Human Caused Global Warming

[SSDD]

[
Wildcard,
Go up a little to the reply I gave jc456. Click on one of the graphs on my reply. Each year, all the volcanos on earth put out about 200 million tons of CO2. Each year, human activities put out 26.8 billion tons. Go up a little to the reply I gave jc456. Click on one of the graphs on my reply. Given what I said, tell me that what is happening now is just a coincidence.

"All" the volcanoes on earth? Really? Do we know about all of the volcanoes on earth? Do we know how much CO2 each is spewing out? You guys just talk and talk with very little indication that you have done any research to determine whether you are lying or not. We know more about the topography of the moon and mars than we do about our own planet. We have a pretty good handle on the volcanoes on land, but know very little about the volcanoes and vents under the oceans which means that we know very little about most of the surface of the earth. A new map has recently been released which is "twice" as accurate as the previous maps (which isn't saying much) but this new map reveals the possible locations of literally thousands of volcanoes that we had no idea existed. Think again before you make proclamations about how much CO2 "all" the volcanoes on earth put out when in fact, we have no idea of how many volcanoes and vents there are.

 

[Crick]

Estimates from volcano-sourced CO2 include estimates of unknown, additional emissions. That estimate is significantly less than 1 percent of human emissions. If you want to contend there are more than one hundred times as many venting volcanoes on the planet as geologists believe, you better start searching.

 

[SSDD]

AGW is a farce, there is zero real science to support this religion.

CO2 does NOT drive climate.

Pollution does NOT equal AGW..

Kosh,
Like it or not, CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. And as has been shown in many ways, it is causing global temperatures to generally rise. As far as particulate pollution goes, it may help keep temperatures from rising as fast by keeping some sunlight from reaching the ground. Maybe that's how some of you deniers can sleep at night. Because if things gat as bad as they probably will, all the government has to do is send a couple ground penetrating hydrogen bombs crashing into a couple places where super volcanos exist. But that isn't much of a solution.

It has been shown in no way to make global temperatures rise. It has been hypothesized...it has been modeled and both the hypothesis and models have failed. CO2 does not drive the climate.

SSDD,
You can deny graphs like these all you want. But even you have to admit that it is likely that there is at least some "truthiness" to them.

sure, and some day maybe you could prove what you post. You have no evidence, none, nadda of any CO2 causing a climate or temperature change. As has been pointed out to you here, the past 18 year pause is an observed damning of your claim. While CO2 increased, temps stayed basically flat. So the cause is no where to be found. And as many on your side here have posted, at least you admit that CO2 follows temperature and to all of us is the only influence on the planet. So have a nice day and when you find that evidence you claim you have, that you don't, let us all know.

jc456,
First of all, it appears in the past that CO2 usually followed temperatures. But that isn't what is happening today. And as sure as the greenhouse effect is, Temperatures are sure to follow. Also, from what I heard, ocean temperatures have been rising more than atmospheric temperatures. Which apparently wasn't expected. But even warmer oceans isn't a good thing. Let me guess, you want me to dig up some graphs or find some scientific publication to quote. Well guess what. I have better things to do. Believe what you want. As you can tell from my avatar, I have more important cults to smash.

First of all CO2 will always follow temperature, that is science. You sir still have not proved anything other than that. So, I don't believe you nor the links you constantly post, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? It doesn't matter how many times you post it the same reaction will be received....DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? So tell me what else is there to discuss? WiNNiNG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jc456,
It appears I was able to make a graph appear that shows that right now, CO2 is leading the way. You should be able to click on one of the graphs to inlarge it. So what does that have to say about your assertion that CO2 always follows temperatures. Or that you're winning. Chew on that for a while!

This BULL SHIT AGAIN????

Billy_Bob,
I wonder how much denier money went to whoever made your graph. Even so, I still see a warming trend. Despite this, There are other graphs that show the opposite. But despite what your graph says, my graphs can beat up your graphs. Though I am new to this, you should be able to click on either graph to get a better view.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD,
You can deny graphs like these all you want. But even you have to admit that it is likely that there is at least some "truthiness" to them.

