The truth about CO2 and climate change

[BlindBoo]

Scientists disagree with Plimer is correct. After all, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policy statements that say AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

in the 1970s those same groups said the earth was going into a new ice age.

I do not understand why you libs can't understand the difference between pollution and climate change. Pollution is bad, everyone agrees. When you try to make a false connection between pollution and climate change you hurt the drive to eliminate pollution.

the only explanation that is possible is that liberalism is indeed a mental disease.

No, there was never a consensus about an new Ice Age. That is a bold face lie you keep repeating based on a Newsweek article.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s

Then the far left/AGW cult uses a far left/AGW cult blog site for their "facts".

More debunked information being posted as fact..

The far left/AGW cult continues to prove that they would much rather see the world burn than admit they are wrong!

Is that all you got? Your patent Far left nonsense.........

 

[Saigon]

Redfish -

Do you admit that arctic ice is dropping?

I am sure we both know that it is - but can you admit it?

 

[Redfish]

Thats rich, you guys post graphs covering 20 or 30 years and claim they prove a trend for a planet that is billions of years old----------thats the irony, idiot.

You're ignoring the time element. You can't compare things that happened over tens of thousands to millions of years with what's happened over the last 200.

OMG, amazingly ignorant. The climate of our planet has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now. The actions of humans have never had anything to do with it.

You're logic impaired, aren't you? You can't compare the present to the past, if underlying conditions have changed, like humans emitting more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

first of all your claim about humans and CO2 has been disproven several times.
second, CO2 is not a pollutant, read the OP
third, the sun causes climate change, both short term and long term.
fourth, the acts of humans did not cause the hot and cold trends over the last few millions of years, but you claim that a 50 year trend is significant?

the logic challenged one is you, my little friend.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish -

Do you admit that arctic ice is dropping?

I am sure we both know that it is - but can you afmit it?

Global Cooling Arctic Ice Cap Grows 60 Percent In A Year NASA PHOTO - International Science Times

look at the pictures, the answer is there.

 

[konradv]

No, there was never a consensus about an new Ice Age. That is a bold face lie you keep repeating based on a Newsweek article.
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s

I never said that there was a consensus, just as today there is no consensus.

You implied it by saying the same groups now touting AGW were saying the opposite in the 70s. There is actually no comparison at all between the number that believed we were going into a new Ice Age and those that now believe in AGW.

 

[Saigon]

Redfish -

I looked at your pictures.....this is what I found:

1. Sea ice extent in October averaged 8.06 million square kilometers (3.11 million square miles). This is 850,000 square kilometers (328,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 8.91 million square kilometers (3.44 million square miles) and 1.29 million square kilometers (498,000 square miles) above the record low for the month observed in 2007.


2) Through the month of October, the Arctic gained 3.39 million square kilometers (1.31 million square miles) of ice. This is faster than the average rate of ice gain for the month of October, but slower than the rate of ice gain seen in October 2012, after the record minimum of September 2012, and other recent Octobers.Temperatures at the 925 hPa level show that the Arctic was 1 to 4 degrees Celsius (2 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average everywhere, except in the Kara and Barents seas where air temperatures were 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than average. Lower than average temperatures in this region were also a persistent feature of summer 2014 and helped maintain a more extensive ice cover in the region than in recent summers.

2)

3)

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

I'll ask again - do you accept that Arctic ice is melting?

 

[Redfish]

No, there was never a consensus about an new Ice Age. That is a bold face lie you keep repeating based on a Newsweek article.
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s

I never said that there was a consensus, just as today there is no consensus.

You implied it by saying the same groups now touting AGW were saying the opposite in the 70s. There is actually no comparison at all between the number that believed we were going into a new Ice Age and those that now believe in AGW.

OK, you are free to believe it if it makes you feel good and all fuzzy inside.

200 years from now we may, or may not, know who is right.

I intend to enjoy the rest of my life, burn gas in my car, wood in my fireplace, fly on airplanes, and eat dead cows and pigs.

you can live under the roots of a tree and eat worms in order to save the world from the evil CO2. I really don't give a flying fuck what you believe or how you live.

 

[Kosh]

Scientists disagree with Plimer is correct. After all, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policy statements that say AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

in the 1970s those same groups said the earth was going into a new ice age.

I do not understand why you libs can't understand the difference between pollution and climate change. Pollution is bad, everyone agrees. When you try to make a false connection between pollution and climate change you hurt the drive to eliminate pollution.

the only explanation that is possible is that liberalism is indeed a mental disease.

No, there was never a consensus about an new Ice Age. That is a bold face lie you keep repeating based on a Newsweek article.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s

Then the far left/AGW cult uses a far left/AGW cult blog site for their "facts".

More debunked information being posted as fact..

The far left/AGW cult continues to prove that they would much rather see the world burn than admit they are wrong!

Is that all you got? Your patent Far left nonsense.........

