Human Caused Global Warming

[Billy_Bob]

flacaltenn,
Yes, I would say that it is time to panic. Seeing the rate at which humans are causing atmospheric CO2 to rise. But I think you're missing the whole point. What happens if people like me are wrong. Our whole economic system needlessly gets restructured to a more sustainable, fair and ecologically friendly framework. Which it is badly in need of anyway. But what if people like you are wrong. (Which you are) Most of the creatures get to go through hell before they get to go hang out with Jesus in heaven. (I say sarcastically)

Nope YOU are wrong!! on all counts.. empirical evidence proves it..

 

[cultsmasher]

Billy_Bob,
You global warming deniers are a joke. No matter what is said, you come up with bullshit to disprove it. Human caused global warming is real. Deal with it. This debate has played out. If you read all of the back and forth sense the beginning of this thread, you would know that you don't have a leg to stand on. Find some other topic to spout crap about.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy_Bob,
You global warming deniers are a joke. No matter what is said, you come up with bullshit to disprove it. Human caused global warming is real. Deal with it. This debate has played out. If you read all of the back and forth sense the beginning of this thread, you would know that you don't have a leg to stand on. Find some other topic to spout crap about.

The joke is on you.

Please tell how the earth survived 7,000ppm and greater levels of CO2 for 235 million years and during that time the high average temp was just 22 deg C and during glaciation phases just 12 deg C all over and over again WITHOUT runaway atmospheric temps? If CO2 was really the driver how did we survive as a planet?

The only joke here is on those who deny physical empirical evidence which refutes their very basic premise. Your models are broken toys that can not predict anything and they are NOT empirical evidence of any kind. The joke is on you.. Because you bought the snake oil tonic..

 

[Crick]

1) The period of interest is the period in which there were modern humans on this planet.
2) The current rate of change of CO2 and temperature is beyond that of any point in the history of the Earth since the KT impact event. Those rates have impacts on the results
3) Anthropogenic global warming is based on empirical evidence.

Rising temperatures are empirical evidence
Rising GHGs are empirical evidence
The warming effect of GHGs is empirical evidence
The behavior of the sun and its TSI over this period is empirical evidence
The levels of other radiative forcing elements (soot, aerosols, land use change) and their effects are empirical evidence
The directly measured radiative imbalance at the ToA is empirical evidence

What have you got?

 

[flacaltenn]

Billy_Bob,
You global warming deniers are a joke. No matter what is said, you come up with bullshit to disprove it. Human caused global warming is real. Deal with it. This debate has played out. If you read all of the back and forth sense the beginning of this thread, you would know that you don't have a leg to stand on. Find some other topic to spout crap about.

None of us actually deny the world is warming. There is just no evidence that it will warm any more than a couple degrees by 2100. What do YOU think the temperature anomaly in 2050 will be and WHY?

 

[flacaltenn]

1) The period oI interest is the period in which there were modern humans on this planet.
2) The current rate of change of CO2 and temperature is beyond that of any point in the history of the Earth since the KT impact event. Those rates have impacts on the results
3) Anthropogenic global warming is based on empirical evidence.

Rising temperatures are empirical evidence
Rising GHGs are empirical evidence
The warming effect of GHGs is empirical evidence
The behavior of the sun and its TSI over this period is empirical evidence
The levels of other radiative forcing elements (soot, aerosols, land use change) and their effects are empirical evidence
The directly measured radiative imbalance at the ToA is empirical evidence

What have you got?

You are lying for the 33nd time about that #2 and you KNOW it. Unless you are a parrot with an ISP connection.

And your #3 demonsstrates complete ignorance about the meaning of empirical evidence.And how to set up a scientific query. The temp is the process that NEEDS a theory. It is in no way the PROOF of the theory.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lets play the idiot game, shall we:

1) The period of interest is the period in which there were modern humans on this planet.

This premise denounces any form of natural variation. By this argument all warming and cooling since man arrived on this planet is mans fault. Are you this foolish? At least this explains your belief that man is responsible for it all.

2) The current rate of change of CO2 and temperature is beyond that of any point in the history of the Earth since the KT impact event. Those rates have impacts on the results

A huge pile of quackery and bull shit. The current rise and change if placed into context of a 300 year averaged plot makes this event disappear. Knowing this, you must also realize that these rises and falls have happened before and at far faster rates. When we arrive at the next glacial cycle you can pump billions of gigatons of GHG's and it wont stop you from being a ice cube. Empirical paleo evidence shows that even at 7000ppm we have warmed, cooled, and frozen cyclically over and over again.