Where did those graphs come from? Who made them? They bear little resemblance to the long term ice cores such as Vostok which clearly show that for hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 has followed temperature...not the other way around. An ongoing problem with you warmer types is that you are terrified to show the big picture....you show little clips of time and think it proves your case but when that little bit of time is compared to the larger picture, it becomes clear that you don't have an argument. You think for the past 400,000 years CO2 has followed temperature around like a little puppy on a leash, but in the past 150 years, suddenly CO2 grew up into a bad dog and is running the show? How do you suppose that might have happened?

CO2 does not control the climate.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD,
You are picking the hell out of some nits. Maybe you can tell me where CO2 levels were at when the entire earth froze over. But none of that matters. What matters is the effects of what humans are now doing is having. And if greed or being able to multiply like bacteria are worth it.

No, I am telling you where CO2 levels were just prior to the whole earth freezing over. You are claiming that a small increase in CO2 which is presently around 100ppm is going to cause catastrophic warming....the fact is that an ice age began when CO2 levels were 250% higher than they are now. Your claims simply don't add up when put in the context of history.

Your claims are simply baseless. If you are going to claim that our small contribution to atmospheric CO2 is going to lead to catastrophic consequences, then you need to be able to explain why when CO2 levels were far higher than they are at present, the same sort of catastrophe that you are predicting didn't happen. If you can't, then you have no justification for taking action on your claims of impending doom.

 

[SSDD]

Wildcard,
You call these graphs lies and misinformation. But they hold more weight than the blanlet denials that you come up with.

Yes, those graphs are misinformation...they are misinformation because they attempt to make a case for how the climate behaves, and what causes it's behavior based on a very thin slice of time. They are lies by omission. If you want to make a case for how the climate behaves, then you must show as much of the climate history as possible in order to get all of the information. This is a slice of time that is 346,153% larger than your little slice of time and it tells an entirely different story than your little graph...it tells us that CO2 follows temperature...it doesn't cause temperatures to increase. It doesn't support your claims based on that little 130 year slice of time.

 

[SSDD]

Estimates from volcano-sourced CO2 include estimates of unknown, additional emissions. That estimate is significantly less than 1 percent of human emissions. If you want to contend there are more than one hundred times as many venting volcanoes on the planet as geologists believe, you better start searching.

Estimates of unknown additional emissions? How many unknown volcanoes is that? 50, 100, 500, 1000, 5000? How many?...and how much? Again, you are talking about climate science making a blind assed guess.....A few weeks ago, there were believed to be about 1500 active volcanoes worldwide....recent sat maps released of the ocean floor, which claim to be twice as accurate as previous maps (which isn't saying much) reveal that there may be thousands of previously unknown undersea volcanoes and vents...not hundreds more, but thousands more. So again, how many unknown volcanoes did science estimate? Do you think they estimated thousands more than they actually knew about?

 

[Crick]

The odds that geologist's estimates of the planet's total volcanic activity are off by a factor of 134 are nil. Your argument here is precisely equivalent to "it's only a theory". Unfortunately, the uneducated masses that populate your side of this argument don't even understand the point.

 

[SSDD]

The odds that geologist's estimates of the planet's total volcanic activity are off by a factor of 134 are nil. Your argument here is precisely equivalent to "it's only a theory". Unfortunately, the uneducated masses that populate your side of this argument don't even understand the point.

The odds that stomach ulcers were not caused by stress were nil till they weren't...The odds that plate tectonics were at work were nil till they were....The odds that quasicrystals exist were nil...till they did.....the odds that there were any number of planets in the solar system other than 9 were nil, till there weren't.....the odds that there were more than 30 orders of insects were nil, till there were....the odds that humans evolved directly from something other than a tree dwelling primate were nil, till we didn't....and on and on and on. The idea that geologists know what is going on under the oceans which we know less about than the moon is just stupid. As knowledge grows, we find out that we were wrong on lots of things and this new map of the sea floor is a pretty good indication that geologists really didn't have much of an idea of what was happening down there....so if they underestimated the number of active volcanoes and vents by thousands...what does that do to your claim that volcanoes hardly make any contribution at all to atmospheric CO2?

 

[skookerasbil]

West Coast warming linked to naturally occurring changes - LA Times


Operative word being "naturally".............

 

[jon_berzerk]

In my thread "Will You Vote Republican," somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing. But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.

Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2. Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans. Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year. Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.

