Look at all the pretty windmills....

[bripat9643]

CO2 exisit in the air but too much is the issue and not that there is already some
plenty of biologists say its beneficial well the issue is still to much

To much? Really? Prior to the onset of the present ice age, the atmospheric CO2 was about 1000ppm.

And aside from that, can you provide any physical evidence to support the claim that CO2 is changing the global climate rather than simply reacting to the global climate as all historic ice core studies show?

I do not know where you get your numbers

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

Global warming is a con. CO2 is not changing the climate.

Sheesh, poor little dumb ****, did you ever hear of absorption spectra? Do you even have any idea of what those words mean? Well, google is your friend.

Yes, I do know what that means. How does that fact of physics prove global warming is a fact?

 

[SSDD]

So looking at coal mind plant it is more aesthetically pleasing that looking at a windmills

power line are aesthetically pleasing when looking at the environment
telephone lines are aesthetically pleasing
Cell phone towers are aesthetically pleasing

anyway beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Everybody goes to NY or Tokyo for the big buildings and lights

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

Severe storms and outages cost billions of dollars. Climate change cost the economy billions of dollars.

The aesthetically pleasing land after a storm vs windmills. personally I find wind mills farms and solar farms aesthetically pleasing because they do not cause CO2 pollution and even though they are man made, they do coexist with nature and use the wind and solar power uses the Sun

The new green deal is a little ambitious but the just need to slow their roll a little bit and in time it will be the standard

Coal for energy will slowly die as it has for coal being used in
grilling

but hey there are a few old timers still using coal in the grill

Still as infrastructure and homes are destroyed and have to be rebuilt that is the real cost for using coal

The climate disrupts electrical grids and they have to be rebuilt and PR is a prime example of how many were without power for an extended amount of time

.

Yes, the footprint for both the mine, and the coal fired powerplant are much less. Coal plants here in the US are relatively clean, just as an FYI.

And you think this looks good?

Really?

Its vacant land and not being used. Sure in some areas where there are trees that some trees are cut down but hey trees are cut for lumber all the time

Vacant land not being used? That is called nature and it is being destroyed for no better reason than to put up windmills that will do nothing more than increase the cost of electricity for a short while then break down and be left where they stand due to the cost of removing them when the subsidies are cut.

Our great grandchildren are going to be left looking at great swaths of forest with defunct windmills sticking up through them and wonder what the hell we were thinking.

Englund is chief technology officer for Global Fiberglass Solutions (GFS), a Bothell, Wash.-based company that is hoping to make some of its own green by recycling the blades into pellets and boards. The company has developed – and is scaling up – a plant in Sweetwater, Texas to recycle fiberglass from wind turbine blades and other sources.

Yet another heavily subsidized business raking in tax money....when the subsides dry up, al the people will be out of work and an empty building will be up for rent.

 

[SSDD]

prior to the ice age well are you saying now that prior to the ice age CO2 in the atmosphere was really high and admitting that high levels of CO2 is a problem.

The ice age began with CO2 concentrations around 1000ppm. If CO2 causes warming, exactly how do you think that happened?

Well assuming your numbers are correct its clear that the levels went down at some point in history

Of course they did...Ice core studies show us that CO2 follows temperature changes around like a lost puppy...when it began cooling off as the earth dropped into an ice age, the oceans began to cool and cold water holds more CO2 than warm water. So naturally, CO2 levels began to fall, and the colder it got, the more CO2 was dissolved into the oceans...When the earth started warming, the oceans started warming and outgassing that CO2 that they had been storing when it was cold.

The increase in CO2 is due to natural events. I can provide plenty of peer reviewed, published science that says that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is not even enough to over come the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery....while you can't provide any that says that we are to blame for rising CO2. The best you can provide is alarmist opinion that we are the cause...science says otherwise.

The issue now is man raising CO2 levels and what are the consequences

Like I said, you can't provide any published, peer reviewed science that says that we are the cause of the rising atmospheric CO2...and you certainly can't provide any empirical evidence that the rising CO2 is altering the global climate...

Here are seven peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim

Ice cap is melting. Russia and other countries are shipping thru the northern ice where previously they couldn't because it was too thick. Thus they are crushing this ice and raising sea levels

s

Is there any alarmist claptrap that you won't believe? The fact is that with the exception of the little ice age, which we are still warming out of, there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years. Do you ever actually research anything or do you just assume the opinions given on alarmist blogs are correct?

By 2050, up to $106 billion worth of coastal property will likely be below sea level (if we continue on the current path).

Bullshit. May, might, could, maybe etc etc etc. That is all based on failed climate models...every last bit of it..

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

More bullshit...I provided 7 peer reviewed, published articles above stating that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is the next thing to undetectable...show me some published, peer reviewed science that says, and provides empirical evidence that we are even moderately responsible for the increases in atmospheric CO2 levels...My bet is that you can't...

the issue is what is man doing and the consequences for the future of our children

The real issue is how badly our educational systems are failing...and people like you who are incapable of actually researching the topic on your own and are therefore left to simply accept whatever bullshit you are fed are a prime example of that failure.

if sea levels rise and coastal cities are flooded what is the economic cost and the human suffering costs

Sea level is rising at a rate of about 3mm per year...grab yourself some historic photos of coastal areas....look at all the change that hasn't happened...you are little more than a hand waving hysteric with no empirical evidence to support your claims.

 

[SSDD]

CO2 exisit in the air but too much is the issue and not that there is already some
plenty of biologists say its beneficial well the issue is still to much

To much? Really? Prior to the onset of the present ice age, the atmospheric CO2 was about 1000ppm.

And aside from that, can you provide any physical evidence to support the claim that CO2 is changing the global climate rather than simply reacting to the global climate as all historic ice core studies show?

I do not know where you get your numbers

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

Global warming is a con. CO2 is not changing the climate.

Sheesh, poor little dumb ****, did you ever hear of absorption spectra? Do you even have any idea of what those words mean? Well, google is your friend.

Ever hear of emission spectra? The emission spectra of so called greenhouse gasses are evidence that they are not trapping anything...they absorb and emit...nothing more nothing less...there is no tropospheric hot spot and that is observable evidence that greenhouse gasses are not trapping anything...

 

[Old Rocks]

prior to the ice age well are you saying now that prior to the ice age CO2 in the atmosphere was really high and admitting that high levels of CO2 is a problem.

The ice age began with CO2 concentrations around 1000ppm. If CO2 causes warming, exactly how do you think that happened?

Well assuming your numbers are correct its clear that the levels went down at some point in history

Of course they did...Ice core studies show us that CO2 follows temperature changes around like a lost puppy...when it began cooling off as the earth dropped into an ice age, the oceans began to cool and cold water holds more CO2 than warm water. So naturally, CO2 levels began to fall, and the colder it got, the more CO2 was dissolved into the oceans...When the earth started warming, the oceans started warming and outgassing that CO2 that they had been storing when it was cold.

The increase in CO2 is due to natural events. I can provide plenty of peer reviewed, published science that says that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is not even enough to over come the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery....while you can't provide any that says that we are to blame for rising CO2. The best you can provide is alarmist opinion that we are the cause...science says otherwise.

The issue now is man raising CO2 levels and what are the consequences

Like I said, you can't provide any published, peer reviewed science that says that we are the cause of the rising atmospheric CO2...and you certainly can't provide any empirical evidence that the rising CO2 is altering the global climate...

Here are seven peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim

Ice cap is melting. Russia and other countries are shipping thru the northern ice where previously they couldn't because it was too thick. Thus they are crushing this ice and raising sea levels

s

Is there any alarmist claptrap that you won't believe? The fact is that with the exception of the little ice age, which we are still warming out of, there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years. Do you ever actually research anything or do you just assume the opinions given on alarmist blogs are correct?

