Why is climate science political?

[code1211]

Check your bias at the door and take a second look.

There is no question at all that the graph shows a dramatic rise from around halfway through the 20th century.

Are you seriously claiming that it does not exist?

The dramatic rise is the instrument record.

The previous 2000 years on the graph are all proxies. The last 50 years is instrument.

As I said, there is no relation between the instrument record and the proxy record except that the measuring is on the same planet.

The nature of the measurements is completely and entirely different.

For your convenience:

File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

 

[Big Fitz]

Westwall -

I'll "wake up" when I see climate scpetics present a convincing case.

I find most conspiracy theories (holocaust denial, 9/11 truthers) can ask some powerful questions, but what they utterly unable to do is to present a sound narrative that explains the physical evidence.

When climate sceptics present a case which explains, for instance, why 97% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat, and retreating at what seems to be an ever-increasing pace, plus explanatiosn for melting arctic ice, increased storm patterns, desertification etc - I'll absolutely look at it.

I strongly doubt we'll ever see such a case presented.

They have. You've blinded yourself.

 

[Big Fitz]

Check your bias at the door and take a second look.

There is no question at all that the graph shows a dramatic rise from around halfway through the 20th century.

Are you seriously claiming that it does not exist?

The FACT remains that mankind is INCAPABLE of doing more than what nature itself does.

How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?

Answer? it can't. It is a faith designed to subjugate man to ecofascism and the caprice of petty small minded men concerned for their own wealth and power.

 

[Trakar]

Check your bias at the door and take a second look.

There is no question at all that the graph shows a dramatic rise from around halfway through the 20th century.

Are you seriously claiming that it does not exist?

The FACT remains that mankind is INCAPABLE of doing more than what nature itself does.

How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?

Answer? it can't. It is a faith designed to subjugate man to ecofascism and the caprice of petty small minded men concerned for their own wealth and power.

Your refusal to comprehend something does not tie nature's hands.

 

[bobgnote]

Check your bias at the door and take a second look.

There is no question at all that the graph shows a dramatic rise from around halfway through the 20th century.

Are you seriously claiming that it does not exist?

The FACT remains that mankind is INCAPABLE of doing more than what nature itself does.

How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?

Answer? it can't. It is a faith designed to subjugate man to ecofascism and the caprice of petty small minded men concerned for their own wealth and power.

Pig Shitz, mankind gets to own up, to the last 200 years, of deforestation and industry, which did a lot of cumulative damage. If you are too stupid to factor any of that, hey, you are too ******* stupid!

You didn't reference or link to your intriguingly queer percentage. So why jump a line and pretend to answer your own non-question? I guess that's how the Shitz family taught you to think, since if you can't dazzle 'em, baffle 'em with hypocritical bullshit, even if you are shitty PIG, named Pig Shitz.

Let's have a look at the graph, below. Notice the red line, at the far right, of the graph. You can wingpunk your way over, to the far right, can't you Piggy Poo? The red line represents CO2 cocentrations, and it jumps up to 375 or so ppm, since that was the global average CO2, at the time the UK people who made this graph entered the data.

Naturally, Fatass loaded this and tried to sell me, on how CO2 is somehow not a forcer, never mind how the graph is calibrated, to show how CO2 levels, at peaks or troughs, after temperature passes it, on every major slope. CO2 goes up, it gets caught, halts, pulls temps down. CO2 goes down, it gets caught, levels, then forces temps back up. SS, DD:

(wattsupwiththat.org used to carry this, but they dumped it, know why? It's scientific!)

Hey. Wiener. Psst! See the thread on acidification, where I wrote the OP? See about ten of my posts, which you were too gay to read, but they all mention carbonic acidification, and how the carbonic acid has an affinity, for cold water? Preach, if you must, DD+D.

Yeah, I saw the thread. You proved beyond any doubt that you fail to understand the science. And again, neither CO2 nor carbonic acid has any affinity for cold water. Neither CO2 nor carbonic acid seeks out cold water or bypasses warm water in favor of cold water which is what the word affinity suggests. Words have meanings and it always helps to know and understand those meanings if you want to avoid looking like a rube.

