Watch Before The Flood Here -- National Geographic (FULL MOVIE)

[Old Rocks]

Old Rocks, I noticed you're posting things called "facts." Boss hates those. Just an FYI. He prefers hysterical clickbait from thegatewaypundit and having bloviating blowhards like Rush Limbaugh tell him what he should think.

I don't mind facts but all OldRocks posts is propaganda from pro-warmer sources. The International Association of Global Warming and Warmers Untied International aren't exactly "independent observers" here. Reeling off a dozen similar advocacy groups and copying/pasting their predictable pro-warmer nonsense is not science.

It's like I said earlier... the Warmers have a vibrant resource of propaganda websites pushing their hokey trumped-up data and alarmist rhetoric. They've got billions in funding from Socialists who want to see their initiative succeed. And little dumb bunnies like you are helping carry their water.

OK, so now you want to play like the some of the dumb ass production people I deal with. The groups I posted are independent Scientific Societies from two different nations. I could have posted many, many more scientific societies virtually from every industrial nation in the world that say the same.

Apparently you are just too ******* willfully ignorant to even look at the evidence.

 

[Boss]

The sites Old Rocks mentions most often here are the national science academies of the world's industrialized nations; every single one of which accepts AGW as valid. They are quite distinctly independent observers and eminently qualified to make such calls.

Bringing up socialists in this debate is a screaming admission that you haven't got jack shit in the way of an argument.

I've seen the links he posts and I will say again, if it is full of material which claims man is causing catastrophic climate change to happen, it is not practicing science. It is promoting a conclusion. Whether that conclusion is supported or not supported by actual science is irrelevant because they are supporting an opinion and conclusion. That's not what science ever does.

Science is not proven true by popular consensus. If 64% of scientists believed the moon was made of blue cheese, it wouldn't scientifically mean the moon is made of blue cheese. The fact that some people know how to manipulate and cherry-pick data to promote a narrative isn't impressive to Science. It continues to ask questions and study test results.

As a part of our greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide contributed by man and nature, does have an 'amplification' effect on earth retaining heat from the sun. This is the nucleus of the science behind global warming. What the science doesn't show is whether man's portion of the contribution of CO2 significantly contributes to the already existing natural amplification. Even without man-made CO2, 1+1 still equals 2.... so carbon dioxide from nature will continue to amplify warming. Indeed, before mankind existed, there was still plenty of natural carbon dioxide, it is one of the most prevalent compounds in the universe. Even during the most extreme ice age, there was some CO2 in the atmosphere causing amplification of the warming process.... and also, insulation of the cooling process.

 

[Old Rocks]

We know how much CO2 we have added to the atmosphere and oceans from the records of the coal mined and the oil and natural gas pumped. From the records of the areas cleared of forests. And we have recorded and increase in the atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm. An increase of CH4 from 700-800 ppb to over 1800 ppb.

We know, from the absorption spectra of the GHGs that they do absorb the long wave IR radiating from the surface, and that increases the heat on the surface and in the atmosphere.

And we have a measured increase in atmospheric and ocean temperatures that follows the increase in the increase in the GHGs.

All that is from measurements and observation, not opinion.

And, as a result, we have seen the steady recession of almost all of the glaciers worldwide, and the shedding of billions of tons of ice from the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. We have seen the decrease in ice coverage in the Arctic Ocean, and the resulting increase in the ocean temperatures there, as well as the land temperatures that surround that ocean basin. Again, observation and measurements, not opinion.

In fact, it is people like yourself, Boss, that offer us unfounded opinion.

 

[Boss]

We know how much CO2 we have added to the atmosphere and oceans from the records of the coal mined and the oil and natural gas pumped. From the records of the areas cleared of forests. And we have recorded and increase in the atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm. An increase of CH4 from 700-800 ppb to over 1800 ppb.

We know, from the absorption spectra of the GHGs that they do absorb the long wave IR radiating from the surface, and that increases the heat on the surface and in the atmosphere.

And we have a measured increase in atmospheric and ocean temperatures that follows the increase in the increase in the GHGs.

All that is from measurements and observation, not opinion.

And, as a result, we have seen the steady recession of almost all of the glaciers worldwide, and the shedding of billions of tons of ice from the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. We have seen the decrease in ice coverage in the Arctic Ocean, and the resulting increase in the ocean temperatures there, as well as the land temperatures that surround that ocean basin. Again, observation and measurements, not opinion.

In fact, it is people like yourself, Boss, that offer us unfounded opinion.

See this is the problem, you keep claiming we know things that we don't know. We know what the ppm is for CO2, we don't know how much of it is because of man. We can roughly estimate how much human industrialization produces but we don't know how much nature processes or even how much nature produces.

You go to great detail explaining what I already stated in my previous post. CO2 does create an amplification and insulation effect. But this process happens regardless of whether humans exist or not. It has always happened and it will happen regardless of anything we do. There is no formula for the number of carbon atoms humans produce to the degree of amplification/insulation from CO2 in the atmosphere. Too many variables are unknown.

From a purely theoretical standpoint, we can't assume that the more carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere, the more amplification of temperature because at some point, the physics breaks down and violates the laws of thermodynamics. We have to remember that CO2 will behave chemically as always without regard to whether we have eliminated human emission, so there will still be amplification of CO2 happening as it has for over 4 billion years. And it's still going to effect heating and/or cooling of the planet.