3) Anthropogenic global warming is based on empirical evidence.

No, it is not. Your list below is derived from MODELS not from empirical evidence. Model outputs are not empirical evidence. I repeat; Model outputs are not empirical evidence

Rising temperatures are empirical evidence

18 years no temp rise while CO2 continued. Total falsification of the premise completed.

Rising GHGs are empirical evidence

18 years no temp rise while CO2 continued. Total falsification of the premise completed.

The warming effect of GHGs is empirical evidence

Climate Sensitivity has been reduced below a 1:1 ratio. Current empirical evidence shows that a 0.0 to 0.4 deg C rise per doubling of CO2 is now the most likely and accurate level of global response to CO2. That is a 60% reduction of the lab measurements made of CO2 reflection capability. Water absorbs heat and it also absorbs CO2.

The behavior of the sun and its TSI over this period is empirical evidence

Why Yes it is... Funny you would include this one as it is denied by the CAGW folks to have little or no effect on the earths systems. They have tried to remove the LIA, Younger-Dryas, Dalton and Maunder events. Your Man MANN is the one...

The levels of other radiative forcing elements (soot, aerosols, land use change) and their effects are empirical evidence
The directly measured radiative imbalance at the ToA is empirical evidence

I am currently in the process of Direct Measurements as a full study has never been performed. I am curious as to your source for your statement? Radiative imbalance means the whole spectrum of output.

What have you got?

I have facts. As I have line by line torn your crap to shreds it appears you haven't got anything but broken models to play with..

 

[cultsmasher]

Billy_Bob,
You global warming deniers are a joke. No matter what is said, you come up with bullshit to disprove it. Human caused global warming is real. Deal with it. This debate has played out. If you read all of the back and forth sense the beginning of this thread, you would know that you don't have a leg to stand on. Find some other topic to spout crap about.

None of us actually deny the world is warming. There is just no evidence that it will warm any more than a couple degrees by 2100. What do YOU think the temperature anomaly in 2050 will be and WHY?

flacaltenn,
That's cute. You put me on a slowdown, cause some posts to disappear and expect an answer. Suspend your slowdown and I will tell you what you apparently refuse to hear. By the way. You say that you don't like my avatar. What do you think Hitler would say about your attempts to stifle the truth.

 

[cultsmasher]

Crick,
Sorry, but they have me on a slowdown. Until they lift it, you're going to have to deal with these bozos on your own.

 

[flacaltenn]

1) The period oI interest is the period in which there were modern humans on this planet.
2) The current rate of change of CO2 and temperature is beyond that of any point in the history of the Earth since the KT impact event. Those rates have impacts on the results
3) Anthropogenic global warming is based on empirical evidence.

Rising temperatures are empirical evidence
Rising GHGs are empirical evidence
The warming effect of GHGs is empirical evidence
The behavior of the sun and its TSI over this period is empirical evidence
The levels of other radiative forcing elements (soot, aerosols, land use change) and their effects are empirical evidence
The directly measured radiative imbalance at the ToA is empirical evidence

What have you got?

You are lying for the 33nd time about that #2 and you KNOW it. Unless you are a parrot with an ISP connection.

Billy_Bob,
You global warming deniers are a joke. No matter what is said, you come up with bullshit to disprove it. Human caused global warming is real. Deal with it. This debate has played out. If you read all of the back and forth sense the beginning of this thread, you would know that you don't have a leg to stand on. Find some other topic to spout crap about.

None of us actually deny the world is warming. There is just no evidence that it will warm any more than a couple degrees by 2100. What do YOU think the temperature anomaly in 2050 will be and WHY?

flacaltenn,
That's cute. You put me on a slowdown, cause some posts to disappear and expect an answer. Suspend your slowdown and I will tell you what you apparently refuse to hear. By the way. You say that you don't like my avatar. What do you think Hitler would say about your attempts to stifle the truth.

That is about the exact opposite of what I have said about your avatar, I told you in open forum that it is your cross to bear. And neither I nor USMB gives a shit about your impaired personal judgement..

BTW While you are on "discouraged user" you should read the rules. Because you just broke a major one by discussing moderation actions in the open forum. Hope some moderator doesnt see those posts eh?

 

[cultsmasher]

1) The period oI interest is the period in which there were modern humans on this planet.
2) The current rate of change of CO2 and temperature is beyond that of any point in the history of the Earth since the KT impact event. Those rates have impacts on the results
3) Anthropogenic global warming is based on empirical evidence.

