygen…trees. All one has to do is live in an urban environment with heavy vehicle traffic and nearby industrial plant’s smokestack and very little to no forest area, and you get the point. Add to this the other various chemical effluents contained in these emissions, and your assertion of benefits becomes questionable at best.

2 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing deforestation of rainforests have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Deforestation, too, is not caused by carbon dioxide enrichment of the atmosphere. It is caused by greed, bribery and governmental incompetence.

But you leave out the fact that deforestation releases the very carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that you base your article on, since trees are about 50% carbon. But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year – 1.6 billion tonnes – is caused by deforestation. According to FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) figures, some 13 million ha of forests worldwide are lost every year, almost entirely in the tropics. Deforestation remains high in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, of which the by products are sold in Europe and North America. But this is old news.
Tropical Deforestation And Global Warming: Smithsonian Scientist Challenges Results Of Recent Study

3 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing urbanization that have replaced fields, valleys and forests with concrete for housing, malls and high rises have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Urbanization is accompanied by increases in greenhouse-gas emissions and is, accordingly, relevant to the "global warming" debate, unlike your previous two questions. But the temperature globally would not rise very much even if we quadrupled the pre-industrial concentration of atmospheric CO2.
In order to quadruple urbanization, you would have to quadruple deforestation in various spots around the globe….less trees, grass, plants means a lot more CO2 without nature’s ability to convert it to oxygen. And that is not good for all air breathing. And as you know, it wouldn’t take much of a global temperature rise to drastically change the landscape our various societies now enjoy. Just look at what “unseasonable” weather in the form of heavy rains, longer droughts, hurricanes, etc., can do. My other two questions are most pertinent, being that it focuses on all parts of an environment that interacts with human society, and cannot be isolated and separated as you do.

4 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing dumping of industrial waste into our oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Again, this question has no relevance to the "global warming" question. In fact, the volume of the oceans is so large that pollution has had a rather small effect. That is not to say that pollution is a good thing: but one should keep matters in perspective. Most countries of the West now have reasonable and generally-effective systems to control pollution of the oceans.

How can you say that ocean pollution has no relevance to global warming, since the ocean is a critical part of replenishing oxygen and absorbing CO2 to our atmosphere? The more CO2 pumped into the air, the more of a burden on our oceans which can affect the acidic balance. Add to this destroying the various organisms, plant and animal life, and you restrain the ocean’s ability to absorb CO2 release oxygen into the air. And our pollution control methods for industrial nations has a long way to go before being seen as generally effective…..just look at the current 2 term American President’s environmental record.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Could Violate EPA Ocean-quality Standards Within Decades

5 - are you saying that in the last 100 years, global exponentially increasing trawl nets on the oceans have had NO NEGLIBLE effect on this planet's eco-system?

Over-fishing, particularly in consequence of the Communist Fisheries Policy of the EU, is most certainly a problem. But, again, this question has little or no bearing on the "global warming" issue, which was the subject of my article.

If you damage the ocean’s ecology, you affect its ability to convert CO2 to oxygen. Acid rain has been confirmed to destroy lakes in America….and all one has to do is a quick recent historical review of the pollution of shorelines for many cities to know this is no small problem (slimy waters, dead fish, and terrible odors). The Green Peace folk have been most accurate in documenting the effects of trawling and who is doing it.
GREENPEACE | Defending the Deep : Episode III : Esperanza / NORTH WEST ATLANTIC 2005: releases


TO DATE, THERE HAS BEEN NO FURTHER RESPONSE FROM LORD MONCKTON'S OFFICE DESPITE MY REPEATED REQUESTS TO RESPOND TO MY REBUTTALS.

 

[konradv]

When it suits you, natural cycles are present and when it does not, they are not.

In either event, the cooling of the LIA stopped and reversed prior to the Industrial Revolution and the warming we now enjoy continues even though the natural cycles which always overpower the effects of CO2 continue.

Ignoring evidence does not make it go away.

You're assuming that natural cycles and increased CO2 have some sort of connection in this case. We're talking about CO2 of an origin not seen before in earth's history, so strict reliance on what happened in the past isn't valid. The whole point is to find out how much natural cycles are being altered by increases in absorbed energy due to added CO2. Other instances of warmimg and cooling in the past may be interesting as natural huistory, but aren't a template for our time, because of changes in underlying conditions.

So, when the CO2 levels were orders of magnitued higher then they are now....how did they get that way?