Oceans produce more carbon dioxide than humans. Plants use more carbon dioxide than humans could ever produce. We have a huge complex ecosystem. Yes, the planet gets warmer and cooler all the time. Showing me data to illustrate the earth is warming is not proof of anything alarming to me. You just can't show me how man's contribution of CO2 is causing some catastrophic climate change now or in the future. To proceed to argue your point by claiming "proven science" is an insult to the institution of Science itself. You have no proven Science because Science cannot prove. You have a conclusion. A conclusion is a faith... a belief of something without proof. And that's what Warmers have.

 

[Crick]

We know how much CO2 we have added to the atmosphere and oceans from the records of the coal mined and the oil and natural gas pumped. From the records of the areas cleared of forests. And we have recorded and increase in the atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm. An increase of CH4 from 700-800 ppb to over 1800 ppb.

We know, from the absorption spectra of the GHGs that they do absorb the long wave IR radiating from the surface, and that increases the heat on the surface and in the atmosphere.

And we have a measured increase in atmospheric and ocean temperatures that follows the increase in the increase in the GHGs.

All that is from measurements and observation, not opinion.

And, as a result, we have seen the steady recession of almost all of the glaciers worldwide, and the shedding of billions of tons of ice from the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. We have seen the decrease in ice coverage in the Arctic Ocean, and the resulting increase in the ocean temperatures there, as well as the land temperatures that surround that ocean basin. Again, observation and measurements, not opinion.

In fact, it is people like yourself, Boss, that offer us unfounded opinion.

See this is the problem, you keep claiming we know things that we don't know. We know what the ppm is for CO2, we don't know how much of it is because of man.

Wrong. There is a difference in the ratio of carbon isotopes in CO2 produced by contemporary plant transpiration and that produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. Isotopic analysis shows that virtually the entire increase above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is the product of fossil fuel combustion - ie anthropogenic.

We can roughly estimate how much human industrialization produces but we don't know how much nature processes or even how much nature produces.

We can fairly accurately estimate the amount of fossil fuel burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and calculate the amount of CO2 that would put into the atmosphere. Guess what? The amount agrees very closely with the results of the isotopic analysis. Mankind is responsible for damn near every molecule above 280 ppm.

You go to great detail explaining what I already stated in my previous post. CO2 does create an amplification and insulation effect. But this process happens regardless of whether humans exist or not.

CO2, being a greenhouse gas - in particular one that absorbs and emits bands of IR not picked up by other greenhouse gases (GHGs) - feeds the greenhouse effect. GHGs slow the escape of infrared radiation from the Earth's atmosphere and thus raise the planet's equilibrium temperature.

It has always happened

Of course. That's why the Earth is not the snowball it would othewise be.

and it will happen regardless of anything we do.

Wrong. The effect has been increased by the CO2 we have added to the planet through the combustion of fossil fuels and by deforestation.

There is no formula for the number of carbon atoms humans produce to the degree of amplification/insulation from CO2 in the atmosphere. Too many variables are unknown.

I'm afraid there is. It is called "Climate Sensitivity". Look it up. It's value is estimated to be somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 centigrade degrees per doubling of CO2 levels.

From a purely theoretical standpoint, we can't assume that the more carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere, the more amplification of temperature

We can most certainly assume that. That is precisely what mountains of evidence and decades of fundamental science tell us is happening.

because at some point, the physics breaks down and violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Bullshit. Please explain what you know of thermodynamics that would be violated by AGW.

We have to remember that CO2 will behave chemically as always without regard to whether we have eliminated human emission, so there will still be amplification of CO2 happening as it has for over 4 billion years. And it's still going to effect heating and/or cooling of the planet.

Greenhouse warming is not a chemical effect. Greenhouse warming is dependent on the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. Increasing them increases the warming. Period.

Oceans produce more carbon dioxide than humans. Plants use more carbon dioxide than humans could ever produce. We have a huge complex ecosystem. Yes, the planet gets warmer and cooler all the time. Showing me data to illustrate the earth is warming is not proof of anything alarming to me. You just can't show me how man's contribution of CO2 is causing some catastrophic climate change now or in the future. To proceed to argue your point by claiming "proven science" is an insult to the institution of Science itself. You have no proven Science because Science cannot prove. You have a conclusion. A conclusion is a faith... a belief of something without proof. And that's what Warmers have.

I'm glad to see someone on your side of this argument is aware there are no proofs in the natural sciences. But you still fucked up. The conclusions of a scientific experiment or a study are the logical results supported by the evidence of the study, by the results of the experiments, by hypotheses that survive falsification. Faith is a belief without evidence. Science does not operate on faith and YOU insult the institution of science with such a contention.

Mountains of empirical, experimental and computational evidence indicates that the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is primarily due to human GHG emissions. AGW is accepted by very close to 100% of all climate scientists and a very high majority of all scientists. It is widely accepted science. And you need to improve your knowledge and understanding of the processes under discussion here, both in the world and in the world of science, before getting into this again. Your statements are based almost completely on ignorance and misunderstanding. Sorry ah-boot dat Boss.

 

[martybegan]

SSDD, I have taken Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Geology in college. I do not depend on people like Decaprio or Gore for my information. But I do applaud their efforts to put the findings of the scientists in layman's terms.

However, I do understand that people like you are too willfully ignorant to even attempt to understand what these people are showing you. Those that are willfully ignorant are beneath contempt.

I noticed you didn't say you had a degree in any of them. The "intro to science X" courses that Lib Arts people take do not an expert make.

No, stupid ass, I have only taken one 100 science course in my life. All were the standard three quarter 200 courses. And the reason that I do not have a degree as of yet, is that for the last four years I have been taking courses as my work schedule allowed.

And the major is Geology, not exactly a Lib Arts major. Then again, what was your major? Have you ever taken any science courses?

