Sensitivity of carbon cycle to tropical temperature variations has doubled

[gnarlylove]

No, they don't...It is science fiction.

that is your basic argument. it offers no defense except a refusal to discuss. this is all your arguments amount to: not an argument but rather a "no you're wrong!" "NO! you're wrong! back and forth never ending. not helpful.

orogs GI JOE comment gave the same amount of defense as your previous 100 posts.

you are so high and mighty on 31,000 whipper snappers that you forgot your own argument:

"popular opinion doesn't make it true." plus that petition is totally bogus. can you admit it for the record? with only .5% having any real background in climate science, we can safely say it's 99.5555% bogus.

climate change is more than computer models. http://asiancorrespondent.com/116205/climate-refugees-of-the-pacific/
our climate is varying unlike before and displaces thousands a year. droughts, floods etc. affects companies across the globe and they respond by reducing dependence on resources. why? its a matter of economics: climate change is threatening their business. this isn't computer models, this is reality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

you say there is no evidence but you won't look at any of the links.

False.

"Climate change" eh? Nope, you got to do better than that. You get no more attention until you improve.

Jeez, you must be looking to set new records in uselessness. Why would ANYONE here care whether or not they got attention from YOU? You DON'T know science, in general or in any particular. You do NOTHING but throw insults and weasel words and try to look clever. You haven't advanced one single conversation on this site by one single iota since you got here.

Gifted... sheesh!

1) Global temperatures have been rising at an unprecedented rate for the last 150 years.
2) The temperature trend closely follows the CO2 trend.
3) The calculated warming, direct and indirect, from the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere very closely matches that observed.
4) Multiple analyses identify the source of the added CO2 as fossil fuel combustion.

False. The evidence does not add up to your conclusions.

False. You mistakenly believe that anyone who disagrees lacks knowledge. THAT is perhaps the most important thing you must learn to change.

Completely nonsensical.

Because your position is unsubstantiated. All the AGW crap is riddled with fallacious reasoning and arbitrary metrics.

Defend your comments with regards to observations 1-4.

The fact that the rates are unprecedented, as in never before recorded by man, isn't a reason to panic. The simple fact is that ice cores, which are the only ways we have to measure temperature in the distant past, aren't accurate enough for us to determine the rate of temperature increase from them. On top of that, I really don't understand why a warmer Earth, which will still be cooler than it was in the past, is going to be a disaster.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the problem with swim is it thinks it has value. some bible camp early on must have drilled this in. so as it got older, swim still believed swim had value but never learned ANYTHING. anyone can say false this and "ain't gonna touch that cuz i'm stupid" but it takes learning and value to defend your disagreements and arguments.

let me show you a reasonable argument
1 swim is mortal
2. all mortals die
3. therefore swim will die, and thank god!

now the "thank god" part is unnecessary and is not part of the argument. can you see how stupid comments have no role in advancing any human discussion? i don't want you to die and that takes away from the whole argument and renders it worthless, just like ALL of your comments.

Yet you keep making stupid comments.

 

[gnarlylove]

let me put it in terms deniers would understand so let's forget winter for a minute (they think since its cold right now that overall temperatures can't rise, which is false cuz global temps. include year-round data):

this summer when global warming "starts back up" and on into this decade, the public will come to experience climate change first hand with increasing extremes of weather and erratic patterns. just 1 example: heat waves this coming summer with cause water-shortages from reduced snow pack in high elevations. heck i'll throw a second example: YOUR home-owners insurance will likely increase due to the fact it floods more. expect lotsa towns inundated with floods like never seen before this spring!

the world...she be uh changin'! in this case, conservatives got it right: change is bad. less stable climate causes lots more damage.

 

[gnarlylove]

the public will understand manufactured confusion about climate change is smoke in mirrors designed to halt action against big polluters so profits continue in these sectors (oil, coal and esp. ng). as other sectors and giant corporations notice their profits dwindling from more expensive resources due to scarcity from droughts, floods etc. they will swing their heavy arm against denialism and take swift action to save their profits. one of those ways will be to publicly announce the affects climate change has against their business so the public knows! this is already happening.

if this is how we come to address climate change it will be too late to reverse significant devastation in this century and beyond. all levels of government, business, and the rich and poor worldwide know the climate change is happening and it has the potential ruin global economies.