By 2050, up to $106 billion worth of coastal property will likely be below sea level (if we continue on the current path).

Bullshit. May, might, could, maybe etc etc etc. That is all based on failed climate models...every last bit of it..

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

More bullshit...I provided 7 peer reviewed, published articles above stating that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is the next thing to undetectable...show me some published, peer reviewed science that says, and provides empirical evidence that we are even moderately responsible for the increases in atmospheric CO2 levels...My bet is that you can't...

the issue is what is man doing and the consequences for the future of our children

The real issue is how badly our educational systems are failing...and people like you who are incapable of actually researching the topic on your own and are therefore left to simply accept whatever bullshit you are fed are a prime example of that failure.

if sea levels rise and coastal cities are flooded what is the economic cost and the human suffering costs

Sea level is rising at a rate of about 3mm per year...grab yourself some historic photos of coastal areas....look at all the change that hasn't happened...you are little more than a hand waving hysteric with no empirical evidence to support your claims.

The Keeling Curve

Second chart down shows have the emissions have matched the Keeling Curve

CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

 

[Kilroy2]

prior to the ice age well are you saying now that prior to the ice age CO2 in the atmosphere was really high and admitting that high levels of CO2 is a problem.

The ice age began with CO2 concentrations around 1000ppm. If CO2 causes warming, exactly how do you think that happened?

Well assuming your numbers are correct its clear that the levels went down at some point in history

Of course they did...Ice core studies show us that CO2 follows temperature changes around like a lost puppy...when it began cooling off as the earth dropped into an ice age, the oceans began to cool and cold water holds more CO2 than warm water. So naturally, CO2 levels began to fall, and the colder it got, the more CO2 was dissolved into the oceans...When the earth started warming, the oceans started warming and outgassing that CO2 that they had been storing when it was cold.

The increase in CO2 is due to natural events. I can provide plenty of peer reviewed, published science that says that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is not even enough to over come the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery....while you can't provide any that says that we are to blame for rising CO2. The best you can provide is alarmist opinion that we are the cause...science says otherwise.

The issue now is man raising CO2 levels and what are the consequences

Like I said, you can't provide any published, peer reviewed science that says that we are the cause of the rising atmospheric CO2...and you certainly can't provide any empirical evidence that the rising CO2 is altering the global climate...

Here are seven peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim

Ice cap is melting. Russia and other countries are shipping thru the northern ice where previously they couldn't because it was too thick. Thus they are crushing this ice and raising sea levels

s

Is there any alarmist claptrap that you won't believe? The fact is that with the exception of the little ice age, which we are still warming out of, there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years. Do you ever actually research anything or do you just assume the opinions given on alarmist blogs are correct?

By 2050, up to $106 billion worth of coastal property will likely be below sea level (if we continue on the current path).

Bullshit. May, might, could, maybe etc etc etc. That is all based on failed climate models...every last bit of it..

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

More bullshit...I provided 7 peer reviewed, published articles above stating that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is the next thing to undetectable...show me some published, peer reviewed science that says, and provides empirical evidence that we are even moderately responsible for the increases in atmospheric CO2 levels...My bet is that you can't...

the issue is what is man doing and the consequences for the future of our children

The real issue is how badly our educational systems are failing...and people like you who are incapable of actually researching the topic on your own and are therefore left to simply accept whatever bullshit you are fed are a prime example of that failure.

if sea levels rise and coastal cities are flooded what is the economic cost and the human suffering costs

Sea level is rising at a rate of about 3mm per year...grab yourself some historic photos of coastal areas....look at all the change that hasn't happened...you are little more than a hand waving hysteric with no empirical evidence to support your claims.

The issue now is man raising CO2 levels and what are the consequences

Yeah the thing about sea levels rising is that cities and people live in coastal areas now and historically they didn't. New Orleans with its man made effort to keep the water out failed miserable with a high death toll and the amount of money spent. Maybe NO did not happen and it was just a dream

Historically New Orleans did not have this problem until this century

Sea levels rising is now a factory presently so please don't do a history lesson when it really didn't matter centuries ago


Quote- like I said, you can't provide any published, peer reviewed science that says that we are the cause of the rising atmospheric CO2...and you certainly can't provide any empirical evidence that the rising CO2 is altering the global climate...


Here are seven peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...


The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2. end Quote


The scientific knowledge that establishing climate policies is established both from observation as well as laws of physics. Like I said if no one accepts these peer reviews that you are holding out to be the gospel truth then they mean nothing other than this is the disagreement point of view

If these peer reviews does not change the consensus then those who completely understand have basically dismissed them as flawed


Yeah all that shows that some scientist disagree with the majority


A consensus is usually established when one explanation is more convincing than alternative accounts, convincing the majority.


The consensus of the majority says Man contributions to CO2 are a problem. Yes simply stating that there are other causes of CO2 is known by everyone. Saying that some disagree is obvious as people disagree



The fact is Man puts additional CO2 in the atmosphere that would not be there if man did put it there


You cannot deny that coal releases additional CO2 into the atmosphere

This CO2 is in the ground and not in the atmosphere and how it gets from point A to point B is man’s activities




CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.

Mauna loa in 1958 put the ppm at 316

It was a little higher than pre industrial level of 280

The ppm now has hit the 400 number

The levels do go up and down but in 2016 when it pretty much stayed above the 400 number and 2016 was declared the hottest year since measuring started. Man has not been keep records since a certain point in time but CO2 levels fluctuate and you seem to think that it debunks global warming but the measurements show that it did get hotter than any previous recordings.

The earth breaths and things go up and down it fluctuate. But we are not talking about what the earth does, We are talking about what man does to affect the earth


Quote-, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing. End Quote


You admit that man produce CO2 but even you can not predict what are the consequences from this action or u dismiss it with no regard to the possible loss of life and resources for natural disasters


But lets keep it simple


Lake A has water and lake B has water, if I start taking the water from B and adding it to A then depending how much water I remove it may not matter but at some point I will add enough that Lake A will overflow based on what I did as a man


Thus nature breaths and CO2 levels rise and fall as that is the natural order of things


The question is what happens when man takes CO2 from the earth and puts it into the atmosphere


I not going to waste my time on your pages and pages of rants


Scientific consensus is the standard


If you want to be the minority then that is cool but your odd of being right have gone down

 

[SSDD]

prior to the ice age well are you saying now that prior to the ice age CO2 in the atmosphere was really high and admitting that high levels of CO2 is a problem.

The ice age began with CO2 concentrations around 1000ppm. If CO2 causes warming, exactly how do you think that happened?

Well assuming your numbers are correct its clear that the levels went down at some point in history

Of course they did...Ice core studies show us that CO2 follows temperature changes around like a lost puppy...when it began cooling off as the earth dropped into an ice age, the oceans began to cool and cold water holds more CO2 than warm water. So naturally, CO2 levels began to fall, and the colder it got, the more CO2 was dissolved into the oceans...When the earth started warming, the oceans started warming and outgassing that CO2 that they had been storing when it was cold.

The increase in CO2 is due to natural events. I can provide plenty of peer reviewed, published science that says that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is not even enough to over come the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery....while you can't provide any that says that we are to blame for rising CO2. The best you can provide is alarmist opinion that we are the cause...science says otherwise.

The issue now is man raising CO2 levels and what are the consequences

Like I said, you can't provide any published, peer reviewed science that says that we are the cause of the rising atmospheric CO2...and you certainly can't provide any empirical evidence that the rising CO2 is altering the global climate...