I have a Master's degree in Chemical Engineering, rock boy.

OK, then you disagree with the American Chemical Societies assessment of global warming? And what is your explanation of the present warming that we are experiancing?

People probably have something to do with it, but it is not enough of an issue to basically give governments carte blanche to tell us how to live our lives down to the smallest detail.

Climate has changed before, and we have adapted to it. It's not the science i have an issue with, its Watermelon twats like you.

And ACS is chemists, not ChemE's.

 

[martybegan]

The sites Old Rocks mentions most often here are the national science academies of the world's industrialized nations; every single one of which accepts AGW as valid. They are quite distinctly independent observers and eminently qualified to make such calls.

Bringing up socialists in this debate is a screaming admission that you haven't got jack shit in the way of an argument.

No, bringing up socialists is the crux of the argument for some of us. The solutions proposed by AGW fanatics is basically more government, more specifically, "more government for thee and not for me".

It's the watermelon issue that is the problem.

 

[Boss]

We know how much CO2 we have added to the atmosphere and oceans from the records of the coal mined and the oil and natural gas pumped. From the records of the areas cleared of forests. And we have recorded and increase in the atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm. An increase of CH4 from 700-800 ppb to over 1800 ppb.

We know, from the absorption spectra of the GHGs that they do absorb the long wave IR radiating from the surface, and that increases the heat on the surface and in the atmosphere.

And we have a measured increase in atmospheric and ocean temperatures that follows the increase in the increase in the GHGs.

All that is from measurements and observation, not opinion.

And, as a result, we have seen the steady recession of almost all of the glaciers worldwide, and the shedding of billions of tons of ice from the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. We have seen the decrease in ice coverage in the Arctic Ocean, and the resulting increase in the ocean temperatures there, as well as the land temperatures that surround that ocean basin. Again, observation and measurements, not opinion.

In fact, it is people like yourself, Boss, that offer us unfounded opinion.

See this is the problem, you keep claiming we know things that we don't know. We know what the ppm is for CO2, we don't know how much of it is because of man.

Wrong. There is a difference in the ratio of carbon isotopes in CO2 produced by contemporary plant transpiration and that produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. Isotopic analysis shows that virtually the entire increase above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is the product of fossil fuel combustion - ie anthropogenic.

We can roughly estimate how much human industrialization produces but we don't know how much nature processes or even how much nature produces.

We can fairly accurately estimate the amount of fossil fuel burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and calculate the amount of CO2 that would put into the atmosphere. Guess what? The amount agrees very closely with the results of the isotopic analysis. Mankind is responsible for damn near every molecule above 280 ppm.

You go to great detail explaining what I already stated in my previous post. CO2 does create an amplification and insulation effect. But this process happens regardless of whether humans exist or not.

CO2, being a greenhouse gas - in particular one that absorbs and emits bands of IR not picked up by other greenhouse gases (GHGs) - feeds the greenhouse effect. GHGs slow the escape of infrared radiation from the Earth's atmosphere and thus raise the planet's equilibrium temperature.

It has always happened

Of course. That's why the Earth is not the snowball it would othewise be.

and it will happen regardless of anything we do.

Wrong. The effect has been increased by the CO2 we have added to the planet through the combustion of fossil fuels and by deforestation.

There is no formula for the number of carbon atoms humans produce to the degree of amplification/insulation from CO2 in the atmosphere. Too many variables are unknown.

I'm afraid there is. It is called "Climate Sensitivity". Look it up. It's value is estimated to be somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 centigrade degrees per doubling of CO2 levels.

From a purely theoretical standpoint, we can't assume that the more carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere, the more amplification of temperature

We can most certainly assume that. That is precisely what mountains of evidence and decades of fundamental science tell us is happening.

because at some point, the physics breaks down and violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Bullshit. Please explain what you know of thermodynamics that would be violated by AGW.

We have to remember that CO2 will behave chemically as always without regard to whether we have eliminated human emission, so there will still be amplification of CO2 happening as it has for over 4 billion years. And it's still going to effect heating and/or cooling of the planet.

Greenhouse warming is not a chemical effect. Greenhouse warming is dependent on the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. Increasing them increases the warming. Period.

Oceans produce more carbon dioxide than humans. Plants use more carbon dioxide than humans could ever produce. We have a huge complex ecosystem. Yes, the planet gets warmer and cooler all the time. Showing me data to illustrate the earth is warming is not proof of anything alarming to me. You just can't show me how man's contribution of CO2 is causing some catastrophic climate change now or in the future. To proceed to argue your point by claiming "proven science" is an insult to the institution of Science itself. You have no proven Science because Science cannot prove. You have a conclusion. A conclusion is a faith... a belief of something without proof. And that's what Warmers have.

I'm glad to see someone on your side of this argument is aware there are no proofs in the natural sciences. But you still fucked up. The conclusions of a scientific experiment or a study are the logical results supported by the evidence of the study, by the results of the experiments, by hypotheses that survive falsification. Faith is a belief without evidence. Science does not operate on faith and YOU insult the institution of science with such a contention.

Mountains of empirical, experimental and computational evidence indicates that the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is primarily due to human GHG emissions. AGW is accepted by very close to 100% of all climate scientists and a very high majority of all scientists. It is widely accepted science. And you need to improve your knowledge and understanding of the processes under discussion here, both in the world and in the world of science, before getting into this again. Your statements are based almost completely on ignorance and misunderstanding. Sorry ah-boot dat Boss.

All you really did was go through my post disagreeing and saying I'm wrong. I don't see links to actual scientific studies proving me wrong, just your opinions. Am I supposed to be accepting opinions as scientific facts now? If so, I will stick with my opinions and not yours.