 

[westwall]

No, they don't...It is science fiction.

that is your basic argument. it offers no defense except a refusal to discuss. this is all your arguments amount to: not an argument but rather a "no you're wrong!" "NO! you're wrong! back and forth never ending. not helpful.

orogs GI JOE comment gave the same amount of defense as your previous 100 posts.

you are so high and mighty on 31,000 whipper snappers that you forgot your own argument:

"popular opinion doesn't make it true." plus that petition is totally bogus. can you admit it for the record? with only .5% having any real background in climate science, we can safely say it's 99.5555% bogus.

climate change is more than computer models. http://asiancorrespondent.com/116205/climate-refugees-of-the-pacific/
our climate is varying unlike before and displaces thousands a year. droughts, floods etc. affects companies across the globe and they respond by reducing dependence on resources. why? its a matter of economics: climate change is threatening their business. this isn't computer models, this is reality.

No, you don't understand. You have to give us something to discuss FIRST. You give us a bunch of science fiction, and expect us to waste time discussing that which is not real.

I don't wish to waste mine, nor any one else' time, engaging scientific illiterates in the nuances of the scientific method. When you can bring us something empirical I will be very happy to discuss that with you.

Until then you're just flapping your gums.

 

[westwall]

let me put it in terms deniers would understand so let's forget winter for a minute (they think since its cold right now that overall temperatures can't rise, which is false cuz global temps. include year-round data):

this summer when global warming "starts back up" and on into this decade, the public will come to experience climate change first hand with increasing extremes of weather and erratic patterns. just 1 example: heat waves this coming summer with cause water-shortages from reduced snow pack in high elevations. heck i'll throw a second example: YOUR home-owners insurance will likely increase due to the fact it floods more. expect lotsa towns inundated with floods like never seen before this spring!

the world...she be uh changin'! in this case, conservatives got it right: change is bad. less stable climate causes lots more damage.

Good luck with that. Your use of the pejorative "deniers" exposes you for the scientifically illiterate political propagandist you are. Scientists don't call other people names to make their points. We destroy your argument and that is enough for us.

To date you have spewed a bunch of words on the computer screen that taken all together mean nothing.

Just like you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

let me put it in terms deniers would understand so let's forget winter for a minute (they think since its cold right now that overall temperatures can't rise, which is false cuz global temps. include year-round data):

this summer when global warming "starts back up" and on into this decade, the public will come to experience climate change first hand with increasing extremes of weather and erratic patterns. just 1 example: heat waves this coming summer with cause water-shortages from reduced snow pack in high elevations. heck i'll throw a second example: YOUR home-owners insurance will likely increase due to the fact it floods more. expect lotsa towns inundated with floods like never seen before this spring!

the world...she be uh changin'! in this case, conservatives got it right: change is bad. less stable climate causes lots more damage.

OMG! Not EXTREME WEATHER!

Listen, idiot. The fact that I don't buy into the fear does not make me a denier, it just means I can think.

 

[gnarlylove]

Your use of the pejorative "deniers" exposes you for the scientifically illiterate political propagandist you are. Scientists don't call other people names to make their points.

I see I've had influence on you. You are welcome for that argument, no need to thank me till you can't admit your oregon petition is folly.

I noted the politics should play little/no role in discussion the scientific validity long before you made this inversed comment. Check my old replies to you private message, it's all there. You used the AGW cultist term more times than pages in this thread. Suddenly deniers has a worse meaning than cultists?? Deniers is the plural of denier and it's the quickest way to reference people on this forum who deny climate change. What would you prefer I use?

Try this page for some discussion. Tell me why you disagree. If you refuse to read this link and yet call it false, you are obviously forfeiting any discussion.

You're best argument comes from Jon Stewart:
"It's about liberty. If we admit climate change is real, then the liberal elite can dictate what we can and can't do. And nobody gets to tell Americans what we can burn, what we can eat, who we can shoot, and how many times we can shoot it."