Rising temperatures are empirical evidence
Rising GHGs are empirical evidence
The warming effect of GHGs is empirical evidence
The behavior of the sun and its TSI over this period is empirical evidence
The levels of other radiative forcing elements (soot, aerosols, land use change) and their effects are empirical evidence
The directly measured radiative imbalance at the ToA is empirical evidence

What have you got?

You are lying for the 33nd time about that #2 and you KNOW it. Unless you are a parrot with an ISP connection.

Billy_Bob,
You global warming deniers are a joke. No matter what is said, you come up with bullshit to disprove it. Human caused global warming is real. Deal with it. This debate has played out. If you read all of the back and forth sense the beginning of this thread, you would know that you don't have a leg to stand on. Find some other topic to spout crap about.

None of us actually deny the world is warming. There is just no evidence that it will warm any more than a couple degrees by 2100. What do YOU think the temperature anomaly in 2050 will be and WHY?

flacaltenn,
That's cute. You put me on a slowdown, cause some posts to disappear and expect an answer. Suspend your slowdown and I will tell you what you apparently refuse to hear. By the way. You say that you don't like my avatar. What do you think Hitler would say about your attempts to stifle the truth.

That is about the exact opposite of what I have said about your avatar, I told you in open forum that it is your cross to bear. And neither I nor USMB gives a shit about your impaired personal judgement..

BTW While you are on "discouraged user" you should read the rules. Because you just broke a major one by discussing moderation actions in the open forum. Hope some moderator doesnt see those posts eh?

flacalten,
Impared personal judgment? That is your opinion. As for the rules of this forum, too many rules spoil the soup. And as for the rule I just broke, I probably already broke that when I asked others if their user experience had been slowed down too.

But before I gat banned, I will answer your questions about global warming. I will start out by restating what you already know. Yearly CO2 output of all the earths' volcanoes, 200 million tons. The yearly amount that humans are responsible for, 26.8 billion tons.

It has been shown that whenever CO2 levels raise, temperature also rises. You know that in earths' recent history, global CO2 levels and temperatures have dropped. Lately, the earth has been going through a period of ice ages and thawing. During this time, much methane has become trapped in tundra and shallow seas. Most of it is no doubt too deep to be affected by the earths warming. But there is a good chance that there is enough to be released by global warming to increase global warming beyond mere exponential levels. Which as you know could cause a huge disaster in a short amount of time.

Even with the greenhouse effect as is is now, major changes are going on. For example, recently the entire contenent of Greenland experienced some thawing. And everywhere where there is water where there used to be ice, global warming increases even more. Also, if you look at historic charts showing the temperatures of the earth, you know how they rise and fall. Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge of how these coincide with the minor fluctuations in the earths' orbit around the sun or in fluctuations in the earth's axis. I could look all these things up, but what's the point.

This is what really matters. What is going on now isn't being caused by any of those things. It's being caused by humans. As just one kind of animal on this planet, we dont have the right to effect the earths' climate in that way. Despite our "intelligence," what kind of supernatural monkey-voodo "god" supposedly created us, or whatever other kind of bullshit people might come up with.

Here are the facts. If the ability to understand them hasn't been evolved or brainwashed out of you. Capitalism is a concept from HELL! Corporations are without doubt phsychotic, sociopathic entities. Money determines what is right and wrong. Even if it means the destruction of the earth. Our whole economic system is geared toward how much useless crap companies can manage to shove down peoples's throats. What needs to be done is for humans to adopt a more sustainable and efficient economic system. But it can't be done through capitalism.

This brings up the question of what is really needed for people to be happy. But therein lies another problem. Have you ever seen a time lapsed film of a slime mold growing along a forest floor? That shows the perfect analogy for humanity. (Saying this next point with sarcasm) But I suppose as long as it is a "free" mold, that makes a difference.

That the world's population needs to be lowered is clear. Though this need not be done through slaughter. But if it is done, to whom will it be done to. It is highly unlikely that any species of human is going to take population level guidlines from another species of human. That is why I am a White separatist. The only hope I see is for different species of human to separate themselves and straighten out this question on their own. There are only two people I know of that have the ability to do something like this. Myself and somebody named Aron Loyd. So this is what the whole CO2 debate boils down to.

 

[Billy_Bob]

flacalten,

Impared personal judgment? That is your opinion. As for the rules of this forum, too many rules spoil the soup. And as for the rule I just broke, I probably already broke that when I asked others if their user experience had been slowed down too.

But before I gat banned, I will answer your questions about global warming. I will start out by restating what you already know. Yearly CO2 output of all the earths' volcanoes, 200 million tons. The yearly amount that humans are responsible for, 26.8 billion tons.