This past summer, temperatures were fairly cool around where I live. But from what I have seen, if there are cooler temperatures in one area, it means that temperatures are hotter in another area of the earth.

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier. She points that in the far distant past, atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. Which is true. Around one hundred million years ago or so, they were much higher. Apparently because of the breakup of the continents, things have been cooling down over a long time. Causing many ice ages. But as far as I have seen, this isn't something that happened a very long time ago. When global CO2 levels were much higher. We are in uncharted territory. No doubt there is much more methane in places like frozen tundra or shallow seas than there was in the far past. And methane is 20 times better at causing global warming than CO2. Just how much warming will it take for that to start getting released in ever greater quantity. It's hard to say. But there is one thing I know for sure. Most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else.

Both of these points are factually incorrect. The rate of CO2 increase is far less than seen in Phanerozoic era. That Era saw a truly massive and rapid increase as a result of the earth warming and foliage growth. During this time the poles were ice free and there was little if no ice on earth. The paleo climate records shows us that CO2 followed the warmth and was not a driver as water vapor increased. The planets temperature did not leave the 22 deg C average high at any time. It did not runaway.. Showing that despite 7,000ppm + the earth did not cataclysmicly warm.

You should listen to you sister and not the shills we have for climate scientist these days

that is because the earth has a vent to throw off excessive heat

 

[cultsmasher]

SSDD,
If your arguments are coming down to asking people to repeat themselves, you may as well just give up.

You have not answered the question....if the climate is within the bounds of natural variability....where is the human fingerprint?....how do you separate it from the natural noise?

You have made a claim that you have not substantiated...can you, or can you not substantiate it?

SSDD,
Refer to my last answer.

I did...it was a non answer...it shows that you don't know the difference between correlation and causation...it is a common characteristic among those who believe in the AGW hypothesis.

SSDD,
It was only a non answer to somebody who refuses to see.

Refuse to see what you haven't shown? I have seen what you have produced and it certainly doesn't constitute proof of anything. You clearly don't know the difference between correlation and causation. You seem to be terrified of CO2 levels going much above the present 400ppm because you fear warming but CO2 levels were above 1000ppm when the present ice age began...if CO2 causes catastrophic warming, how did an ice age begin....in fact, all of the ice ages of the past begin with CO2 levels over 1000ppm and in some cases with CO2 levels over 4000ppm? Do you think CO2 from human activity is somehow different than natural CO2?

SSDD,
You're bringing up nonsense again. There have been many wild events in the past. The Siberian Traps eruption, asteroid strikes and the like. You cant use such past events as a model for current events.

 

[cultsmasher]

SSDD,
I'm going to skip most of what you said.

Of course you are...that is how zealots operate...when you can't answer, you ignore and hope that no one notices.

Then you really venture into insane land by claiming that it is better to be sorry than safe.

Can you prove that we will be sorry? If you can, then do it...if you can't, then you are no more than a crazy on the sidewalk with a sandwich sign saying that "The end is near"

Just like the DEVO song, "If you have a problem, you just have to whip it."

So according to you, if it is in a song, it must be true? I know some people who think like that...they live their lives by song lyrics...no matter what happens they have a song lyric...and they are, to the last one...sad losers. They prove beyond a doubt that living your life by song lyrics is not a good plan.

Even if something is only a perceived threat, it is ALWAYS a good idea to do something about it.

Really? Ever see a paranoid? They perceive all sorts of threats and act on them and it seldom works out for them...Was it a good idea to start the war in the middle east over the perceived threat of WMD in Iraq? I could go on with examples of taking disastrous action based on "perceived" threats for pages and pages. When you perceive a threat, the first thing you do is determine whether it is an actual threat...then you assess how much of a threat it is and then perform a gain loss assessment to determine whether taking action is better than not. Simply taking action based on perceived threats is one of the most stupid things you could possibly do. Chicken little took action based on a perceived threat...how did that work out for him?

Though of course, you claim that there is no problem.

I am not making any claim at all. I am saying that there is nothing going on in the climate that is outside of, or even getting close to the bounds of natural variation...I am saying that if humans are having an effect on the climate, it isn't distinguishable from natural climate variations. You are claiming imminent disaster that must be addressed and I am asking for you to substantiate your claims and you don't seem to be able to do it...you simply respond with more claims of imminent disaster. You claim that an increase of the present concentration 400ppm CO2 concentration is going to lead to disastrous warming but the ice age we are in began with atmospheric CO2 over 1000ppm. I am not making any claims at all...I am asking you what solid evidence of imminent disaster you base your claims of impending doom requiring immediate action upon.