We aren't out to restrict your liberty westwall, we are taking action to prevent that liberty to be under threat during a global crisis that may start with an environmental disaster and turn into a global market crash. When systemic risk is afoot, liberty is not far from being executed.

I really want to respect you westwall, and do as a person. using terms like pejorative you clearly are not stupid. However, a few of your arguments are non-arguments and have no backbone other than saying "you're wrong" or some variation. Tell me why the article I mentioned has flawed points.

I'm not on this site to war with you, I'm here to understand your disagreement and perhaps find a way to compromise or come together. Certainly you admit staunch denialism on anything is unhealthy. if all i did was say no you're wrong without offering why I would exhibit a stance of unwillingness. this denial of thought prevents good debate and compromise. if action is really needed, then this is important to re-consider.

it sounds like you define climate change as impossible or something equally inane so from the get-go you refuse to admit climate change has even a slim possibility of being real. if so, just tell me so i can quit wasting our time. i admit climate change could be false and am willing to hear why. a fraudulent petition does not qualify.

 

[natstew]

Does the economy depend on nature and raw materials? That's the reason you want to gag your reflex of disagreement to actually learn. As long as you remain in your economic bubble, you can say whatever you want without repercussion. When we loose old growth forests or climate stability we gain economic risk. Indeed, it's called systemic risk.

Yes, we hit peak oil decades ago, and used up all the available land in the late 1970s. The resulting nuclear war wiped out roughly 90% of the population, and rendered the entire surface of the Earth uninhabitable.

Except it didn't.

Don't forget the Ice Age that wiped us all out in the 80's!

 

[westwall]

Your use of the pejorative "deniers" exposes you for the scientifically illiterate political propagandist you are. Scientists don't call other people names to make their points.

I see I've had influence on you. You are welcome for that argument, no need to thank me till you can't admit your oregon petition is folly.

I noted the politics should play little/no role in discussion the scientific validity long before you made this inversed comment. Check my old replies to you private message, it's all there. You used the AGW cultist term more times than pages in this thread. Suddenly deniers has a worse meaning than cultists?? Deniers is the plural of denier and it's the quickest way to reference people on this forum who deny climate change. What would you prefer I use?

Try this page for some discussion. Tell me why you disagree. If you refuse to read this link and yet call it false, you are obviously forfeiting any discussion.

You're best argument comes from Jon Stewart:
"It's about liberty. If we admit climate change is real, then the liberal elite can dictate what we can and can't do. And nobody gets to tell Americans what we can burn, what we can eat, who we can shoot, and how many times we can shoot it."

We aren't out to restrict your liberty westwall, we are taking action to prevent that liberty to be under threat during a global crisis that may start with an environmental disaster and turn into a global market crash. When systemic risk is afoot, liberty is not far from being executed.

I really want to respect you westwall, and do as a person. using terms like pejorative you clearly are not stupid. However, a few of your arguments are non-arguments and have no backbone other than saying "you're wrong" or some variation. Tell me why the article I mentioned has flawed points.

I'm not on this site to war with you, I'm here to understand your disagreement and perhaps find a way to compromise or come together. Certainly you admit staunch denialism on anything is unhealthy. if all i did was say no you're wrong without offering why I would exhibit a stance of unwillingness. this denial of thought prevents good debate and compromise. if action is really needed, then this is important to re-consider.

it sounds like you define climate change as impossible or something equally inane so from the get-go you refuse to admit climate change has even a slim possibility of being real. if so, just tell me so i can quit wasting our time. i admit climate change could be false and am willing to hear why. a fraudulent petition does not qualify.

Before you make one more post I want you too look up the Scientific Method. I want you to STUDY exactly what it means and how it is supposed to be used. Then I want you to compare that methodology with what climatology is using.

When you have done that and can show me that you are conversant with it I will happily talk to you. Till then you are a waste of time.

 

[orogenicman]

No, you don't understand. You have to give us something to discuss FIRST.

According to who?

You give us a bunch of science fiction, and expect us to waste time discussing that which is not real.

Unless you like science fiction, if you are complaining about wasting your time, why the fuck are you here in the first place?