It has been shown that whenever CO2 levels raise, temperature also rises. You know that in earths' recent history, global CO2 levels and temperatures have dropped. Lately, the earth has been going through a period of ice ages and thawing. During this time, much methane has become trapped in tundra and shallow seas. Most of it is no doubt too deep to be affected by the earths warming. But there is a good chance that there is enough to be released by global warming to increase global warming beyond mere exponential levels. Which as you know could cause a huge disaster in a short amount of time.

Even with the greenhouse effect as is is now, major changes are going on. For example, recently the entire contenent of Greenland experienced some thawing. And everywhere where there is water where there used to be ice, global warming increases even more. Also, if you look at historic charts showing the temperatures of the earth, you know how they rise and fall. Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge of how these coincide with the minor fluctuations in the earths' orbit around the sun or in fluctuations in the earth's axis. I could look all these things up, but what's the point.

This is what really matters. What is going on now isn't being caused by any of those things. It's being caused by humans. As just one kind of animal on this planet, we dont have the right to effect the earths' climate in that way. Despite our "intelligence," what kind of supernatural monkey-voodo "god" supposedly created us, or whatever other kind of bullshit people might come up with.

Here are the facts. If the ability to understand them hasn't been evolved or brainwashed out of you. Capitalism is a concept from HELL! Corporations are without doubt phsychotic, sociopathic entities. Money determines what is right and wrong. Even if it means the destruction of the earth. Our whole economic system is geared toward how much useless crap companies can manage to shove down peoples's throats. What needs to be done is for humans to adopt a more sustainable and efficient economic system. But it can't be done through capitalism.

This brings up the question of what is really needed for people to be happy. But therein lies another problem. Have you ever seen a time lapsed film of a slime mold growing along a forest floor? That shows the perfect analogy for humanity. (Saying this next point with sarcasm) But I suppose as long as it is a "free" mold, that makes a difference.

That the world's population needs to be lowered is clear. Though this need not be done through slaughter. But if it is done, to whom will it be done to. It is highly unlikely that any species of human is going to take population level guidlines from another species of human. That is why I am a White separatist. The only hope I see is for different species of human to separate themselves and straighten out this question on their own. There are only two people I know of that have the ability to do something like this. Myself and somebody named Aron Loyd. So this is what the whole CO2 debate boils down to.

And the Truth comes out that this is merely a ploy to gain control. nothing more and nothing less.. The rise in CO2 has NOT resulted in a linear progression trend. It has infact diverged and shown itself a non player. The other gases may or may not be as well as the science is incomplete.

You really should take notes on Dr Steve Koonin;

Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

WSJ - Climate science is Not Settled.

The left wing arrogance that man can somehow manage the earths climatic systems without understanding them is pure fantasy.

 

[cultsmasher]

Lets play the idiot game, shall we:

1) The period of interest is the period in which there were modern humans on this planet.

This premise denounces any form of natural variation. By this argument all warming and cooling since man arrived on this planet is mans fault. Are you this foolish? At least this explains your belief that man is responsible for it all.

2) The current rate of change of CO2 and temperature is beyond that of any point in the history of the Earth since the KT impact event. Those rates have impacts on the results

A huge pile of quackery and bull shit. The current rise and change if placed into context of a 300 year averaged plot makes this event disappear. Knowing this, you must also realize that these rises and falls have happened before and at far faster rates. When we arrive at the next glacial cycle you can pump billions of gigatons of GHG's and it wont stop you from being a ice cube. Empirical paleo evidence shows that even at 7000ppm we have warmed, cooled, and frozen cyclically over and over again.

3) Anthropogenic global warming is based on empirical evidence.

No, it is not. Your list below is derived from MODELS not from empirical evidence. Model outputs are not empirical evidence. I repeat; Model outputs are not empirical evidence

Rising temperatures are empirical evidence

18 years no temp rise while CO2 continued. Total falsification of the premise completed.

Rising GHGs are empirical evidence

18 years no temp rise while CO2 continued. Total falsification of the premise completed.

The warming effect of GHGs is empirical evidence

Climate Sensitivity has been reduced below a 1:1 ratio. Current empirical evidence shows that a 0.0 to 0.4 deg C rise per doubling of CO2 is now the most likely and accurate level of global response to CO2. That is a 60% reduction of the lab measurements made of CO2 reflection capability. Water absorbs heat and it also absorbs CO2.

The behavior of the sun and its TSI over this period is empirical evidence

Why Yes it is... Funny you would include this one as it is denied by the CAGW folks to have little or no effect on the earths systems. They have tried to remove the LIA, Younger-Dryas, Dalton and Maunder events. Your Man MANN is the one...