Also, as I said to somebody, it isn't a good idea to wait until everything is known diwn to the finest, exact detail until a problem is recognized.

And I don't think that you should wait until every possible detail is known....but you should wait until you know whether a real threat exists and how serious that threat is. Consider the question..."how sensitive is the climate to a doubling of CO2? Don't you think that such a basic bit of knowledge would be useful in determining whether a threat exists and the level of that threat. Right now, the range of climate sensitivity to CO2 is somewhere between zero and 8 degrees for a doubling of CO2. Is that enough information to even determine whether a threat even exists...much less to determine a course of action based upon a perceived threat?

SSDD,
For whatever reply I was referring to, I obviously skiped most of what you said becaise it was either stupid or irrelevent. Bringing up such topics as you did is how zealots really operate. Then you ask for proof that we will be sorry. Will the earth be sorry for the activities of humans? WAKE UP! It is already sorry! And by the way things are going, it and the humans living on it will get increasingly sorry.

As for the DEVO lyrics, I wasn't trying to be profound. Also, I know how you would have written such lyrics. "If you got a problem, just don't try to whip it." You then bring up being paranoid. But I'm not talking about insanity. I'm talking about reality. Then you bring up taking action even about a perceived threat. But I still say that doing so is always a good idea. Also, as they say, a ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Then as a lame example, you bring up what led to the second Iraq war. But threats had nothing to do with it. It was basically about oil. You also bring up some "chicken little" nonsense. But I will just skip that.

You then say that what is going on isn't outside of natural variation. Well when you basically include things like a small planet colliding with the earth, things indeed are within natural variation. Then you ask for evidence that disaster is heading our way. But you don't want to see the evidence. You will just keep spouting that everything will be just fine. Well it isn't fine right now and it is unlikely to get better. Despite whatever kind of weather a trilobite may have had to endure. But even though you don't want to see it, I will give you four photos to deny. Take a look at what has happened to lake Chad.


Then you bring up what is needed to be known before action is taken. Well out of zillions of things that are going on, take a look again at what remains of lake Chad. Such things are all that nees to be known as far as whether or not action should be taken.

 

[cultsmasher]

jc456,
It appears I was able to make a graph appear that shows that right now, CO2 is leading the way. You should be able to click on one of the graphs to inlarge it. So what does that have to say about your assertion that CO2 always follows temperatures. Or that you're winning. Chew on that for a while!

CO2 is increasing but temperatures are not...do you really believe that the oceans ate the global warming? What sort of mechanism do you think is responsible for the heat suddenly shifting from the atmosphere to the oceans...how do square your belief that the oceans are eating the warming with the fact that there is no dramatic increase in the rate that the oceans are accumulating heat over the time that the heat supposedly started being eaten by the oceans...and if the oceans are eating the heat, why are we not seeing a sudden acceleration in sea level due to thermal expansion instead of the observed decrease in sea level increase?

Your claims simply do not hold up when compared with what we are observing?

SSDD,
What I had to say about oceans getting warmer than they were expected to doesn't have anything to do with what I believe. It was from a documentary or news thing. If you have any problem with that, you're going to have to dig up the scientists who made that observation and take up the issue with them.

 

[cultsmasher]

wildcard,
You can tell yourself that all you want. But it isn't going to make it true. If you look at how much CO2 has gone up since the beginning of the industrial revolution, even you can see where things are going.

You can tell yourself that all you want. But it isn't going to make it true.

And you can continue to convince yourself that global warming is real, and that mankind is to blame, but it isn't going to make it true.

Wildcard,
Go up a little to the reply I gave jc456. Click on one of the graphs on my reply. Each year, all the volcanos on earth put out about 200 million tons of CO2. Each year, human activities put out 26.8 billion tons. Go up a little to the reply I gave jc456. Click on one of the graphs on my reply. Given what I said, tell me that what is happening now is just a coincidence.

I'm not interested in the lies and misinformation about global warming that you are trying to convince others of that it is real.

Wildcard,
You call these graphs lies and misinformation. But they hold more weight than the blanlet denials that you come up with.