Need nothing else, but then again posting debunked far left/AGW cult propaganda did not help your agenda that is not based on real science..

 

[Redfish]

Redfish -

I looked at your pictures.....this is what I found:

1. Sea ice extent in October averaged 8.06 million square kilometers (3.11 million square miles). This is 850,000 square kilometers (328,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 8.91 million square kilometers (3.44 million square miles) and 1.29 million square kilometers (498,000 square miles) above the record low for the month observed in 2007.


2) Through the month of October, the Arctic gained 3.39 million square kilometers (1.31 million square miles) of ice. This is faster than the average rate of ice gain for the month of October, but slower than the rate of ice gain seen in October 2012, after the record minimum of September 2012, and other recent Octobers.Temperatures at the 925 hPa level show that the Arctic was 1 to 4 degrees Celsius (2 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average everywhere, except in the Kara and Barents seas where air temperatures were 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than average. Lower than average temperatures in this region were also a persistent feature of summer 2014 and helped maintain a more extensive ice cover in the region than in recent summers.

2)

3)

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

I'll ask again - do you accept that Arctic ice is melting?

it melts and refreezes every year. man has zero effect on that process. But you are free to believe that soccer moms driving SUVs and power plants burning coal and oil are destroying the world.

So, when are you moving into the forest to live under a tree and eat worms?

 

[Kosh]

Redfish -

I looked at your pictures.....this is what I found:

1. Sea ice extent in October averaged 8.06 million square kilometers (3.11 million square miles). This is 850,000 square kilometers (328,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 8.91 million square kilometers (3.44 million square miles) and 1.29 million square kilometers (498,000 square miles) above the record low for the month observed in 2007.


2) Through the month of October, the Arctic gained 3.39 million square kilometers (1.31 million square miles) of ice. This is faster than the average rate of ice gain for the month of October, but slower than the rate of ice gain seen in October 2012, after the record minimum of September 2012, and other recent Octobers.Temperatures at the 925 hPa level show that the Arctic was 1 to 4 degrees Celsius (2 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average everywhere, except in the Kara and Barents seas where air temperatures were 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than average. Lower than average temperatures in this region were also a persistent feature of summer 2014 and helped maintain a more extensive ice cover in the region than in recent summers.

2)

3)

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

I'll ask again - do you accept that Arctic ice is melting?

According to AGW lore, the ice caps are not supposed to grow..

That is the irony impairment of your AGW/far left faith.

But then again!

 

[Saigon]

Redfish -

You didn't answer the question - of course the Arctic melts and freezes each year. It's called weather. That is not the question.

I'll ask again - do you accept that the Arctic is losing ice?

This sentence (posted earlier) might help -

1. Sea ice extent in October averaged 8.06 million square kilometers (3.11 million square miles). This is 850,000 square kilometers (328,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 8.91 million square kilometers (3.44 million square miles) and 1.29 million square kilometers (498,000 square miles) above the record low for the month observed in 2007.

 

[Saigon]

Kos -

I have you on ignore mode because you cannot read or write well enough to debate. Hence, I do not see your posts. Hence, you can stop stalking and spamming threads that I post on.

 

[konradv]

first of all your claim about humans and CO2 has been disproven several times.
second, CO2 is not a pollutant, read the OP
third, the sun causes climate change, both short term and long term.
fourth, the acts of humans did not cause the hot and cold trends over the last few millions of years, but you claim that a 50 year trend is significant?

First, Human activity doe emit CO2 at higher levels than nature.

Second, I never said CO2 was a pollutant, but I will say sometimes to much of a good thing is bad. Take water, necessary for life, but deadly when it causes flooding, ala Katrina.

Third, Sure the sun effects climate but now you're committing the very error you accuse others of ascribing to CO2, acting like it's the only cause of climate fluctuation.

Fourth, no one claims CO2 was the only reason for climate change in the past. The claim about CO2 is that it is the cause for many of the changes seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

I'm afraid you're still making many logical errors.

 

[Redfish]

Redfish -

You didn't answer the question - of course the Arctic melts and freezes each year. It's called weather. That is not the question.

I'll ask again - do you accept that the Arctic is losing ice?

This sentence (posted earlier) might help -

1. Sea ice extent in October averaged 8.06 million square kilometers (3.11 million square miles). This is 850,000 square kilometers (328,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 8.91 million square kilometers (3.44 million square miles) and 1.29 million square kilometers (498,000 square miles) above the record low for the month observed in 2007.

in that one time measurement, yes. long term, no.

you warmers want to use short term fluctuations to support your claims of long term change, its illogical and frankly, kind of stupid.

 

[orogenicman]

Where does Carbon Dioxide really come from?
Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies.
He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.

Born	12 February 1946 (age 67)
Residence	Australia
Nationality	Australian
Fields	Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering
Institutions	University of New England,University of Newcastle,University of Melbourne,University of Adelaide
Alma mater	University of New South Wales,Macquarie University
Thesis	The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia (1976)
Notable awards	Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal (2003), Clarke Medal (2004)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree; this is a good summary.

PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland.
Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - its that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....
well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland which has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.

I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.
Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just "Climate Change" - you know why?

It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull**** artists got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might yet be stuck with an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.

It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.

But, hey, relax...give the world a hug and have a nice day!"

Plimer? really? Plimer should have stuck with mining geology, because he doesn't know squat about the climate change.

Ian Plimer - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Plimer has argued that volcanic eruptions release more carbon dioxide (CO2) than human activity; in particular that submarine volcanoes emit huge amounts of CO2 and that the influence of the gases from these volcanoes on the Earth's climate is drastically under-represented in climate models.[31][32][33] The United States Geological Survey has calculated that human emissions of CO2 are about 130 times larger than volcanic emissions, including submarine emissions.[34][35][36] The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that Plimer's claim "has no factual basis."[37] This was confirmed in a 2011 survey published in the Eos journal of the American Geophysical Union, which found that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are 135 times larger than those from all volcanoes on Earth.[38]

You guys need to refrain from posting poser nonsense. It makes you look stupid.

 

[Kosh]

Kos -

I have you on ignore mode because you cannot read or write well enough to debate. Hence, I do not see your posts. Hence, you can stop stalking and spamming threads that I post on.

Yes I know the far left hates freedom of speech!

 

[Redfish]

first of all your claim about humans and CO2 has been disproven several times.
second, CO2 is not a pollutant, read the OP
third, the sun causes climate change, both short term and long term.
fourth, the acts of humans did not cause the hot and cold trends over the last few millions of years, but you claim that a 50 year trend is significant?

First, Human activity doe emit CO2 at higher levels than nature.

Second, I never said CO2 was a pollutant, but I will say sometimes to much of a good thing is bad. Take water, necessary for life, but deadly when it causes flooding, ala Katrina.

Third, Sure the sun effects climate but now you're committing the very error you accuse others of ascribing to CO2, acting like it's the only cause of climate fluctuation.

Fourth, no one claims CO2 was the only reason for climate change in the past. The claim about CO2 is that it is the cause for many of the changes seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

I'm afraid you're still making many logical errors.

As I said earlier, you are free to believe the AGW crap if you choose and if it makes you feel good. I do not. If you and algore were right, there would be no arctic ice today and half of the state of Fla would be under water.

end of story.

 

[Kosh]

first of all your claim about humans and CO2 has been disproven several times.
second, CO2 is not a pollutant, read the OP
third, the sun causes climate change, both short term and long term.
fourth, the acts of humans did not cause the hot and cold trends over the last few millions of years, but you claim that a 50 year trend is significant?

First, Human activity doe emit CO2 at higher levels than nature.

Second, I never said CO2 was a pollutant, but I will say sometimes to much of a good thing is bad. Take water, necessary for life, but deadly when it causes flooding, ala Katrina.

Third, Sure the sun effects climate but now you're committing the very error you accuse others of ascribing to CO2, acting like it's the only cause of climate fluctuation.

Fourth, no one claims CO2 was the only reason for climate change in the past. The claim about CO2 is that it is the cause for many of the changes seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

I'm afraid you're still making many logical errors.

Wrong on all counts, but that is par for the course for the far left AGW irony impaired drones..

Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.

 

[Saigon]

Redfish -

I have not posted a one time measurement.

What I have posted is a medium-term trend analysis. I'll post this sentence again for you, as you seem to be having diffculty with it:

Sea ice extent in October averaged 8.06 million square kilometers (3.11 million square miles). This is 850,000 square kilometers (328,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 8.91 million square kilometers (3.44 million square miles) and 1.29 million square kilometers (498,000 square miles) above the record low for the month observed in 2007.

So that is based on averages over more than 30 years. The ice is currently 850,000 square kilimeters below that 30-year average. There a series of graphs in this link that will help explain and provide more information.


Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag


I'll ask again - is the Artic losing ice?

 

[orogenicman]

first of all your claim about humans and CO2 has been disproven several times.
second, CO2 is not a pollutant, read the OP
third, the sun causes climate change, both short term and long term.
fourth, the acts of humans did not cause the hot and cold trends over the last few millions of years, but you claim that a 50 year trend is significant?

First, Human activity doe emit CO2 at higher levels than nature.

Second, I never said CO2 was a pollutant, but I will say sometimes to much of a good thing is bad. Take water, necessary for life, but deadly when it causes flooding, ala Katrina.

Third, Sure the sun effects climate but now you're committing the very error you accuse others of ascribing to CO2, acting like it's the only cause of climate fluctuation.

Fourth, no one claims CO2 was the only reason for climate change in the past. The claim about CO2 is that it is the cause for many of the changes seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

I'm afraid you're still making many logical errors.

Wrong on all counts, but that is par for the course for the far left AGW irony impaired drones..

Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.

Your graph is pure, unadulterated fantasy.