The levels of other radiative forcing elements (soot, aerosols, land use change) and their effects are empirical evidence
The directly measured radiative imbalance at the ToA is empirical evidence

I am currently in the process of Direct Measurements as a full study has never been performed. I am curious as to your source for your statement? Radiative imbalance means the whole spectrum of output.

What have you got?

I have facts. As I have line by line torn your crap to shreds it appears you haven't got anything but broken models to play with..

Billy_Bob,
I have some things to add about the arguement between Crick and yourself. First of all, look at the chart that shows how much CO2 has been created by humans since the beginning of the industrial revolution. How foolish are you? Next, whatever may have caused fluctuations in the earth's CO2 or global temperatures in the past wasn't caused by man. As for the rate at which CO2 is now rising, go back to the graph I mentioned. See the hocky stick shape? I couldn't say for sure without looking it up. But I doubt if CO2 rates have ever risen faster. And whatever caused it to do so in the past involved unstoppable forces of astronomy and possibly the earth's interior. What's humanities' excuse.

You then bring up models vs empirical evidence. Looking at how much you have tried to sweep under the rug, I think I know what is going on with you. Something I have seem from tobacco harm deniers. Which is until you know everything right down to the finest detail, changing things is an absurdity. But things don't work that way. Despite how much human caused global warming deniers would like it to be.

You then go into statistics about temperature rise. Whether or not they are true is another matter. But it has always been shown when CO2 goes up, temperatures also follow suit. There is no question that the planet is warming. But at the same time, the earth is supposed to be in a cycle where it should be cooling. Heading toward another ice age. Instead, we are going in the opposite direction. Such a thing may have happened in the past. But again, it wasn't the fault of humans. It is also difficult to say what ramafications it will have. Then you talk about water absorbing heat. But that isn't a good thing either. Also, as I pointed out to flacaltenn, when the ice is replaced by water, the greenhouse effect increases.

As far as things like the sun's output or cyclical changes in earths' orbit or axis, I again have to point out that what is going on now is the fault of man. Not those things. Then both you and Crick get into a thing about radiative factors. Well that is past my depth of knowledge. The only thing I can say is of measurements taken after the 9-11 attacks. Because there were no jets in the air, from what I remember, more sunlight was getting through. Even if humans cleaned the dirty crap out of the air, it would only increase global warming.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lets play the idiot game, shall we:

1) The period of interest is the period in which there were modern humans on this planet.

This premise denounces any form of natural variation. By this argument all warming and cooling since man arrived on this planet is mans fault. Are you this foolish? At least this explains your belief that man is responsible for it all.

2) The current rate of change of CO2 and temperature is beyond that of any point in the history of the Earth since the KT impact event. Those rates have impacts on the results

A huge pile of quackery and bull shit. The current rise and change if placed into context of a 300 year averaged plot makes this event disappear. Knowing this, you must also realize that these rises and falls have happened before and at far faster rates. When we arrive at the next glacial cycle you can pump billions of gigatons of GHG's and it wont stop you from being a ice cube. Empirical paleo evidence shows that even at 7000ppm we have warmed, cooled, and frozen cyclically over and over again.

3) Anthropogenic global warming is based on empirical evidence.

No, it is not. Your list below is derived from MODELS not from empirical evidence. Model outputs are not empirical evidence. I repeat; Model outputs are not empirical evidence

Rising temperatures are empirical evidence

18 years no temp rise while CO2 continued. Total falsification of the premise completed.

Rising GHGs are empirical evidence

18 years no temp rise while CO2 continued. Total falsification of the premise completed.

The warming effect of GHGs is empirical evidence

Climate Sensitivity has been reduced below a 1:1 ratio. Current empirical evidence shows that a 0.0 to 0.4 deg C rise per doubling of CO2 is now the most likely and accurate level of global response to CO2. That is a 60% reduction of the lab measurements made of CO2 reflection capability. Water absorbs heat and it also absorbs CO2.

The behavior of the sun and its TSI over this period is empirical evidence

Why Yes it is... Funny you would include this one as it is denied by the CAGW folks to have little or no effect on the earths systems. They have tried to remove the LIA, Younger-Dryas, Dalton and Maunder events. Your Man MANN is the one...

The levels of other radiative forcing elements (soot, aerosols, land use change) and their effects are empirical evidence
The directly measured radiative imbalance at the ToA is empirical evidence

I am currently in the process of Direct Measurements as a full study has never been performed. I am curious as to your source for your statement? Radiative imbalance means the whole spectrum of output.