Once again that may be an interesting natural history question, but it's hardly relevant to what's happening today. We know where the CO2 is coming from, so that's the concern, NOT what happened in the past. That info doesn't really get us any answers, since underlying conditions have changed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Watch me make a hockey stick from there tree rings....look at the rings, you are getting sleepy, so sleepy, you are seeing the manmade global warming in the rings..."

 

[konradv]

When it suits you, natural cycles are present and when it does not, they are not.

In either event, the cooling of the LIA stopped and reversed prior to the Industrial Revolution and the warming we now enjoy continues even though the natural cycles which always overpower the effects of CO2 continue.

Ignoring evidence does not make it go away.

You're assuming that natural cycles and increased CO2 have some sort of connection in this case. We're talking about CO2 of an origin not seen before in earth's history, so strict reliance on what happened in the past isn't valid. The whole point is to find out how much natural cycles are being altered by increases in absorbed energy due to added CO2. Other instances of warmimg and cooling in the past may be interesting as natural huistory, but aren't a template for our time, because of changes in underlying conditions.

So, when the CO2 levels were orders of magnitued higher then they are now....how did they get that way?

There could be all sorts of reasons, e.g. volcanism, but since I'm more concerned about what's happening NOW and determining THOSE reasons, I really don't have time to do your natural history homework for you.

 

[skookerasbil]

You're assuming that natural cycles and increased CO2 have some sort of connection in this case. We're talking about CO2 of an origin not seen before in earth's history, so strict reliance on what happened in the past isn't valid. The whole point is to find out how much natural cycles are being altered by increases in absorbed energy due to added CO2. Other instances of warmimg and cooling in the past may be interesting as natural huistory, but aren't a template for our time, because of changes in underlying conditions.

So, when the CO2 levels were orders of magnitued higher then they are now....how did they get that way?

There could be all sorts of reasons, e.g. volcanism, but since I'm more concerned about what's happening NOW and determining THOSE reasons, I really don't have time to do your natural history homework for you.

yeah but nobody else is concerned s0n!!!

A week ago, the UN Climate Summit ended in South Africa. There was a 70% drop in attendance as compared to 2009. There was zero representation from the Obama administration and not a single American Democrat attended. Canada dropped out. Even the far left group Demcracy Now proclaimed it a total disaster.

Some prominent U.S. lawmakers, meanwhile, celebrated recent developments. U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a fierce critic of UN climate alarmism, sent a video to be presented at the global body’s climate summit that all but officially pronounces the death of the alarmist movement.[/B]

Some prominent U.S. lawmakers, meanwhile, celebrated recent developments. U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a fierce critic of UN climate alarmism, sent a video to be presented at the global body’s climate summit that all but officially pronounces the death of the alarmist movement.




The alarmist k00ks still dont get it..........their shit is as dead as a doornail, yet they are still posting up dinosaur links on global warming as if they matter. They may as well call a navel contemplation summit as nobody is caring about the science and even some of the warmer bigs have come out and stated that they fcukked up the science. The important thing is that if you look at any poll of Americans and the issues they are most concerned about, global warming ISNT EVEN ON THE LIST

Americans' Worries About Economy, Budget Top Other Issues



I suggest guys like Rolling Thunder, Konrad, Chris, et. al. would be more productive using this forum to coordinate a navel contemplation summit where they can sit in a big circle and deliberate on CO2 levels!!!

 

[westwall]

You're assuming that natural cycles and increased CO2 have some sort of connection in this case. We're talking about CO2 of an origin not seen before in earth's history, so strict reliance on what happened in the past isn't valid. The whole point is to find out how much natural cycles are being altered by increases in absorbed energy due to added CO2. Other instances of warmimg and cooling in the past may be interesting as natural huistory, but aren't a template for our time, because of changes in underlying conditions.

So, when the CO2 levels were orders of magnitued higher then they are now....how did they get that way?

Once again that may be an interesting natural history question, but it's hardly relevant to what's happening today. We know where the CO2 is coming from, so that's the concern, NOT what happened in the past. That info doesn't really get us any answers, since underlying conditions have changed.

The world operates on natural laws konrad. We may know where the CO2 is coming from in this day and age, one thing we do KNOW is that mankinds contribution is 4% of the entire CO2 budget of the world. 4% is BTW within the statistical error boundaries of the scientists who calculate that budget...so once again we MAY
know how much we are contributing...or we may not.