Here are seven peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim

Ice cap is melting. Russia and other countries are shipping thru the northern ice where previously they couldn't because it was too thick. Thus they are crushing this ice and raising sea levels

s

Is there any alarmist claptrap that you won't believe? The fact is that with the exception of the little ice age, which we are still warming out of, there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years. Do you ever actually research anything or do you just assume the opinions given on alarmist blogs are correct?

By 2050, up to $106 billion worth of coastal property will likely be below sea level (if we continue on the current path).

Bullshit. May, might, could, maybe etc etc etc. That is all based on failed climate models...every last bit of it..

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

More bullshit...I provided 7 peer reviewed, published articles above stating that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is the next thing to undetectable...show me some published, peer reviewed science that says, and provides empirical evidence that we are even moderately responsible for the increases in atmospheric CO2 levels...My bet is that you can't...

the issue is what is man doing and the consequences for the future of our children

The real issue is how badly our educational systems are failing...and people like you who are incapable of actually researching the topic on your own and are therefore left to simply accept whatever bullshit you are fed are a prime example of that failure.

if sea levels rise and coastal cities are flooded what is the economic cost and the human suffering costs

Sea level is rising at a rate of about 3mm per year...grab yourself some historic photos of coastal areas....look at all the change that hasn't happened...you are little more than a hand waving hysteric with no empirical evidence to support your claims.

The Kee

prior to the ice age well are you saying now that prior to the ice age CO2 in the atmosphere was really high and admitting that high levels of CO2 is a problem.

The ice age began with CO2 concentrations around 1000ppm. If CO2 causes warming, exactly how do you think that happened?

Well assuming your numbers are correct its clear that the levels went down at some point in history

Of course they did...Ice core studies show us that CO2 follows temperature changes around like a lost puppy...when it began cooling off as the earth dropped into an ice age, the oceans began to cool and cold water holds more CO2 than warm water. So naturally, CO2 levels began to fall, and the colder it got, the more CO2 was dissolved into the oceans...When the earth started warming, the oceans started warming and outgassing that CO2 that they had been storing when it was cold.

The increase in CO2 is due to natural events. I can provide plenty of peer reviewed, published science that says that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is not even enough to over come the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery....while you can't provide any that says that we are to blame for rising CO2. The best you can provide is alarmist opinion that we are the cause...science says otherwise.

The issue now is man raising CO2 levels and what are the consequences

Like I said, you can't provide any published, peer reviewed science that says that we are the cause of the rising atmospheric CO2...and you certainly can't provide any empirical evidence that the rising CO2 is altering the global climate...

Here are seven peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”





If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature



CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.




SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”




Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim

Ice cap is melting. Russia and other countries are shipping thru the northern ice where previously they couldn't because it was too thick. Thus they are crushing this ice and raising sea levels

s

Is there any alarmist claptrap that you won't believe? The fact is that with the exception of the little ice age, which we are still warming out of, there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years. Do you ever actually research anything or do you just assume the opinions given on alarmist blogs are correct?

By 2050, up to $106 billion worth of coastal property will likely be below sea level (if we continue on the current path).

Bullshit. May, might, could, maybe etc etc etc. That is all based on failed climate models...every last bit of it..

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

More bullshit...I provided 7 peer reviewed, published articles above stating that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is the next thing to undetectable...show me some published, peer reviewed science that says, and provides empirical evidence that we are even moderately responsible for the increases in atmospheric CO2 levels...My bet is that you can't...

the issue is what is man doing and the consequences for the future of our children

The real issue is how badly our educational systems are failing...and people like you who are incapable of actually researching the topic on your own and are therefore left to simply accept whatever bullshit you are fed are a prime example of that failure.

if sea levels rise and coastal cities are flooded what is the economic cost and the human suffering costs

Sea level is rising at a rate of about 3mm per year...grab yourself some historic photos of coastal areas....look at all the change that hasn't happened...you are little more than a hand waving hysteric with no empirical evidence to support your claims.

The Keeling Curve

Second chart down shows have the emissions have matched the Keeling Curve

CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

ling Curve

Second chart down shows have the emissions have matched the Keeling Curve

No one has said that CO2 levels aren't increasing...I said, and backed up with peer reviewed, published science that we are not responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2...in fact, our contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere is vanishingly small.

So what do you do? You show evidence that CO2 is rising..no question there..and hang a big assed assumption on your evidence that we are the ones causing the rise when the fact is that we don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

You are a dupe rocks...a handwaving hysterical dupe...

dupe: -n- a person who unquestioningly or unwittingly serves a cause or another person:

 

[westwall]

prior to the ice age well are you saying now that prior to the ice age CO2 in the atmosphere was really high and admitting that high levels of CO2 is a problem.

The ice age began with CO2 concentrations around 1000ppm. If CO2 causes warming, exactly how do you think that happened?

Well assuming your numbers are correct its clear that the levels went down at some point in history

Of course they did...Ice core studies show us that CO2 follows temperature changes around like a lost puppy...when it began cooling off as the earth dropped into an ice age, the oceans began to cool and cold water holds more CO2 than warm water. So naturally, CO2 levels began to fall, and the colder it got, the more CO2 was dissolved into the oceans...When the earth started warming, the oceans started warming and outgassing that CO2 that they had been storing when it was cold.

The increase in CO2 is due to natural events. I can provide plenty of peer reviewed, published science that says that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is not even enough to over come the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery....while you can't provide any that says that we are to blame for rising CO2. The best you can provide is alarmist opinion that we are the cause...science says otherwise.

The issue now is man raising CO2 levels and what are the consequences

Like I said, you can't provide any published, peer reviewed science that says that we are the cause of the rising atmospheric CO2...and you certainly can't provide any empirical evidence that the rising CO2 is altering the global climate...

Here are seven peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim

Ice cap is melting. Russia and other countries are shipping thru the northern ice where previously they couldn't because it was too thick. Thus they are crushing this ice and raising sea levels

s

Is there any alarmist claptrap that you won't believe? The fact is that with the exception of the little ice age, which we are still warming out of, there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years. Do you ever actually research anything or do you just assume the opinions given on alarmist blogs are correct?

By 2050, up to $106 billion worth of coastal property will likely be below sea level (if we continue on the current path).

Bullshit. May, might, could, maybe etc etc etc. That is all based on failed climate models...every last bit of it..

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

More bullshit...I provided 7 peer reviewed, published articles above stating that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is the next thing to undetectable...show me some published, peer reviewed science that says, and provides empirical evidence that we are even moderately responsible for the increases in atmospheric CO2 levels...My bet is that you can't...

the issue is what is man doing and the consequences for the future of our children

The real issue is how badly our educational systems are failing...and people like you who are incapable of actually researching the topic on your own and are therefore left to simply accept whatever bullshit you are fed are a prime example of that failure.

if sea levels rise and coastal cities are flooded what is the economic cost and the human suffering costs

Sea level is rising at a rate of about 3mm per year...grab yourself some historic photos of coastal areas....look at all the change that hasn't happened...you are little more than a hand waving hysteric with no empirical evidence to support your claims.

The issue now is man raising CO2 levels and what are the consequences

Yeah the thing about sea levels rising is that cities and people live in coastal areas now and historically they didn't. New Orleans with its man made effort to keep the water out failed miserable with a high death toll and the amount of money spent. Maybe NO did not happen and it was just a dream

Historically New Orleans did not have this problem until this century

Sea levels rising is now a factory presently so please don't do a history lesson when it really didn't matter centuries ago


Quote- like I said, you can't provide any published, peer reviewed science that says that we are the cause of the rising atmospheric CO2...and you certainly can't provide any empirical evidence that the rising CO2 is altering the global climate...