What have you got?

I have facts. As I have line by line torn your crap to shreds it appears you haven't got anything but broken models to play with..

Billy_Bob,
I have some things to add about the arguement between Crick and yourself. First of all, look at the chart that shows how much CO2 has been created by humans since the beginning of the industrial revolution. How foolish are you? Next, whatever may have caused fluctuations in the earth's CO2 or global temperatures in the past wasn't caused by man. As for the rate at which CO2 is now rising, go back to the graph I mentioned. See the hocky stick shape? I couldn't say for sure without looking it up. But I doubt if CO2 rates have ever risen faster. And whatever caused it to do so in the past involved unstoppable forces of astronomy and possibly the earth's interior. What's humanities' excuse.

You then bring up models vs empirical evidence. Looking at how much you have tried to sweep under the rug, I think I know what is going on with you. Something I have seem from tobacco harm deniers. Which is until you know everything right down to the finest detail, changing things is an absurdity. But things don't work that way. Despite how much human caused global warming deniers would like it to be.

You then go into statistics about temperature rise. Whether or not they are true is another matter. But it has always been shown when CO2 goes up, temperatures also follow suit. There is no question that the planet is warming. But at the same time, the earth is supposed to be in a cycle where it should be cooling. Heading toward another ice age. Instead, we are going in the opposite direction. Such a thing may have happened in the past. But again, it wasn't the fault of humans. It is also difficult to say what ramafications it will have. Then you talk about water absorbing heat. But that isn't a good thing either. Also, as I pointed out to flacaltenn, when the ice is replaced by water, the greenhouse effect increases.

As far as things like the sun's output or cyclical changes in earths' orbit or axis, I again have to point out that what is going on now is the fault of man. Not those things. Then both you and Crick get into a thing about radiative factors. Well that is past my depth of knowledge. The only thing I can say is of measurements taken after the 9-11 attacks. Because there were no jets in the air, from what I remember, more sunlight was getting through. Even if humans cleaned the dirty crap out of the air, it would only increase global warming.

Your arrogance is blinding you. There is no CO2 warming link. The earth and its cycles has laid that premise waste.

Your use of the derogatory term 'denier' meant to silence/shame dissent and others points of view along with science which does not fit your agenda is telling. Your science can not stand up to scrutiny of review so you hide your work from view, claim everyone else but you is too stupid to know, or just plain pal review your works so as not to meet any dissenting views and or evidence which refutes your position.

This is NOT SCIENCE! This is left wing radical control group think. nothing more and nothing less..

The US has scrubbed about 90% of its particulate emissions and still the USCRN shows a -0.6 deg C decrease in temp over the last 12 years. Even cleaning up the air in the US has lead to cooling despite CO2 rise. But you all dont want to see why because it dose not fit your warming meme..

 

[cultsmasher]

flacalten,

Impared personal judgment? That is your opinion. As for the rules of this forum, too many rules spoil the soup. And as for the rule I just broke, I probably already broke that when I asked others if their user experience had been slowed down too.

But before I gat banned, I will answer your questions about global warming. I will start out by restating what you already know. Yearly CO2 output of all the earths' volcanoes, 200 million tons. The yearly amount that humans are responsible for, 26.8 billion tons.

It has been shown that whenever CO2 levels raise, temperature also rises. You know that in earths' recent history, global CO2 levels and temperatures have dropped. Lately, the earth has been going through a period of ice ages and thawing. During this time, much methane has become trapped in tundra and shallow seas. Most of it is no doubt too deep to be affected by the earths warming. But there is a good chance that there is enough to be released by global warming to increase global warming beyond mere exponential levels. Which as you know could cause a huge disaster in a short amount of time.

Even with the greenhouse effect as is is now, major changes are going on. For example, recently the entire contenent of Greenland experienced some thawing. And everywhere where there is water where there used to be ice, global warming increases even more. Also, if you look at historic charts showing the temperatures of the earth, you know how they rise and fall. Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge of how these coincide with the minor fluctuations in the earths' orbit around the sun or in fluctuations in the earth's axis. I could look all these things up, but what's the point.

This is what really matters. What is going on now isn't being caused by any of those things. It's being caused by humans. As just one kind of animal on this planet, we dont have the right to effect the earths' climate in that way. Despite our "intelligence," what kind of supernatural monkey-voodo "god" supposedly created us, or whatever other kind of bullshit people might come up with.