We can fairly accurately estimate the amount of fossil fuel burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and calculate the amount of CO2 that would put into the atmosphere. Guess what? The amount agrees very closely with the results of the isotopic analysis. Mankind is responsible for damn near every molecule above 280 ppm.

Guess what? I find your opinion flawed because we know the oceans absorb about 70-75% of all CO2 floating around in our atmosphere. Now the oceans aren't members of Warmers Society of America. They don't interview CO2 molecules to determine if they come from fossil fuel or nature, they treat them all the same. Plants also absorb CO2 and we have to assume they don't turn their noses up at human-produced CO2. So for your opinion to be true, we have to pretend that nature is conspiring with the "climate deniers."

CO2, being a greenhouse gas - in particular one that absorbs and emits bands of IR not picked up by other greenhouse gases (GHGs) - feeds the greenhouse effect. GHGs slow the escape of infrared radiation from the Earth's atmosphere and thus raise the planet's equilibrium temperature.

Again, I am clear on the chemical behavior of CO2 with regard to the atmosphere. You do realize, even if we eliminated ALL that humans are responsible for, the remaining CO2 would still behave the same way. It will not be impressed by our efforts and start behaving differently. If we ever stopped having a greenhouse effect, every living thing on the planet would die.

Bullshit. Please explain what you know of thermodynamics that would be violated by AGW.

Well, the idea that just because there is more CO2 it automatically means more warming. At some point we reach an equilibrium and more CO2 cannot cause more warming. What you are trying to claim is like claiming your car has an unlimited speed limit and can travel faster than the speed of light... because, when you press the gas pedal, there is a certain rate of acceleration. But what we see in actual scientific practice is, the rate of acceleration declines the faster you go. Eventually, your car reaches a maximum speed and doesn't continue to accelerate. The same principle is in play with CO2 and it's effects on warming, eventually more CO2 doesn't change the dynamic.

Greenhouse warming is not a chemical effect. Greenhouse warming is dependent on the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. Increasing them increases the warming. Period.

Again, you are assuming something that isn't true according to laws of thermodynamics. Increasing GHGs may cause increased warming to a degree but it's impossible for it to be unlimited. At some point, acceleration declines as temps reach equilibrium. If you put your Yeti cooler inside of another Yeti cooler, it won't make your beer colder. You have to comprehend thermodynamics.

I'm glad to see someone on your side of this argument is aware there are no proofs in the natural sciences. But you still fucked up. The conclusions of a scientific experiment or a study are the logical results supported by the evidence of the study, by the results of the experiments, by hypotheses that survive falsification. Faith is a belief without evidence. Science does not operate on faith and YOU insult the institution of science with such a contention.

Faith is belief without proof, not evidence. No one has much faith in anything that doesn't have any evidence.

Conclusion ends scientific contemplation.

Science can't do a thing with a conclusion.

Once you have determined a conclusion, you are practicing a faith in your conclusion. It may or may not be supported with evidence of scientific observation. Seeing is not believing always in Science. (look up "observer effect" and "double-slit experiment")

Mountains of empirical, experimental and computational evidence indicates that the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is primarily due to human GHG emissions.

And I say this is your opinion and you're full of shit. There is no evidence human emissions are responsible for a 1.5 degree change in temperature over the last 150 years. Look,,, carbon and oxygen are covalent and bond easily. It is going to happen in nature regardless of human activity. And CO2 along with all the other GHGs will continue to function as it has for 4 billion years. Rising ppm for CO2 is something we can't control in nature and the financial ramifications of trying to control it from human activity is pure insanity.

 

[Crick]

We know how much CO2 we have added to the atmosphere and oceans from the records of the coal mined and the oil and natural gas pumped. From the records of the areas cleared of forests. And we have recorded and increase in the atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm. An increase of CH4 from 700-800 ppb to over 1800 ppb.

We know, from the absorption spectra of the GHGs that they do absorb the long wave IR radiating from the surface, and that increases the heat on the surface and in the atmosphere.

And we have a measured increase in atmospheric and ocean temperatures that follows the increase in the increase in the GHGs.

All that is from measurements and observation, not opinion.

And, as a result, we have seen the steady recession of almost all of the glaciers worldwide, and the shedding of billions of tons of ice from the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. We have seen the decrease in ice coverage in the Arctic Ocean, and the resulting increase in the ocean temperatures there, as well as the land temperatures that surround that ocean basin. Again, observation and measurements, not opinion.

In fact, it is people like yourself, Boss, that offer us unfounded opinion.

See this is the problem, you keep claiming we know things that we don't know. We know what the ppm is for CO2, we don't know how much of it is because of man.

Wrong. There is a difference in the ratio of carbon isotopes in CO2 produced by contemporary plant transpiration and that produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. Isotopic analysis shows that virtually the entire increase above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is the product of fossil fuel combustion - ie anthropogenic.

We can roughly estimate how much human industrialization produces but we don't know how much nature processes or even how much nature produces.

We can fairly accurately estimate the amount of fossil fuel burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and calculate the amount of CO2 that would put into the atmosphere. Guess what? The amount agrees very closely with the results of the isotopic analysis. Mankind is responsible for damn near every molecule above 280 ppm.

You go to great detail explaining what I already stated in my previous post. CO2 does create an amplification and insulation effect. But this process happens regardless of whether humans exist or not.

CO2, being a greenhouse gas - in particular one that absorbs and emits bands of IR not picked up by other greenhouse gases (GHGs) - feeds the greenhouse effect. GHGs slow the escape of infrared radiation from the Earth's atmosphere and thus raise the planet's equilibrium temperature.