Here are seven peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...


The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2. end Quote


The scientific knowledge that establishing climate policies is established both from observation as well as laws of physics. Like I said if no one accepts these peer reviews that you are holding out to be the gospel truth then they mean nothing other than this is the disagreement point of view

If these peer reviews does not change the consensus then those who completely understand have basically dismissed them as flawed


Yeah all that shows that some scientist disagree with the majority


A consensus is usually established when one explanation is more convincing than alternative accounts, convincing the majority.


The consensus of the majority says Man contributions to CO2 are a problem. Yes simply stating that there are other causes of CO2 is known by everyone. Saying that some disagree is obvious as people disagree



The fact is Man puts additional CO2 in the atmosphere that would not be there if man did put it there


You cannot deny that coal releases additional CO2 into the atmosphere

This CO2 is in the ground and not in the atmosphere and how it gets from point A to point B is man’s activities




CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.

Mauna loa in 1958 put the ppm at 316

It was a little higher than pre industrial level of 280

The ppm now has hit the 400 number

The levels do go up and down but in 2016 when it pretty much stayed above the 400 number and 2016 was declared the hottest year since measuring started. Man has not been keep records since a certain point in time but CO2 levels fluctuate and you seem to think that it debunks global warming but the measurements show that it did get hotter than any previous recordings.

The earth breaths and things go up and down it fluctuate. But we are not talking about what the earth does, We are talking about what man does to affect the earth


Quote-, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing. End Quote


You admit that man produce CO2 but even you can not predict what are the consequences from this action or u dismiss it with no regard to the possible loss of life and resources for natural disasters


But lets keep it simple


Lake A has water and lake B has water, if I start taking the water from B and adding it to A then depending how much water I remove it may not matter but at some point I will add enough that Lake A will overflow based on what I did as a man


Thus nature breaths and CO2 levels rise and fall as that is the natural order of things


The question is what happens when man takes CO2 from the earth and puts it into the atmosphere


I not going to waste my time on your pages and pages of rants


Scientific consensus is the standard


If you want to be the minority then that is cool but your odd of being right have gone down

Man has ALWAYS lived along the coastlines.

Your assertion of the opposite makes me wonder what education level you have.

 

[ReinyDays]

All evidence of coastal communities inundated by sea level rise is currently underwater ...

 

[SSDD]

Yeah the thing about sea levels rising is that cities and people live in coastal areas now and historically they didn't. New Orleans with its man made effort to keep the water out failed miserable with a high death toll and the amount of money spent. Maybe NO did not happen and it was just a dream

The fact that people live on the coast has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we are causing sea level rise via our CO2 emissions. New Orleans flooded because the corrupt city government didn't do the improvements on the levies that they were supposed to do and failed to do them even after katrina...

Historically New Orleans did not have this problem until this century

Where do you get this nonsense? Do you, like so many other alarmists simply make crap up as you go in an attempt to make your point? Why make such claims when the facts are so easy to find?

New Orleans flooded in the Chenier Caminada Hurricaine of 1893. The death toll was in excess of 2,000. The damage in 1893 dollars was $21,000....an astronomical amount for the time.

New Orleans flooded again by an unnamed hurricane in 1915. A category 4 hurricane made a direct hit on New Orleans making landfall near Grand Isle. The City flooded to an extent similar to Katrina. The area around New Orleans experienced a 13 foot storm surge.

New Orleans flooded again by Hurricane Audry in 1957. 1.6 million acres were flooded.

The fact is that New Orleans has a history of flooding and will continue to flood...and the more the place is built up, the more damage it will incur when the inevitable flooding happens.

Sea levels rising is now a factory presently so please don't do a history lesson when it really didn't matter centuries ago

Of course it matters what sea levels were hundreds of years ago. The fact that we know what those sea levels were lets us see the natural cycles at work. It also shows us that sea levels were higher without our help. Again, with the exception of the little ice age, sea levels are lower now than they have been for most of the past 10,000 years because with the exception of the little ice age, the earth is cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

The scientific knowledge that establishing climate policies is established both from observation as well as laws of physics. Like I said if no one accepts these peer reviews that you are holding out to be the gospel truth then they mean nothing other than this is the disagreement point of view

If these peer reviews does not change the consensus then those who completely understand have basically dismissed them as flawed

You warmers keep talking about the consensus...Does the consensus not publish science? I asked for you to provide some published, peer reviewed science which provides empirical evidence that suggests that we are the cause of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere...or that we are even a significant contributor. I can't help but notice that you didn't provide any. The fact is that you probably won't be able to find any paper at all that provides empirical evidence demonstrating that we contribute significantly to the atmospheric CO2 levels.

Yeah all that shows that some scientist disagree with the majority

So lets see some peer reviewed, published science from the "majority" that disagrees with the papers I provided above and supports the disagreement with empirical evidence.

A consensus is usually established when one explanation is more convincing than alternative accounts, convincing the majority.

Still waiting for some peer reviewed, published science which disagrees with the literature I already provided and supports the disagreement with empirical evidence. I likely will be blue by the time you provide any such literature if I hold my breath till you find it. Opinion published by the mainstream media, or alarmist blogs is not science and you shouldn't accept it as if it were.

The consensus of the majority says Man contributions to CO2 are a problem.

So lets see the peer reviewed, published literature that says so... My bet is that you won't find any such scientific literature. Your claims seem to be of the nature that "everyone knows, but there just isn't any science to support that knowledge"...

The fact is Man puts additional CO2 in the atmosphere that would not be there if man did put it there

I never said that we didn't. I said, and provided peer reviewed, published science which said that the amount that we contribute to the whole is so small that it doesn't even overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...that our contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere is so small as to be almost impossible to detect.

Again...
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”

And you have yet to show the first piece of empirical evidence which supports your belief that additional CO2 in the atmosphere somehow drives the global climate. Simply assuming that it does amounts to a quasi religious belief, not science.

You cannot deny that coal releases additional CO2 into the atmosphere

Of course not...we produce CO2...but we do not drive the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, nor are we a significant contributor to the total CO2 in the atmosphere...further, there isn't the first piece of empirical evidence which supports the claim that our CO2 is somehow driving the global climate.

This CO2 is in the ground and not in the atmosphere and how it gets from point A to point B is man’s activities

You clearly are unaware of the actual scale of our contribution to the atmospheric CO2 concentration when compared to the natural sources of CO2...here, it is a short video and puts the amount of CO2 we produce compared to the amount produced by natural sources into a realistic perspective.

Mauna loa in 1958 put the ppm at 316

It was a little higher than pre industrial level of 280

The ppm now has hit the 400 number

Again...I never claimed that CO2 wasn't rising, nor did I claim that we don't produce CO2.. I said...and produced published peer reviewed science which stated that the amount of CO2 we produce is not a significant factor in the increase in atmospheric CO2.....and thus far, you have provided no science at all which contradicts those statements, nor are you likely to.

The levels do go up and down but in 2016 when it pretty much stayed above the 400 number and 2016 was declared the hottest year since measuring started. Man has not been keep records since a certain point in time but CO2 levels fluctuate and you seem to think that it debunks global warming but the measurements show that it did get hotter than any previous recordings.

As every ice core study that has ever been done shows, CO2 increases with an increase in temperature...if it is warmer, then there will be more CO2 because it out gasses from warmer oceans...the empirical evidence shows us that increased CO2 is the result of warmer temperatures, not the cause and there is no empirical evidence that shows otherwise.