Here are the facts. If the ability to understand them hasn't been evolved or brainwashed out of you. Capitalism is a concept from HELL! Corporations are without doubt phsychotic, sociopathic entities. Money determines what is right and wrong. Even if it means the destruction of the earth. Our whole economic system is geared toward how much useless crap companies can manage to shove down peoples's throats. What needs to be done is for humans to adopt a more sustainable and efficient economic system. But it can't be done through capitalism.

This brings up the question of what is really needed for people to be happy. But therein lies another problem. Have you ever seen a time lapsed film of a slime mold growing along a forest floor? That shows the perfect analogy for humanity. (Saying this next point with sarcasm) But I suppose as long as it is a "free" mold, that makes a difference.

That the world's population needs to be lowered is clear. Though this need not be done through slaughter. But if it is done, to whom will it be done to. It is highly unlikely that any species of human is going to take population level guidlines from another species of human. That is why I am a White separatist. The only hope I see is for different species of human to separate themselves and straighten out this question on their own. There are only two people I know of that have the ability to do something like this. Myself and somebody named Aron Loyd. So this is what the whole CO2 debate boils down to.

And the Truth comes out that this is merely a ploy to gain control. nothing more and nothing less.. The rise in CO2 has NOT resulted in a linear progression trend. It has infact diverged and shown itself a non player. The other gases may or may not be as well as the science is incomplete.

You really should take notes on Dr Steve Koonin;

Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

WSJ - Climate science is Not Settled.

The left wing arrogance that man can somehow manage the earths climatic systems without understanding them is pure fantasy.

Billy_Bob,
What I had to say to flacaltenn is no evicence of any kind "Ploy." Human caused global warming is real. What I pointed out to flacaltenn was that there were underlying causes to it. As I said, look at the graph showing the rise in CO2 levels since the beginning of the industrial revolution. That isn't a "ploy." So don't try to use my political beliefs as another tool in your human caused global warming deniers toolkit.

 

[cultsmasher]

Lets play the idiot game, shall we:

1) The period of interest is the period in which there were modern humans on this planet.

This premise denounces any form of natural variation. By this argument all warming and cooling since man arrived on this planet is mans fault. Are you this foolish? At least this explains your belief that man is responsible for it all.

2) The current rate of change of CO2 and temperature is beyond that of any point in the history of the Earth since the KT impact event. Those rates have impacts on the results

A huge pile of quackery and bull shit. The current rise and change if placed into context of a 300 year averaged plot makes this event disappear. Knowing this, you must also realize that these rises and falls have happened before and at far faster rates. When we arrive at the next glacial cycle you can pump billions of gigatons of GHG's and it wont stop you from being a ice cube. Empirical paleo evidence shows that even at 7000ppm we have warmed, cooled, and frozen cyclically over and over again.

3) Anthropogenic global warming is based on empirical evidence.

No, it is not. Your list below is derived from MODELS not from empirical evidence. Model outputs are not empirical evidence. I repeat; Model outputs are not empirical evidence

Rising temperatures are empirical evidence

18 years no temp rise while CO2 continued. Total falsification of the premise completed.

Rising GHGs are empirical evidence

18 years no temp rise while CO2 continued. Total falsification of the premise completed.

The warming effect of GHGs is empirical evidence

Climate Sensitivity has been reduced below a 1:1 ratio. Current empirical evidence shows that a 0.0 to 0.4 deg C rise per doubling of CO2 is now the most likely and accurate level of global response to CO2. That is a 60% reduction of the lab measurements made of CO2 reflection capability. Water absorbs heat and it also absorbs CO2.

The behavior of the sun and its TSI over this period is empirical evidence

Why Yes it is... Funny you would include this one as it is denied by the CAGW folks to have little or no effect on the earths systems. They have tried to remove the LIA, Younger-Dryas, Dalton and Maunder events. Your Man MANN is the one...

The levels of other radiative forcing elements (soot, aerosols, land use change) and their effects are empirical evidence
The directly measured radiative imbalance at the ToA is empirical evidence

I am currently in the process of Direct Measurements as a full study has never been performed. I am curious as to your source for your statement? Radiative imbalance means the whole spectrum of output.

What have you got?

I have facts. As I have line by line torn your crap to shreds it appears you haven't got anything but broken models to play with..

Billy_Bob,
I have some things to add about the arguement between Crick and yourself. First of all, look at the chart that shows how much CO2 has been created by humans since the beginning of the industrial revolution. How foolish are you? Next, whatever may have caused fluctuations in the earth's CO2 or global temperatures in the past wasn't caused by man. As for the rate at which CO2 is now rising, go back to the graph I mentioned. See the hocky stick shape? I couldn't say for sure without looking it up. But I doubt if CO2 rates have ever risen faster. And whatever caused it to do so in the past involved unstoppable forces of astronomy and possibly the earth's interior. What's humanities' excuse.