It has always happened

Of course. That's why the Earth is not the snowball it would othewise be.

and it will happen regardless of anything we do.

Wrong. The effect has been increased by the CO2 we have added to the planet through the combustion of fossil fuels and by deforestation.

There is no formula for the number of carbon atoms humans produce to the degree of amplification/insulation from CO2 in the atmosphere. Too many variables are unknown.

I'm afraid there is. It is called "Climate Sensitivity". Look it up. It's value is estimated to be somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 centigrade degrees per doubling of CO2 levels.

From a purely theoretical standpoint, we can't assume that the more carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere, the more amplification of temperature

We can most certainly assume that. That is precisely what mountains of evidence and decades of fundamental science tell us is happening.

because at some point, the physics breaks down and violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Bullshit. Please explain what you know of thermodynamics that would be violated by AGW.

We have to remember that CO2 will behave chemically as always without regard to whether we have eliminated human emission, so there will still be amplification of CO2 happening as it has for over 4 billion years. And it's still going to effect heating and/or cooling of the planet.

Greenhouse warming is not a chemical effect. Greenhouse warming is dependent on the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. Increasing them increases the warming. Period.

Oceans produce more carbon dioxide than humans. Plants use more carbon dioxide than humans could ever produce. We have a huge complex ecosystem. Yes, the planet gets warmer and cooler all the time. Showing me data to illustrate the earth is warming is not proof of anything alarming to me. You just can't show me how man's contribution of CO2 is causing some catastrophic climate change now or in the future. To proceed to argue your point by claiming "proven science" is an insult to the institution of Science itself. You have no proven Science because Science cannot prove. You have a conclusion. A conclusion is a faith... a belief of something without proof. And that's what Warmers have.

I'm glad to see someone on your side of this argument is aware there are no proofs in the natural sciences. But you still fucked up. The conclusions of a scientific experiment or a study are the logical results supported by the evidence of the study, by the results of the experiments, by hypotheses that survive falsification. Faith is a belief without evidence. Science does not operate on faith and YOU insult the institution of science with such a contention.

Mountains of empirical, experimental and computational evidence indicates that the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is primarily due to human GHG emissions. AGW is accepted by very close to 100% of all climate scientists and a very high majority of all scientists. It is widely accepted science. And you need to improve your knowledge and understanding of the processes under discussion here, both in the world and in the world of science, before getting into this again. Your statements are based almost completely on ignorance and misunderstanding. Sorry ah-boot dat Boss.

All you really did was go through my post disagreeing and saying I'm wrong. I don't see links to actual scientific studies proving me wrong, just your opinions. Am I supposed to be accepting opinions as scientific facts now? If so, I will stick with my opinions and not yours.

We can fairly accurately estimate the amount of fossil fuel burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and calculate the amount of CO2 that would put into the atmosphere. Guess what? The amount agrees very closely with the results of the isotopic analysis. Mankind is responsible for damn near every molecule above 280 ppm.

Guess what? I find your opinion flawed because we know the oceans absorb about 70-75% of all CO2 floating around in our atmosphere. Now the oceans aren't members of Warmers Society of America. They don't interview CO2 molecules to determine if they come from fossil fuel or nature, they treat them all the same. Plants also absorb CO2 and we have to assume they don't turn their noses up at human-produced CO2. So for your opinion to be true, we have to pretend that nature is conspiring with the "climate deniers."

CO2, being a greenhouse gas - in particular one that absorbs and emits bands of IR not picked up by other greenhouse gases (GHGs) - feeds the greenhouse effect. GHGs slow the escape of infrared radiation from the Earth's atmosphere and thus raise the planet's equilibrium temperature.

Again, I am clear on the chemical behavior of CO2 with regard to the atmosphere. You do realize, even if we eliminated ALL that humans are responsible for, the remaining CO2 would still behave the same way. It will not be impressed by our efforts and start behaving differently. If we ever stopped having a greenhouse effect, every living thing on the planet would die.

Bullshit. Please explain what you know of thermodynamics that would be violated by AGW.

Well, the idea that just because there is more CO2 it automatically means more warming. At some point we reach an equilibrium and more CO2 cannot cause more warming. What you are trying to claim is like claiming your car has an unlimited speed limit and can travel faster than the speed of light... because, when you press the gas pedal, there is a certain rate of acceleration. But what we see in actual scientific practice is, the rate of acceleration declines the faster you go. Eventually, your car reaches a maximum speed and doesn't continue to accelerate. The same principle is in play with CO2 and it's effects on warming, eventually more CO2 doesn't change the dynamic.

Greenhouse warming is not a chemical effect. Greenhouse warming is dependent on the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. Increasing them increases the warming. Period.

Again, you are assuming something that isn't true according to laws of thermodynamics. Increasing GHGs may cause increased warming to a degree but it's impossible for it to be unlimited. At some point, acceleration declines as temps reach equilibrium. If you put your Yeti cooler inside of another Yeti cooler, it won't make your beer colder. You have to comprehend thermodynamics.

I'm glad to see someone on your side of this argument is aware there are no proofs in the natural sciences. But you still fucked up. The conclusions of a scientific experiment or a study are the logical results supported by the evidence of the study, by the results of the experiments, by hypotheses that survive falsification. Faith is a belief without evidence. Science does not operate on faith and YOU insult the institution of science with such a contention.

Faith is belief without proof, not evidence. No one has much faith in anything that doesn't have any evidence.

Conclusion ends scientific contemplation.

Science can't do a thing with a conclusion.