The earth breaths and things go up and down it fluctuate. But we are not talking about what the earth does, We are talking about what man does to affect the earth

You keep saying that but as the peer reviewed, published science shows, we are not a significant contributor to the total atmospheric CO2..here, did you not look at this chart provided by the godfather of global warming? This graph is from James Hansen...one of the biggest alarmists there is and it clearly shows that there is no relationship between the amount of fossil fuels we burn and the total CO2 in the atmosphere...

You admit that man produce CO2 but even you can not predict what are the consequences from this action or u dismiss it with no regard to the possible loss of life and resources for natural disasters

Since the present ice age began with atmospheric CO2 levels at about 1000 ppm, it is pretty clear that 400 ppm isn't going to cause any warming at all...and history shows us that ice ages have started with atmospheric CO2 as high as 5000ppm...and there has never been anything like runaway global warming...

Can you provide any empirical evidence at all which suggests otherwise?

But lets keep it simple

Keep it simple stupid? That's your plan...simply accept what you are told even when there is no empirical evidence to support the hysterical handwaving that alarmists are engaged in?

Lake A has water and lake B has water, if I start taking the water from B and adding it to A then depending how much water I remove it may not matter but at some point I will add enough that Lake A will overflow based on what I did as a man

Again...historic CO2 levels have been as high as 7000ppm with no run away warming and ice ages have started with CO2 levels as high as 5000ppm...CO2 does not cause warming and you can't provide the first piece of empirical evidence which shows that it does.

The question is what happens when man takes CO2 from the earth and puts it into the atmosphere

If we could produce enough CO2 to have a significant effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, history has shown us that runaway warming doesn't even happen when CO2 levels are at 7000ppm...there isn't enough coal and fossil fuels in existence to raise CO2 levels to 2000ppm, much less 7000ppm.

I not going to waste my time on your pages and pages of rants

Ranting is what you are doing....I have provided peer reviewed, published science to support my claims...the wait continues for you to provide any to support yours...

Scientific consensus is the standard

History shows us that the scientific consensus is wrong more often than they are right...

 

[SSDD]

What's the matter Kilroy? Finding it difficult to produce any peer reviewed published science which supports the B.S. you have been led to believe reading alarmist blogs?

Unsurprising....in fact, I predicted it.

 

[Kilroy2]

prior to the ice age well are you saying now that prior to the ice age CO2 in the atmosphere was really high and admitting that high levels of CO2 is a problem.

The ice age began with CO2 concentrations around 1000ppm. If CO2 causes warming, exactly how do you think that happened?

Well assuming your numbers are correct its clear that the levels went down at some point in history

Of course they did...Ice core studies show us that CO2 follows temperature changes around like a lost puppy...when it began cooling off as the earth dropped into an ice age, the oceans began to cool and cold water holds more CO2 than warm water. So naturally, CO2 levels began to fall, and the colder it got, the more CO2 was dissolved into the oceans...When the earth started warming, the oceans started warming and outgassing that CO2 that they had been storing when it was cold.

The increase in CO2 is due to natural events. I can provide plenty of peer reviewed, published science that says that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is not even enough to over come the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery....while you can't provide any that says that we are to blame for rising CO2. The best you can provide is alarmist opinion that we are the cause...science says otherwise.

The issue now is man raising CO2 levels and what are the consequences

Like I said, you can't provide any published, peer reviewed science that says that we are the cause of the rising atmospheric CO2...and you certainly can't provide any empirical evidence that the rising CO2 is altering the global climate...

Here are seven peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim

Ice cap is melting. Russia and other countries are shipping thru the northern ice where previously they couldn't because it was too thick. Thus they are crushing this ice and raising sea levels

s

Is there any alarmist claptrap that you won't believe? The fact is that with the exception of the little ice age, which we are still warming out of, there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years. Do you ever actually research anything or do you just assume the opinions given on alarmist blogs are correct?

By 2050, up to $106 billion worth of coastal property will likely be below sea level (if we continue on the current path).

Bullshit. May, might, could, maybe etc etc etc. That is all based on failed climate models...every last bit of it..

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

More bullshit...I provided 7 peer reviewed, published articles above stating that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is the next thing to undetectable...show me some published, peer reviewed science that says, and provides empirical evidence that we are even moderately responsible for the increases in atmospheric CO2 levels...My bet is that you can't...

the issue is what is man doing and the consequences for the future of our children

The real issue is how badly our educational systems are failing...and people like you who are incapable of actually researching the topic on your own and are therefore left to simply accept whatever bullshit you are fed are a prime example of that failure.

if sea levels rise and coastal cities are flooded what is the economic cost and the human suffering costs

Sea level is rising at a rate of about 3mm per year...grab yourself some historic photos of coastal areas....look at all the change that hasn't happened...you are little more than a hand waving hysteric with no empirical evidence to support your claims.

The Kee

prior to the ice age well are you saying now that prior to the ice age CO2 in the atmosphere was really high and admitting that high levels of CO2 is a problem.

The ice age began with CO2 concentrations around 1000ppm. If CO2 causes warming, exactly how do you think that happened?

Well assuming your numbers are correct its clear that the levels went down at some point in history

Of course they did...Ice core studies show us that CO2 follows temperature changes around like a lost puppy...when it began cooling off as the earth dropped into an ice age, the oceans began to cool and cold water holds more CO2 than warm water. So naturally, CO2 levels began to fall, and the colder it got, the more CO2 was dissolved into the oceans...When the earth started warming, the oceans started warming and outgassing that CO2 that they had been storing when it was cold.

The increase in CO2 is due to natural events. I can provide plenty of peer reviewed, published science that says that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is not even enough to over come the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery....while you can't provide any that says that we are to blame for rising CO2. The best you can provide is alarmist opinion that we are the cause...science says otherwise.

The issue now is man raising CO2 levels and what are the consequences

Like I said, you can't provide any published, peer reviewed science that says that we are the cause of the rising atmospheric CO2...and you certainly can't provide any empirical evidence that the rising CO2 is altering the global climate...

Here are seven peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”





If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature



CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.




SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”




Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim

Ice cap is melting. Russia and other countries are shipping thru the northern ice where previously they couldn't because it was too thick. Thus they are crushing this ice and raising sea levels

s

Is there any alarmist claptrap that you won't believe? The fact is that with the exception of the little ice age, which we are still warming out of, there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years. Do you ever actually research anything or do you just assume the opinions given on alarmist blogs are correct?

By 2050, up to $106 billion worth of coastal property will likely be below sea level (if we continue on the current path).

Bullshit. May, might, could, maybe etc etc etc. That is all based on failed climate models...every last bit of it..

The real story is Coal-fired power plants are the largest source for atmospheric CO2 concentrations (easily bypassing vehicles) and readings have shown then reaching 400 parts per million which is setting new records in the history of man. Pre industrial times numbers are about 280 ppm. So obviously coal fired plants are a problem.

More bullshit...I provided 7 peer reviewed, published articles above stating that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is the next thing to undetectable...show me some published, peer reviewed science that says, and provides empirical evidence that we are even moderately responsible for the increases in atmospheric CO2 levels...My bet is that you can't...

the issue is what is man doing and the consequences for the future of our children

The real issue is how badly our educational systems are failing...and people like you who are incapable of actually researching the topic on your own and are therefore left to simply accept whatever bullshit you are fed are a prime example of that failure.

if sea levels rise and coastal cities are flooded what is the economic cost and the human suffering costs

Sea level is rising at a rate of about 3mm per year...grab yourself some historic photos of coastal areas....look at all the change that hasn't happened...you are little more than a hand waving hysteric with no empirical evidence to support your claims.

The Keeling Curve

Second chart down shows have the emissions have matched the Keeling Curve

CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

ling Curve

Second chart down shows have the emissions have matched the Keeling Curve

No one has said that CO2 levels aren't increasing...I said, and backed up with peer reviewed, published science that we are not responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2...in fact, our contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere is vanishingly small.