You then bring up models vs empirical evidence. Looking at how much you have tried to sweep under the rug, I think I know what is going on with you. Something I have seem from tobacco harm deniers. Which is until you know everything right down to the finest detail, changing things is an absurdity. But things don't work that way. Despite how much human caused global warming deniers would like it to be.

You then go into statistics about temperature rise. Whether or not they are true is another matter. But it has always been shown when CO2 goes up, temperatures also follow suit. There is no question that the planet is warming. But at the same time, the earth is supposed to be in a cycle where it should be cooling. Heading toward another ice age. Instead, we are going in the opposite direction. Such a thing may have happened in the past. But again, it wasn't the fault of humans. It is also difficult to say what ramafications it will have. Then you talk about water absorbing heat. But that isn't a good thing either. Also, as I pointed out to flacaltenn, when the ice is replaced by water, the greenhouse effect increases.

As far as things like the sun's output or cyclical changes in earths' orbit or axis, I again have to point out that what is going on now is the fault of man. Not those things. Then both you and Crick get into a thing about radiative factors. Well that is past my depth of knowledge. The only thing I can say is of measurements taken after the 9-11 attacks. Because there were no jets in the air, from what I remember, more sunlight was getting through. Even if humans cleaned the dirty crap out of the air, it would only increase global warming.

Your arrogance is blinding you. There is no CO2 warming link. The earth and its cycles has laid that premise waste.

Your use of the derogatory term 'denier' meant to silence/shame dissent and others points of view along with science which does not fit your agenda is telling. Your science can not stand up to scrutiny of review so you hide your work from view, claim everyone else but you is too stupid to know, or just plain pal review your works so as not to meet any dissenting views and or evidence which refutes your position.

This is NOT SCIENCE! This is left wing radical control group think. nothing more and nothing less..

Billy_Bob,
You can believe what you will. But from what I have seen of the graphs shown, there is a link between the rise of CO2 and temperatures. "Deny" it at your own risk. Also, from what I have seen, there is no way to label what you say except as something a denier would say. And I know the reason why. Even if you don't care to admit it. Which is that to change the way things are now going would mean an uncomfortable upheavel in existance as you have come to know it. But religion has the answer. Simply look forward to the earth being destroyed.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy_Bob,
What I had to say to flacaltenn is no evicence of any kind "Ploy." Human caused global warming is real. What I pointed out to flacaltenn was that there were underlying causes to it. As I said, look at the graph showing the rise in CO2 levels since the beginning of the industrial revolution. That isn't a "ploy." So don't try to use my political beliefs as another tool in your human caused global warming deniers toolkit.

Sir, you are a joke! As i have shown with empirical evidence before the rates of warming are statistically the same from 1900-1950 and 1951-2000, According the the IPCC and the US EPA endangerment finding all rise prior to 1950 was natural variation and all rise after 1950 was man caused. How did you stop natural variation? What did you do?

With statistically no change in rate of rise despite a rise in CO2 the forcing is 0.0 dec C. SO what is attributed to man and what is natural process? When natural variation is considered CO2 has little or NO MEASURABLE EFFECT!

It is an amazing thing, the alarmist thought process, facts mean nothing to them..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC/EPA and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So tell me again how you all STOPPED natural variation.. I do not see a CO2 signal in this at all. I am all ears!

 

[Mustang]

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.

I would suggest that your sister (and frankly, everyone) should read "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes & Erik M. Conway if she (and everyone else) wants to know how the climate warming debate got to the point where there is so much doubt among the public while a majority of scientists are united that climate change is happening and is being caused by humans.

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming

 

[Billy_Bob]

None of us actually deny the world is warming. There is just no evidence that it will warm any more than a couple degrees by 2100. What do YOU think the temperature anomaly in 2050 will be and WHY?

I know this was not aimed at me but here is your answer.

Solar output is shifting. This shift along with axial tilt and precision of the earth will cause cooling now for about 30 years. The Spectral change is the wild card. Axial Tilt and Precision would cool us for about another 25 years as these forces drive Ocean currents which are now cold.

I fully expect about a 2-3 deg C drop in the mean temperature. We have already seen -0.6 degrees Celsius of that drop in the Northern Hemisphere.

In 2050 we should be at the bottom of the 60 year cycle and the alarmists will be screaming ice age again.. If the suns shift in energy transference remains it could be a much longer and much deeper cold spell than that however.