Once you have determined a conclusion, you are practicing a faith in your conclusion. It may or may not be supported with evidence of scientific observation. Seeing is not believing always in Science. (look up "observer effect" and "double-slit experiment")

Mountains of empirical, experimental and computational evidence indicates that the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is primarily due to human GHG emissions.

And I say this is your opinion and you're full of shit. There is no evidence human emissions are responsible for a 1.5 degree change in temperature over the last 150 years. Look,,, carbon and oxygen are covalent and bond easily. It is going to happen in nature regardless of human activity. And CO2 along with all the other GHGs will continue to function as it has for 4 billion years. Rising ppm for CO2 is something we can't control in nature and the financial ramifications of trying to control it from human activity is pure insanity.

Go to www.ipcc.ch. Find WG-I, The Physical Science Basis. Educate yourself.

 

[Boss]

We know how much CO2 we have added to the atmosphere and oceans from the records of the coal mined and the oil and natural gas pumped. From the records of the areas cleared of forests. And we have recorded and increase in the atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 400+ ppm. An increase of CH4 from 700-800 ppb to over 1800 ppb.

We know, from the absorption spectra of the GHGs that they do absorb the long wave IR radiating from the surface, and that increases the heat on the surface and in the atmosphere.

And we have a measured increase in atmospheric and ocean temperatures that follows the increase in the increase in the GHGs.

All that is from measurements and observation, not opinion.

And, as a result, we have seen the steady recession of almost all of the glaciers worldwide, and the shedding of billions of tons of ice from the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. We have seen the decrease in ice coverage in the Arctic Ocean, and the resulting increase in the ocean temperatures there, as well as the land temperatures that surround that ocean basin. Again, observation and measurements, not opinion.

In fact, it is people like yourself, Boss, that offer us unfounded opinion.

See this is the problem, you keep claiming we know things that we don't know. We know what the ppm is for CO2, we don't know how much of it is because of man.

Wrong. There is a difference in the ratio of carbon isotopes in CO2 produced by contemporary plant transpiration and that produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. Isotopic analysis shows that virtually the entire increase above the 280 ppm present at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is the product of fossil fuel combustion - ie anthropogenic.

We can roughly estimate how much human industrialization produces but we don't know how much nature processes or even how much nature produces.

We can fairly accurately estimate the amount of fossil fuel burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and calculate the amount of CO2 that would put into the atmosphere. Guess what? The amount agrees very closely with the results of the isotopic analysis. Mankind is responsible for damn near every molecule above 280 ppm.

You go to great detail explaining what I already stated in my previous post. CO2 does create an amplification and insulation effect. But this process happens regardless of whether humans exist or not.

CO2, being a greenhouse gas - in particular one that absorbs and emits bands of IR not picked up by other greenhouse gases (GHGs) - feeds the greenhouse effect. GHGs slow the escape of infrared radiation from the Earth's atmosphere and thus raise the planet's equilibrium temperature.

It has always happened

Of course. That's why the Earth is not the snowball it would othewise be.

and it will happen regardless of anything we do.

Wrong. The effect has been increased by the CO2 we have added to the planet through the combustion of fossil fuels and by deforestation.

There is no formula for the number of carbon atoms humans produce to the degree of amplification/insulation from CO2 in the atmosphere. Too many variables are unknown.

I'm afraid there is. It is called "Climate Sensitivity". Look it up. It's value is estimated to be somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 centigrade degrees per doubling of CO2 levels.

From a purely theoretical standpoint, we can't assume that the more carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere, the more amplification of temperature

We can most certainly assume that. That is precisely what mountains of evidence and decades of fundamental science tell us is happening.

because at some point, the physics breaks down and violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Bullshit. Please explain what you know of thermodynamics that would be violated by AGW.

We have to remember that CO2 will behave chemically as always without regard to whether we have eliminated human emission, so there will still be amplification of CO2 happening as it has for over 4 billion years. And it's still going to effect heating and/or cooling of the planet.

Greenhouse warming is not a chemical effect. Greenhouse warming is dependent on the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. Increasing them increases the warming. Period.

Oceans produce more carbon dioxide than humans. Plants use more carbon dioxide than humans could ever produce. We have a huge complex ecosystem. Yes, the planet gets warmer and cooler all the time. Showing me data to illustrate the earth is warming is not proof of anything alarming to me. You just can't show me how man's contribution of CO2 is causing some catastrophic climate change now or in the future. To proceed to argue your point by claiming "proven science" is an insult to the institution of Science itself. You have no proven Science because Science cannot prove. You have a conclusion. A conclusion is a faith... a belief of something without proof. And that's what Warmers have.

I'm glad to see someone on your side of this argument is aware there are no proofs in the natural sciences. But you still fucked up. The conclusions of a scientific experiment or a study are the logical results supported by the evidence of the study, by the results of the experiments, by hypotheses that survive falsification. Faith is a belief without evidence. Science does not operate on faith and YOU insult the institution of science with such a contention.

Mountains of empirical, experimental and computational evidence indicates that the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is primarily due to human GHG emissions. AGW is accepted by very close to 100% of all climate scientists and a very high majority of all scientists. It is widely accepted science. And you need to improve your knowledge and understanding of the processes under discussion here, both in the world and in the world of science, before getting into this again. Your statements are based almost completely on ignorance and misunderstanding. Sorry ah-boot dat Boss.

All you really did was go through my post disagreeing and saying I'm wrong. I don't see links to actual scientific studies proving me wrong, just your opinions. Am I supposed to be accepting opinions as scientific facts now? If so, I will stick with my opinions and not yours.