One thing is certain however. CO2 levels were vastly higher in the past and no catastrophes occured. That much we KNOW for certain. The PETM that olfraud and the rest of the AGW supporters love to trot out as a bad, bad time because of rapid heating was quite the opposite.

The paleo record shows quite clearly that the PETM was a veritable Garden of Eden. The massive creation of species and their thriving worldwide is well documented.

 

[westwall]

You're assuming that natural cycles and increased CO2 have some sort of connection in this case. We're talking about CO2 of an origin not seen before in earth's history, so strict reliance on what happened in the past isn't valid. The whole point is to find out how much natural cycles are being altered by increases in absorbed energy due to added CO2. Other instances of warmimg and cooling in the past may be interesting as natural huistory, but aren't a template for our time, because of changes in underlying conditions.

So, when the CO2 levels were orders of magnitued higher then they are now....how did they get that way?

There could be all sorts of reasons, e.g. volcanism, but since I'm more concerned about what's happening NOW and determining THOSE reasons, I really don't have time to do your natural history homework for you.

Your problem of course is that if you ignore the past history you will make faulty determinations now. And all empirical evidence says that that is exactly what has happened to your AGW theories.

 

[konradv]

So, when the CO2 levels were orders of magnitued higher then they are now....how did they get that way?

Once again that may be an interesting natural history question, but it's hardly relevant to what's happening today. We know where the CO2 is coming from, so that's the concern, NOT what happened in the past. That info doesn't really get us any answers, since underlying conditions have changed.

The world operates on natural laws konrad. We may know where the CO2 is coming from in this day and age, one thing we do KNOW is that mankinds contribution is 4% of the entire CO2 budget of the world. 4% is BTW within the statistical error boundaries of the scientists who calculate that budget...so once again we MAY
know how much we are contributing...or we may not.

One thing is certain however. CO2 levels were vastly higher in the past and no catastrophes occured. That much we KNOW for certain. The PETM that olfraud and the rest of the AGW supporters love to trot out as a bad, bad time because of rapid heating was quite the opposite.

The paleo record shows quite clearly that the PETM was a veritable Garden of Eden. The massive creation of species and their thriving worldwide is well documented.

Don't care a bit about your constant dredging up of ancient history. I'm concerned about what's happening NOW and wondering why you keep avoiding the Conservation of Energy question. Now you're "lying with statistics" in putting forth this number of a 4% contribution by man by only giving us the annual figure and ignoring the 30-40% CUMULATIVE EFFECT, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

 

[code1211]

It is very interesting that Code uses this chart to flap yap about the temperatures. One immediatly notices many large fluctuations, and most lines seem to indicate a cooling from 1800 to 1850. Yet Code does not attempt to explain that.

Then you look at the line from 1850 to present, and it is almost straight up. Yes, there are some natural variations that affect the temperature. Total Solar Irradiance, aerosols in the atmosphere, amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. The warming prior to 1800 was due to an increase in the TSI as the sun came out of the Maunder Minimum. The cooling from 1800 to 1850 due to aerosols in the atmosphere. And the present very rapid warming due to the GHGs that we have put into the atmosphere.

But our debates are probably going to be rendered moot. Another increase in the outgassing of the Arctic Ocean Clathrates, such as we saw from Sept 2010 to Sept 2011, and what we do from here on in doesn't really matter.

When it suits you, natural cycles are present and when it does not, they are not.

In either event, the cooling of the LIA stopped and reversed prior to the Industrial Revolution and the warming we now enjoy continues even though the natural cycles which always overpower the effects of CO2 continue.

Ignoring evidence does not make it go away.

You're assuming that natural cycles and increased CO2 have some sort of connection in this case. We're talking about CO2 of an origin not seen before in earth's history, so strict reliance on what happened in the past isn't valid. The whole point is to find out how much natural cycles are being altered by increases in absorbed energy due to added CO2. Other instances of warmimg and cooling in the past may be interesting as natural huistory, but aren't a template for our time, because of changes in underlying conditions.

So past experience, current evidence and observed trends mean nothing.

Only the predictions of dire consequence are to be believed?

It's been my experience that finding a credible comparator is a very good indicator of what might happen in similar circumstances and that seems to work pretty well in almost every case.

Adjusting the historic implication to fit fashion rarely creates the highest probablity outcome.

Does CO2 created from the burning of Fossil Fuels have completely a different effect on IR than CO2 from other sources?