So what do you do? You show evidence that CO2 is rising..no question there..and hang a big assed assumption on your evidence that we are the ones causing the rise when the fact is that we don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

You are a dupe rocks...a handwaving hysterical dupe...

dupe: -n- a person who unquestioningly or unwittingly serves a cause or another person:

Quote - No one has said that CO2 levels aren't increasing...I said, and backed up with peer reviewed, published science that we are not responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2...in fact, our contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere is vanishingly small. end Quote

Unless you put the conclusion that the author reaches and the discussion then posting a review as being meaningful but it is small as it is just someones opinion and it got published. Tell us what the conclusion was and the discussion that is in the review then we can get to it. Then we can reach a real consensus

You say quote " we are not responsible for the increase in CO2"

then you say that Quote" our contributions are small"

whether small or significant is irrelevant as you admit that mans activities do contributing to increase levels of CO2 in the atmosphere

Pass it over as minor but in a balanced eco system everything matters. As population increases and more people are causing CO2 to rise, then Man continues to put more CO2 in the atmosphere

Everyone one is aware of the other sources of CO2 but the CONSENSUS is still there that we have to control man's emissions of CO2

Thus you argument is small


So what do you do? You show evidence that CO2 is rising..no question there..and hang a big assed assumption on your evidence that we are the ones causing the rise when the fact is that we don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

You are a dupe rocks...a handwaving hysterical dupe...

dupe: -n- a person who unquestioningly or unwittingly serves a cause or another person:

Ohh very scientific of you to use the word DUPE but it goes both ways

CO2 levels are rising but you don't care because its political thus it is apparent that you serve a specific political cause because you want to focus the argument elsewhere instead of on the consequences of mans actions. Still you are entitled to your beliefs even though it is not the CONSENSUS of those who study the issue

here is the deal you are the minority and it is you who is on the island waving that flat

Hey who is that waving something out there, never mind its just a non believer

Maybe I should wave back at him, no that will just encourage him

 

[Kilroy2]

What's the matter Kilroy? Finding it difficult to produce any peer reviewed published science which supports the B.S. you have been led to believe reading alarmist blogs?

Unsurprising....in fact, I predicted it.

It is not surprising because you do tend to ignore the obvious that peer reviews is nothing more than someone getting there opinions and ideas published and out to the scientific community in this instance. It does require others who are experts to give there opinions whether it is an approval or disapproval. So bypass the boring and go along with the majority of experts is the best way to go.

It is the smart way to go but hey each to there own


Why would I need to read a peer review when there are many governments and scientific organization that support the theory of global warming by man and that it needs to be controlled.

There is a consensus on the science of global warming and its likely effects
special interests groups exist to suppress the consensus
while others work to amplify the alarm of global warming.

Your posting are nothing more than making global warming political. The result is a clouding of the reality of the global warming problem.

which is the consensus

NASA
IPCC
WHO
UNDP

187 countries signed on the Pairs Agreement (UNFCCC) while only 60 have ratified it.

Consensus is difficult to achieve

I can say that it I disagree with what you say and that I would defend your right to say it.

Still why would I defend someone else's freedom when I believe what they say is wrong.

Quite the conundrum

 

[Kilroy2]

Yeah the thing about sea levels rising is that cities and people live in coastal areas now and historically they didn't. New Orleans with its man made effort to keep the water out failed miserable with a high death toll and the amount of money spent. Maybe NO did not happen and it was just a dream

The fact that people live on the coast has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we are causing sea level rise via our CO2 emissions. New Orleans flooded because the corrupt city government didn't do the improvements on the levies that they were supposed to do and failed to do them even after katrina...

Historically New Orleans did not have this problem until this century

Where do you get this nonsense? Do you, like so many other alarmists simply make crap up as you go in an attempt to make your point? Why make such claims when the facts are so easy to find?

New Orleans flooded in the Chenier Caminada Hurricaine of 1893. The death toll was in excess of 2,000. The damage in 1893 dollars was $21,000....an astronomical amount for the time.

New Orleans flooded again by an unnamed hurricane in 1915. A category 4 hurricane made a direct hit on New Orleans making landfall near Grand Isle. The City flooded to an extent similar to Katrina. The area around New Orleans experienced a 13 foot storm surge.

New Orleans flooded again by Hurricane Audry in 1957. 1.6 million acres were flooded.

The fact is that New Orleans has a history of flooding and will continue to flood...and the more the place is built up, the more damage it will incur when the inevitable flooding happens.

Sea levels rising is now a factory presently so please don't do a history lesson when it really didn't matter centuries ago

Of course it matters what sea levels were hundreds of years ago. The fact that we know what those sea levels were lets us see the natural cycles at work. It also shows us that sea levels were higher without our help. Again, with the exception of the little ice age, sea levels are lower now than they have been for most of the past 10,000 years because with the exception of the little ice age, the earth is cooler now than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

The scientific knowledge that establishing climate policies is established both from observation as well as laws of physics. Like I said if no one accepts these peer reviews that you are holding out to be the gospel truth then they mean nothing other than this is the disagreement point of view

If these peer reviews does not change the consensus then those who completely understand have basically dismissed them as flawed

You warmers keep talking about the consensus...Does the consensus not publish science? I asked for you to provide some published, peer reviewed science which provides empirical evidence that suggests that we are the cause of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere...or that we are even a significant contributor. I can't help but notice that you didn't provide any. The fact is that you probably won't be able to find any paper at all that provides empirical evidence demonstrating that we contribute significantly to the atmospheric CO2 levels.

Yeah all that shows that some scientist disagree with the majority

So lets see some peer reviewed, published science from the "majority" that disagrees with the papers I provided above and supports the disagreement with empirical evidence.

A consensus is usually established when one explanation is more convincing than alternative accounts, convincing the majority.

Still waiting for some peer reviewed, published science which disagrees with the literature I already provided and supports the disagreement with empirical evidence. I likely will be blue by the time you provide any such literature if I hold my breath till you find it. Opinion published by the mainstream media, or alarmist blogs is not science and you shouldn't accept it as if it were.

The consensus of the majority says Man contributions to CO2 are a problem.

So lets see the peer reviewed, published literature that says so... My bet is that you won't find any such scientific literature. Your claims seem to be of the nature that "everyone knows, but there just isn't any science to support that knowledge"...

The fact is Man puts additional CO2 in the atmosphere that would not be there if man did put it there

I never said that we didn't. I said, and provided peer reviewed, published science which said that the amount that we contribute to the whole is so small that it doesn't even overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...that our contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere is so small as to be almost impossible to detect.

Again...
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”

And you have yet to show the first piece of empirical evidence which supports your belief that additional CO2 in the atmosphere somehow drives the global climate. Simply assuming that it does amounts to a quasi religious belief, not science.

You cannot deny that coal releases additional CO2 into the atmosphere

Of course not...we produce CO2...but we do not drive the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, nor are we a significant contributor to the total CO2 in the atmosphere...further, there isn't the first piece of empirical evidence which supports the claim that our CO2 is somehow driving the global climate.

This CO2 is in the ground and not in the atmosphere and how it gets from point A to point B is man’s activities

You clearly are unaware of the actual scale of our contribution to the atmospheric CO2 concentration when compared to the natural sources of CO2...here, it is a short video and puts the amount of CO2 we produce compared to the amount produced by natural sources into a realistic perspective.