We can fairly accurately estimate the amount of fossil fuel burned since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and calculate the amount of CO2 that would put into the atmosphere. Guess what? The amount agrees very closely with the results of the isotopic analysis. Mankind is responsible for damn near every molecule above 280 ppm.

Guess what? I find your opinion flawed because we know the oceans absorb about 70-75% of all CO2 floating around in our atmosphere. Now the oceans aren't members of Warmers Society of America. They don't interview CO2 molecules to determine if they come from fossil fuel or nature, they treat them all the same. Plants also absorb CO2 and we have to assume they don't turn their noses up at human-produced CO2. So for your opinion to be true, we have to pretend that nature is conspiring with the "climate deniers."

CO2, being a greenhouse gas - in particular one that absorbs and emits bands of IR not picked up by other greenhouse gases (GHGs) - feeds the greenhouse effect. GHGs slow the escape of infrared radiation from the Earth's atmosphere and thus raise the planet's equilibrium temperature.

Again, I am clear on the chemical behavior of CO2 with regard to the atmosphere. You do realize, even if we eliminated ALL that humans are responsible for, the remaining CO2 would still behave the same way. It will not be impressed by our efforts and start behaving differently. If we ever stopped having a greenhouse effect, every living thing on the planet would die.

Bullshit. Please explain what you know of thermodynamics that would be violated by AGW.

Well, the idea that just because there is more CO2 it automatically means more warming. At some point we reach an equilibrium and more CO2 cannot cause more warming. What you are trying to claim is like claiming your car has an unlimited speed limit and can travel faster than the speed of light... because, when you press the gas pedal, there is a certain rate of acceleration. But what we see in actual scientific practice is, the rate of acceleration declines the faster you go. Eventually, your car reaches a maximum speed and doesn't continue to accelerate. The same principle is in play with CO2 and it's effects on warming, eventually more CO2 doesn't change the dynamic.

Greenhouse warming is not a chemical effect. Greenhouse warming is dependent on the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere. Increasing them increases the warming. Period.

Again, you are assuming something that isn't true according to laws of thermodynamics. Increasing GHGs may cause increased warming to a degree but it's impossible for it to be unlimited. At some point, acceleration declines as temps reach equilibrium. If you put your Yeti cooler inside of another Yeti cooler, it won't make your beer colder. You have to comprehend thermodynamics.

I'm glad to see someone on your side of this argument is aware there are no proofs in the natural sciences. But you still fucked up. The conclusions of a scientific experiment or a study are the logical results supported by the evidence of the study, by the results of the experiments, by hypotheses that survive falsification. Faith is a belief without evidence. Science does not operate on faith and YOU insult the institution of science with such a contention.

Faith is belief without proof, not evidence. No one has much faith in anything that doesn't have any evidence.

Conclusion ends scientific contemplation.

Science can't do a thing with a conclusion.

Once you have determined a conclusion, you are practicing a faith in your conclusion. It may or may not be supported with evidence of scientific observation. Seeing is not believing always in Science. (look up "observer effect" and "double-slit experiment")

Mountains of empirical, experimental and computational evidence indicates that the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years is primarily due to human GHG emissions.

And I say this is your opinion and you're full of shit. There is no evidence human emissions are responsible for a 1.5 degree change in temperature over the last 150 years. Look,,, carbon and oxygen are covalent and bond easily. It is going to happen in nature regardless of human activity. And CO2 along with all the other GHGs will continue to function as it has for 4 billion years. Rising ppm for CO2 is something we can't control in nature and the financial ramifications of trying to control it from human activity is pure insanity.

Go to www.ipcc.ch. Find WG-I, The Physical Science Basis. Educate yourself.

MY education is not the problem here. You posting yet another link from the AGW advocacy group is not producing scientific results. It's protesting for your faith-based belief like a radical religious zealot.

 

[Crick]

If you think the contents of WG-I's The Physical Science Basis is "faith-based", then your education is most certainly the problem.

 

[Boss]

If you think the contents of WG-I's The Physical Science Basis is "faith-based", then your education is most certainly the problem.

When you break down any of the actual science it comes down to faith of whether you believe science shows man is responsible for something happening in nature.I don't believe science shows that and you do. We can talk about it like rational people or we can continue to be closed-minded and cling to our portals of propaganda to support our view while rejecting all others.

Science seeks to answer questions and explore possibilities. That is what I am interested in... You?

 

[Crick]

My opinion is pretty irrelevant. The opinions of 97+% of the world's climate scientists aren't. Your statements so far, every single one of them, clearly indicate you have no familiarity with science at all. Why exactly are you participating in this debate?

 

[Boss]

My opinion is pretty irrelevant. The opinions of 97+% of the world's climate scientists aren't. Your statements so far, every single one of them, clearly indicate you have no familiarity with science at all. Why exactly are you participating in this debate?

But the 97% claim isn't true and it has been proven untrue. However, even if it were true, ad populum arguments are not science. Basically, your argument boils down to: You believe something is true because you think a lot of people said it's true. I think YOU need to familiarize yourself with science.

The 97 Percent Solution

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

 

[Crick]

My opinion is pretty irrelevant. The opinions of 97+% of the world's climate scientists aren't. Your statements so far, every single one of them, clearly indicate you have no familiarity with science at all. Why exactly are you participating in this debate?

But the 97% claim isn't true and it has been proven untrue. However, even if it were true, ad populum arguments are not science. Basically, your argument boils down to: You believe something is true because you think a lot of people said it's true. I think YOU need to familiarize yourself with science.

The 97 Percent Solution

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Your links don't work. However, it should be easy enough to find the articles by their title. If I pull up a different article by the same name, let me know.