You call these graphs lies and misinformation.

Yes I do.

But they hold more weight than the blanlet denials that you come up with.

Of course you believe that, after all you were gullible enough to be sold on the lies and misinformation of global warming.

wildcard,
Do you really think that the vast majority of scientists are wrong and you are right? Can your ego really be that overblown?

 

[cultsmasher]

wildcard,
Despite your model, I am still seeing an upward trend.

 

[cultsmasher]

wildcard,
I don't know where you dug this graph up at. But seeing how most other graphs show just the opposite, I'm going to have to go with them. Also, this graph doesn't show CO2. And as I said, where CO2 goes, temperatures are sure to follow. Another thing is that according to a program on PBS I watched just last night on the subject, where temperatures are taken makes a difference.

If this graph you show is indeed authentic, there must be some flaw in it. After all, what is making glaciers and ice caps melt the way they are. Superman's heat vision? Or what is making sea levels rise. God pissing into the ocean from orbit?

 

[cultsmasher]

jc456,
First of all, it appears in the past that CO2 usually followed temperatures. But that isn't what is happening today. And as sure as the greenhouse effect is, Temperatures are sure to follow. Also, from what I heard, ocean temperatures have been rising more than atmospheric temperatures. Which apparently wasn't expected. But even warmer oceans isn't a good thing. Let me guess, you want me to dig up some graphs or find some scientific publication to quote. Well guess what. I have better things to do. Believe what you want. As you can tell from my avatar, I have more important cults to smash.

First of all CO2 will always follow temperature, that is science. You sir still have not proved anything other than that. So, I don't believe you nor the links you constantly post, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? It doesn't matter how many times you post it the same reaction will be received....DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? So tell me what else is there to discuss? WiNNiNG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jc456,
It appears I was able to make a graph appear that shows that right now, CO2 is leading the way. You should be able to click on one of the graphs to inlarge it. So what does that have to say about your assertion that CO2 always follows temperatures. Or that you're winning. Chew on that for a while!

This BULL SHIT AGAIN????

Billy_Bob,
I wonder how much denier money went to whoever made your graph. Even so, I still see a warming trend. Despite this, There are other graphs that show the opposite. But despite what your graph says, my graphs can beat up your graphs. Though I am new to this, you should be able to click on either graph to get a better view.

Too Funny... You Plot CO2 as if it is a direct correlation ( and you had to do some mighty fun tricks to get it to plot that way too).

IF CO2 is LOG functioning how does it magically plot equal to temperature when temperature is NOT LOG FUNCTIONING. your graphs are a lie! If you simply use basic science your whole premise is blown out the door...

Billy_Bob,
You call this my plot and talk about tricks I do. But these graphs aren't mine and I didn't alter them. I went to my browser and entered, "Graphs that show CO2 and temperature rates since the beginning of the industrial revolution." One of the sites shows such graphs. Tons of them. I picked a couple and printed them. Then I scanned them into my computer. From there, I did a split screen thing and draged the image over into my reply. So for what the graphs show, you're just going to have to live with it.

 

[cultsmasher]

We are at the top portion of the 60 year warm side of the solar output. We will now continue to cool for about 30-50 years until we again reach the bottom of the cooling cycle. We have been out of all modeled predictions for over 14 years. 126 models updated just 10 years ago are now failed. And its 100%..

Billy_Bob,
I have heard that kind of crap before. But the sun's output has nothing to do with what's going on. Neither does any deviation in either our axis or orbit. Neither are we in a warmer part of space that is also causing global warming on mars.

 

[cultsmasher]

First we would have to see real science and real data from the alarmists... none of this fake modeled crap and made up tree ring proxies..

Billy_Bob,
It would seem that the kind of "proof" you deniers require doesn't exist.

A legend in your own mind... nothing more... You are a marxist, communist who is using lie and deceit to get the control over everyone you desire. I have posted real facts and all you have posted is "modeled" non-facts...

Billy_Bob,
Like Popeye used to say, "I ams what I ams and that's all that I am." Also, I am neither a Marxist or a communist. My political leanings are more toward National Socialist. As for the validity of the "facts" you came up with, that is highly questionable. As for the facts I came up with, I can't take credit for the graphs. But all my points of reason you can take to the bank.