I don't wish to waste mine, nor any one else' time

Then move on. Your hands aren't tied.

 

[westwall]

No, you don't understand. You have to give us something to discuss FIRST.

According to who?

You give us a bunch of science fiction, and expect us to waste time discussing that which is not real.

Unless you like science fiction, if you are complaining about wasting your time, why the fuck are you here in the first place?

I don't wish to waste mine, nor any one else' time

Then move on. Your hands aren't tied.

You TOO, need to look up the scientific method and study it. You clearly don't know a darned thing when it comes to science.

 

[gnarlylove]

OMG! Not EXTREME WEATHER!

Listen, idiot. The fact that I don't buy into the fear does not make me a denier, it just means I can think.

are you serious? you really think extreme weather is nothing? I guess you need to be at least 30 yrs old to really get a grip...started back with hurricane andrew in 91 and its gotten worse. no one denies that, Mr Idiot. everyone can see it.

it doesn't mean you can think if you refuse to acknowledge that hurricanes and typhoons harm Americans. clearly you don't think the destruction of American towns matters as long as it doesn't affect you. that sounds awfully unpatriotic. it requires lotsa taxes to pay for rebuilding towns and disaster relief. it also has an impact on the economy. maybe you won't consider your ability to bury your head as "thought" if you lost your family due to a tornado. that unusual tornado would not have been there if it wasn't for climate change and excess pollution.

 

[orogenicman]

Scientists don't call other people names to make their points.

If you truly believe that, then you've not been around very many scientists. Which just goes to show that you lie when you say that you are one yourself.

 

[natstew]

Read this and you'll find that ice age/warming periods hae been happening as long as there's been a planet Earth. Some of the ice age/hot/ice age cylces have been as close together as 300 years.
Page-Ladson prehistory site - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sites 30ft under the surface now were once Paleo Indian campsites. Some separated by 300 years of silt from high water then another camp site.
I know!, I know!......the Paleo Indians were running around screaming in utter panic, "The world is ending, the world is ending! Man is causing it!!"

 

[gnarlylove]

basically you start with a hypothesis, aka educated guess but it can just be a hunch too.

then you study on a case by case basis, aka empirical study.

record what you find. what you find needs to be able to be independently repeated.

then consensus develops and a theory is propounded. it offers an explanation of phenomenon or phenomena.

it gets debated and compared to other theories that propose to explain the events at hand.

climate change is the theory that explains erratic weather patterns that are observable today. unlike your silly petition evironmental biologists do not disagree that we will see a 3.5 C change in the next century and they also note this is really bad for climate stability. if you want the seasons to remain relatively stable and predictable, you need to maintain climate stability.

 

[natstew]

A catistrophic drought wiped out the Clovis Peoples who were the first humans in North America. they were from what is now Europe, BTW.
No cars, no coal mines, no oil wells, no internal combustion engines, WOW!

 

[gnarlylove]

"The world is ending, the world is ending! Man is causing it!!"

that's the problem, no one is claiming absurdities. we are merely noting that the weather patterns will be more violent and extreme. this will cost productivity and prosperity.

because the past has changed is the exact reason to think it's changing now. the one new factor is the excess pollution by man and it has clearly shown a change in the climate. without reduction of the excess carbon the climate will not stabilize until much further down the road. that means economic uncertainty for future generations.

you're argument is one that supports the fact that the world indeed does change and can become less inhabitable. why you think that means we should ignore carbon dioxide as a culprit is beyond me.

 

[orogenicman]

Read this and you'll find that ice age/warming periods hae been happening as long as there's been a planet Earth. Some of the ice age/hot/ice age cylces have been as close together as 300 years.
Page-Ladson prehistory site - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sites 30ft under the surface now were once Paleo Indian campsites. Some separated by 300 years of silt from high water then another camp site.
I know!, I know!......the Paleo Indians were running around screaming in utter panic, "The world is ending, the world is ending! Man is causing it!!"

That is a late Pleistocene-early Holocene site. So how does that support your thesis that "ice age/warming periods have been happening as long as there's been a planet Earth"?