The 97 Percent Solution [The 97 Percent Solution] - this had several hits, but the most likely seemed to be an article by National Review's Ian Tuttle, including a video showing Ted Cruz asking questions of
Aaron Mair, the president of the Sierra Club. Ted Cruz is most certainly not a scientist. Aaron Mair is an epidemiologist and has been working with the environmental movement for many years. He is not a research scientist either, but his science knowledge is certainly orders of magnitude better than Cruz's

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' [The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'] A Wall Street Journal article by octogenarian denier scientist Roy Spencer and president of the Heartland Institute (paid shill of the fossil fuel industry), Joe Bast.

'97% of Climate Scientists Agree' is 100% Wrong ['97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong] is an article by paid fossil fuel advocate Alex Epstein published in Forbes magazine

Are these what you use for science information? All are wrong. Please read:
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia
and
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

A number of surveys have been done with results that have clearly indicated a growing acceptance of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) by scientists in the field. These surveys have spoken to varying numbers of varying subgroups of climate scientists or have examined their published works, but the results have been exceptionally consistent. The results also show that the more a particular scientists knows about the topic of greenhouse warming, the more likely it is that they accept AGW as valid.

PS: Anyone quoting Legates work as a refutation of the consensus on AGW (as did two of your articles) has simply marked themselves as a gullible fool.

Quoting from the National Review, The Wall Street Journal and Forbes is to simply rely on Fox News for your science information. That's worse than worthless.

AGW is widely accepted science. There is simply no debate on that point.

 

[Crick]

No, bringing up socialists is the crux of the argument for some of us.

Like I said, an admission that you haven't got jack shit in the way of an argument.

 

[Crick]

MY education is not the problem here. You posting yet another link from the AGW advocacy group is not producing scientific results. It's protesting for your faith-based belief like a radical religious zealot.

The IPCC is not an "AGW advocacy group". Please do some reading. Learn what the **** you're talking about.

 

[Boss]

But the 97% claim isn't true and it has been proven untrue. However, even if it were true, ad populum arguments are not science. Basically, your argument boils down to: You believe something is true because you think a lot of people said it's true. I think YOU need to familiarize yourself with science.

The 97 Percent Solution

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Your links don't work. However, it should be easy enough to find the articles by their title. If I pull up a different article by the same name, let me know.

The 97 Percent Solution [The 97 Percent Solution] - this had several hits, but the most likely seemed to be an article by National Review's Ian Tuttle, including a video showing Ted Cruz asking questions of
Aaron Mair, the president of the Sierra Club. Ted Cruz is most certainly not a scientist. Aaron Mair is an epidemiologist and has been working with the environmental movement for many years. He is not a research scientist either, but his science knowledge is certainly orders of magnitude better than Cruz's

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' [The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'] A Wall Street Journal article by octogenarian denier scientist Roy Spencer and president of the Heartland Institute (paid shill of the fossil fuel industry), Joe Bast.

'97% of Climate Scientists Agree' is 100% Wrong ['97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong] is an article by paid fossil fuel advocate Alex Epstein published in Forbes magazine

Are these what you use for science information? All are wrong. Please read:
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia
and
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

Hey MORON... it does not take a SCIENTIST to evaluate the percentages of scientists reported in a study. They weren't commenting on the science... they were debunking the claim of "97% scientists agree!" What they find is... 0.3% of scientists agree.... 99.7% didn't say they agree.

A number of surveys have been done with results that have clearly indicated a growing acceptance of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) by scientists in the field. These surveys have spoken to varying numbers of varying subgroups of climate scientists or have examined their published works, but the results have been exceptionally consistent. The results also show that the more a particular scientists knows about the topic of greenhouse warming, the more likely it is that they accept AGW as valid.

PS: Anyone quoting Legates work as a refutation of the consensus on AGW (as did two of your articles) has simply marked themselves as a gullible fool.

Quoting from the National Review, The Wall Street Journal and Forbes is to simply rely on Fox News for your science information. That's worse than worthless.

AGW is widely accepted science. There is simply no debate on that point.

Again... YOU are trying to make a Scientific argument based on popularity! Science simply does not work that way and most non-morons understand that. How many people believe your hoked-up nonsense means NOTHING to Science. Once was a time, most "Scientists" believed things levitate in the air because they long to be in the heavens and things slow down because they get tired. Scholars and professors at universities all over the world taught this as "scientific truth" for almost 2,000 years before Isaac Newton proved them wrong. For another 500 years, "scientists" and "science" believed time was absolute. Again, this was taught in universities all over the world until Albert Einstein showed that time was relative. Up until just a few years ago, every physics textbook in America was WRONG... they all stated the universe is mostly made of atoms... it's not... it's mostly made of dark matter and dark energy.

Science arguments made on popularity are the antithesis of Science. You're making a FAITH-BASED argument predicated on the fact that a lot of people you believe are reputable, agree with your opinion. Maybe you need to take a refresher course because that's just not how Science works and never has been.

 

[Boss]

The IPCC is not an "AGW advocacy group". Please do some reading. Learn what the **** you're talking about.

Well, yes it is... it's in their ******* name dude! It's the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change!

 

[Crick]

You really don't know anything about this topic, do you.

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

The IPCC reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.

As an intergovernmental body, membership of the IPCC is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are Members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions.

Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is established by WMO and UNEP and located at WMO headquarters in Geneva. The IPCC is administered in accordance to UNEP, WMO and UN rules and procedures, including codes of conduct and ethical principles (as outlined in UN Ethics, WMO Ethics Function, Staff Regulations and 2012/07-Retaliation).

Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.