Mauna loa in 1958 put the ppm at 316

It was a little higher than pre industrial level of 280

The ppm now has hit the 400 number

Again...I never claimed that CO2 wasn't rising, nor did I claim that we don't produce CO2.. I said...and produced published peer reviewed science which stated that the amount of CO2 we produce is not a significant factor in the increase in atmospheric CO2.....and thus far, you have provided no science at all which contradicts those statements, nor are you likely to.

The levels do go up and down but in 2016 when it pretty much stayed above the 400 number and 2016 was declared the hottest year since measuring started. Man has not been keep records since a certain point in time but CO2 levels fluctuate and you seem to think that it debunks global warming but the measurements show that it did get hotter than any previous recordings.

As every ice core study that has ever been done shows, CO2 increases with an increase in temperature...if it is warmer, then there will be more CO2 because it out gasses from warmer oceans...the empirical evidence shows us that increased CO2 is the result of warmer temperatures, not the cause and there is no empirical evidence that shows otherwise.

The earth breaths and things go up and down it fluctuate. But we are not talking about what the earth does, We are talking about what man does to affect the earth

You keep saying that but as the peer reviewed, published science shows, we are not a significant contributor to the total atmospheric CO2..here, did you not look at this chart provided by the godfather of global warming? This graph is from James Hansen...one of the biggest alarmists there is and it clearly shows that there is no relationship between the amount of fossil fuels we burn and the total CO2 in the atmosphere...

You admit that man produce CO2 but even you can not predict what are the consequences from this action or u dismiss it with no regard to the possible loss of life and resources for natural disasters

Since the present ice age began with atmospheric CO2 levels at about 1000 ppm, it is pretty clear that 400 ppm isn't going to cause any warming at all...and history shows us that ice ages have started with atmospheric CO2 as high as 5000ppm...and there has never been anything like runaway global warming...

Can you provide any empirical evidence at all which suggests otherwise?

But lets keep it simple

Keep it simple stupid? That's your plan...simply accept what you are told even when there is no empirical evidence to support the hysterical handwaving that alarmists are engaged in?

Lake A has water and lake B has water, if I start taking the water from B and adding it to A then depending how much water I remove it may not matter but at some point I will add enough that Lake A will overflow based on what I did as a man

Again...historic CO2 levels have been as high as 7000ppm with no run away warming and ice ages have started with CO2 levels as high as 5000ppm...CO2 does not cause warming and you can't provide the first piece of empirical evidence which shows that it does.

The question is what happens when man takes CO2 from the earth and puts it into the atmosphere

If we could produce enough CO2 to have a significant effect on atmospheric CO2 levels, history has shown us that runaway warming doesn't even happen when CO2 levels are at 7000ppm...there isn't enough coal and fossil fuels in existence to raise CO2 levels to 2000ppm, much less 7000ppm.

I not going to waste my time on your pages and pages of rants

Ranting is what you are doing....I have provided peer reviewed, published science to support my claims...the wait continues for you to provide any to support yours...

Scientific consensus is the standard

History shows us that the scientific consensus is wrong more often than they are right...

Yeah the thing about sea levels rising is that cities and people live in coastal areas now and historically they didn't. New Orleans with its man made effort to keep the water out failed miserable with a high death toll and the amount of money spent. Maybe NO did not happen and it was just a dream

The fact that people live on the coast has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we are causing sea level rise via our CO2 emissions. New Orleans flooded because the corrupt city government didn't do the improvements on the levies that they were supposed to do and failed to do them even after katrina...

The fact that people line on the coast has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we are causing seal levels rise

The question is - are sea level rising and what will be the toll world wide on coastal cities.

Coastal cities will be one of the casualty of global warming. That is the issue. Katrina is just an example of how arrogant man is in his beliefs that he can control his environment and what he beliefs he can do. What is the cost of such arrogance

Arrogance is assuming that man's contribution of CO2 levels has no role in this issue

History shows us that the scientific consensus is wrong more often than they are right...

So are you saying you know who is right and who is wrong

well prevention is better than the cure

I do not get paid for my beliefs, Do you

 

[SSDD]

Unless you put the conclusion that the author reaches and the discussion then posting a review as being meaningful but it is small as it is just someones opinion and it got published. Tell us what the conclusion was and the discussion that is in the review then we can get to it. Then we can reach a real consensus

Guess you didn't actually look at the papers...in several, I provided the conclusions...and the conclusions are there for anyone to read who may actually be interested in what the science says rather than what alarmist blogs and the mainstream media say. Clearly you aren't.

whether small or significant is irrelevant as you admit that mans activities do contributing to increase levels of CO2 in the atmosphere

Still waiting on some empirical evidence that demonstrates that it matters. And again, I don't expect for you to provide any, because there simply isn't any. To date, there has not been a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the claimed warming due to our production of so called greenhouse gasses has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on said so called greenhouse gasses. The science simply isn't there...

Pass it over as minor but in a balanced eco system everything matters. As population increases and more people are causing CO2 to rise, then Man continues to put more CO2 in the atmosphere

As I have already stated, and supported with actual science, our CO2 emissions are not even enough to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...meaning that our CO2 isn't enough to alter the balance...that is the whole point of all the papers I have provided...they show that the amount of CO2 we produce is so trivial, when compared to the CO2 that the earth produces, that it just doesn't matter...and again, there is no physical evidence which demonstrates that CO2 has anything at all do do with global temperatures...

And you keep talking about the piddling amount of CO2 we put in the atmosphere when we know that concentrations of 7000ppm didn't cause anything like run away warming..and ice ages began with concentrations of 5000ppm. You are assuming that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere matters...there is no physical evidence to suggest that it does. The models which predict warming from additional CO2 have failed completely...before you go on about adding CO2 to the atmosphere, you need to first produce some physical evidence which suggests that it matters...and no such physical evidence exists.

Everyone one is aware of the other sources of CO2 but the CONSENSUS is still there that we have to control man's emissions of CO2

Why? What physical evidence can you produce which suggests that the CO2 we produce has any effect whatsoever on global temperatures?

Thus you argument is small

My argument is supported by peer reviewed, published science...so far, yours is based on nothing at all...no science, no literature, nothing except your own opinion...if my argument which is based upon, and supported by published literature is small, then that must mean that your argument is non existent. You are doing nothing more than flapping your hands claiming that the sky is falling and the only evidence you have is an acorn at your feet....an acorn is not the sky.

Ohh very scientific of you to use the word DUPE but it goes both ways

It might, if you could actually provide some science which provides physical evidence to support your claims...but you can't. I know you can't because I have spent the past 3 decades looking. I didn't become a skeptic because I just like to argue. I became a skeptic because I expect science to provide actual evidence to support its claims...climate science hasn't...All the real science, based on observation and empirical evidence says that the models upon which climate science is based are wrong.

CO2 levels are rising but you don't care because its political thus it is apparent that you serve a specific political cause because you want to focus the argument elsewhere instead of on the consequences of mans actions. Still you are entitled to your beliefs even though it is not the CONSENSUS of those who study the issue

CO2 levels are rising and I don't care because history has shown us that it doesn't matter. It is your side who is wrapped up in politics as evidenced by your inability to provide actual science to support your position. Thus far, you have shown nothing at all by way of physical evidence which suggests that there is any consequence at all to our piddling addition to the total atmospheric CO2 level...nor are you likely to.

What you will do, if you continue is to give more political reasons to alter our lifestyles with no actual science to support the changes you want to have made.

here is the deal you are the minority and it is you who is on the island waving that flat

Guess you really don't know much about science...it is the few who actually have the physical evidence who win out in the end...Consider the number of long held scientific consensus views which have fallen in the past few years as a result of a few scientists out there who actually asked questions and did real science to see if the consensus view was supported...The consensus view that stomach ulcers were caused by stress has fallen...the consensus view that salt causes high blood pressure has fallen...the concuss view that quasi crystals can not exist has fallen....the consensus view that natural fats are worse for you that polyunsaturated fats has fallen...the consensus view that cholesterol causes heart disease has fallen..and on and on and on.

The sad fact is that if you pick any topic in science....any field...especially a relatively new field like climate science, the odds of being right are heavily in your favor simply by going against the consensus view...I certainly don't subscribe to the consensus view any more and don't because the published, peer reviewed science says that the consensus is wrong...

Hey who is that waving something out there, never mind its just a non believer

Science isn't about belief...science is about evidence and while I can support all of my views with peer reviewed, published science you don't seem to be able to support any of yours at all with anything like actual science. I am not prepared to simply "believe" in a climate crisis because the media, politicians, and activist scientists say so....I expect science to be able to provide actual physical evidence to support their claims and climate science simply can't do it..

If you want to hold quasi religious beliefs because some activists who share your politics say that you should believe, then believe all you want..but don't call it science...Science is about actual physical evidence and you have none...

 

[mamooth]

CO2 is the fundamental building block of life. How much life is too much?

The greening of the earth due to CO2 fertilization stopped in the 1990s and appears to be reversing. That means that anything past 1990s levels would be too much.

https://skepticalscience.com/ridley-murdoch-lomborg-greenwash-global-warming.html

But then, that's just hard data, so feel free to ignore it, being that it contradicts your sacred cult scripture.

It is interesting. The data says that, by denier standards, deniers want to exterminate life in general. We always knew that deniers desire the extermination of much of humanity, being that so many of them act like psychopaths here, but we never thought they actually hated all life in general.

 

[westwall]

CO2 is the fundamental building block of life. How much life is too much?

The greening of the earth due to CO2 fertilization stopped in the 1990s and appears to be reversing. That means that anything past 1990s levels would be too much.

https://skepticalscience.com/ridley-murdoch-lomborg-greenwash-global-warming.html

But then, that's just hard data, so feel free to ignore it, being that it contradicts your sacred cult scripture.

It is interesting. The data says that, by denier standards, deniers want to exterminate life in general. We always knew that deniers desire the extermination of much of humanity, being that so many of them act like psychopaths here, but we never thought they actually hated all life in general.

A laughable assertion, as are nearly all of your claims

 

[SSDD]

CO2 is the fundamental building block of life. How much life is too much?

The greening of the earth due to CO2 fertilization stopped in the 1990s and appears to be reversing. That means that anything past 1990s levels would be too much.

Wrong again hairball...do you ever look beyond alarmist blogs for information? And your 2013 information is waaaaayyyyy out of date..

Error - Cookies Turned Off

clips:
“The recent warming hiatus (1998–2013) was identified as a potential key mechanism behind the increased land sink during this period via reduced ecosystem respiration (Ballantyne et al., 2017).”

“At the global scale, simulated NPP [net primary production, greening] increased substantially over the 20th century to present day from 56.2 (mean of 1901–1910) to 66.0 Pg C/year (mean of 2007–2016) with positive contributions from all drivers considered, including rising CO2 concentrations (referred to as CO2 fertilization), nitrogen deposition, climate, and carbon‐nitrogen as well as carbon‐climate synergies. The relative contribution of these drivers to this overall NPP increase amounts to 60% for increased CO2, 15% for nitrogen deposition, 8% for carbon‐nitrogen synergy, 9% for carbon‐climate synergy, and 8% for climate. Both CO2 fertilization and nitrogen deposition individually caused a smooth, transient increase in NPP, in line with the trajectory of the corresponding drivers.”
“[R]esults show a global NPP [net primary production, greening] increase of 3.4 Pg C/year between the early 1990s (mean of 1990–1996) and the end of our study period (2010–2016), with CO2 fertilization and climate being the dominant drivers, accounting for 56% and 35% of the overall change, respectively.”

“Carbon‐climate interactions led to significant increases in tropical forests and the forests of North America, Eurasia, and China.”


Earth system models underestimate carbon fixation by plants in the high latitudes

Clip: “Historical increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration, from 280 to current 400 ppm, has resulted in enhanced GPP [gross primary production/greening] due to its radiative and physiological effects, which is indirectly evident in amplified seasonal swings of atmospheric CO2 concentration and large scale increase in summer time green leaf area. Thus, these observables, expressed as sensitivities to ambient CO2 concentration, might serve as predictors of changes in GPP and help to reduce uncertainty in multimodel projections of terrestrial carbon cycle entities. This study is focused on the northern high latitudes (NHL, north of 60°N) where significant and linked changes in climate and vegetation have been observed in the past 3–4 decades: 52% of the vegetated lands show statistically significant greening trends over the 36-year record of satellite observations (1981–2016, Methods), while only 12% show browning trends, mostly in the North American boreal forests due to disturbances.”


Changes in rainfall distribution promote woody foliage production in the Sahel

Clip: “Recent Earth observation studies find a greening of the Earth and in particular in global drylands, which is commonly interpreted as a global increase in net primary production and has been attributed to climate change. Although changes in rainfall, fire regimes, elevated temperatures, atmospheric CO2 and nitrogen depositions are suggested explanations, only few studies provide quantitative evidence on both the biophysical processes (changes in vegetation cover, structure and composition) and controlling factors of long-term dryland vegetation trends.”


GMD - Modelling northern peatland area and carbon dynamics since the Holocene with the ORCHIDEE-PEAT land surface model (SVN r5488)

Clip:
“Our results show that both net primary production (NPP) and heterotrophic respiration (HR) of northern peatlands increased over the past century in response to CO2 and climate change.”

• The “remarkable” vegetation greening in the Yellow River Basin since 2000 is expected to continue for 73% of the region.


https://www.researchgate.net/public...ches_of_the_Yellow_River_Basin_over_2000-2015

Clip: “Changes in Vegetation Greenness in the Upper and Middle Reaches of the Yellow River Basin over 2000–2015 … In this study, the vegetation dynamic characteristics were analyzed for unconverted forestland, shrubland, grassland, cropland, and converted forestland, shrubland, and grassland from cropland over 2000–2015 in the upper and middle reaches of the Yellow River. … The results obtained were as follows: (1) Vegetation greening was remarkable in the entire study region (0.036 yr−1).”
“Overall greening trend in the upper and middle reaches of the Yellow River indicated great achievements have been obtained since the implementation of the GTGP. Vegetation restoration exerted stronger influences on converted types from cropland than unconverted types. In the future, approximately 73.1% of the study region is expected to continue increasing [greening].”

How many more would you like hairball...all new research.. all finding that the earth continues to green as a result of increased CO2 and warmer temperatures...why don't you wack jobs want the earth to green and flourish?

 

[SSDD]

CO2 is the fundamental building block of life. How much life is too much?

The greening of the earth due to CO2 fertilization stopped in the 1990s and appears to be reversing. That means that anything past 1990s levels would be too much.

https://skepticalscience.com/ridley-murdoch-lomborg-greenwash-global-warming.html

But then, that's just hard data, so feel free to ignore it, being that it contradicts your sacred cult scripture.

It is interesting. The data says that, by denier standards, deniers want to exterminate life in general. We always knew that deniers desire the extermination of much of humanity, being that so many of them act like psychopaths here, but we never thought they actually hated all life in general.

A laughable assertion, as are nearly all of your claims

Did you notice that her SS "evidence" is damned near 7 years old? All the new research based on actual observation as opposed to models finds that the earth started greening back in the 80's and continues and is expected to continue. One has to wonder why alarmist wackos are opposed to a greener earth...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Now how silly are these people?