OMG, Wiener found out about the dead oysters. What's next, Wiener admits the reefs are due to die, by 2050, and the eggs, little fish, plankton, and whatever can go, any time? What's next, Wiener rants about CO2 being all the way, to 400 ppm? Go Wiener, go Wiener, go Wienerbitch! Earth to Wiener . . .

And again I found that you fail to understand the science. The cold water upwelling from the deep ocean has absolutely nothing to do with man and his burning of fossil fuel.

And again, I like the way you show how intimidated you are with your incessant and completely impotent name calling. I note that you can't talk to anyone on the topic without falsely fortifying yourself with a dose of name calling. Mental masturbation is what it is and it only makes you look like the idiot that you clearly are. But do keep it up because it is very entertaining. It is always good to know that one's opponent is intimidated and routine name calling is such a clear psychological tell.

But Wienerbitch, again you are being oppositional, in the face of science, and you assert your own previous oppositionality, and you are like the queers which shot speed and tricked their HIV all the way through full-blown AIDS, to die and kill others, which means you are a selfish shit-piece that gets called "*****."

Ocean acidification - another effect of global warming | Time for change

Marine calcifiers face a second challenge: their calcium carbonate shells dissolve in environments that are too acidic. In fact, some deep, cold ocean waters are naturally too acidic for marine calcifiers to survive, meaning that these organisms only exist above a certain depth known as the "saturation horizon." With ocean acidification, the saturation horizon is expected to shift closer to the surface by 50 to 200 meters relative to its position during the 1800s (Doney, 2006). The Southern and Arctic oceans, which are colder and therefore naturally more acidic, may become entirely inhospitable for organisms with shells made from aragonite--one of the weaker mineral forms of calcium carbonate--by the end of this century (EUR-OCEANS, 2007).

Don't forget to eat lots of your own shit, and swallow it, since you put your foot in your mouth, your head up your asshole, and you don't chew and swallow your own shit or your own foot, but rather, you pull your head out of your ass, for moments, and show people your shit-eating grin. You type shit, for USMB readers. This will prove to be a mistake. Chew and wallow your own shit. Don't pony it over to USMB.

Here is Fatass' swell graph, again, since from thread-to-thread, you keep Wienerbitching around, ignoring Fatass' graph and its implications, which are CO2 flattens out, at 280 ppm, at peak warming, to fall, forcing cooling, which trend is consistent, for 430,000 years, until we get to the present, when CO2 shoots all the way to 400 ppm, today, following the industrial age, when humans multiplied, emitted GHGs, and defoliated, egregiously. And now for telling a *****, just how it is . . .

Fatass' graph is following you around, Wienerbitch. Maybe you should have a look at the ******! Even really stupid people can read graphs, Wiener. Go for it. This one shows what happens, with CO2, without too much methane, CH4. When the methane gets out, up go temperatures. When the cold water wells up, water-creatures get dead. It's rather simple, but you are worse than simple, you are a fucktard.

 

[Big Fitz]

Go look up, because I'm not going to do it for you booboo, "Atmospheric composition of the earth". Now, once you get the actual numbers of how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, and then find out the total volume in tons of atmosphere it is, then you get the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Okay?

THEN, take the most wild production of CO2 given by psychofuckos like you booboo, that man has done so far. Then, using the total amount of atmosphere that exists now, find the percentage of how much CO2 man created in it. It's about 0.06% of all CO2 in the atmosphere. THEN, consindering the fact that CO2 is around 0.04% of total composition of the atmosphere, you discover the number man contributes to total atmospheric volume in CO2 is a change of around 0.0024%.

Now, this information is readily available on Wikipedia (for the lazy) or a junior high level science website. The CO2 production, you can get from any radicalized ecofascist website or somewhere else in this forum. I know it's out there, I think I stole it from one of Chris's blog clips now that I think about it.

So is it that the remaining 99.4% of all CO2 from nature is just not as effective as CO2 produced by man? Or just that the scam doesn't work if you pay attention to it?

As for the rest of your post? Why do I bother reading it? It's the same screechy screed used over and over from you chicken little fucktards, booboo.

Oh, and as for that graph, why isn't the medieval warm period listed as a higher spike than today... since it was much warmer? Guess it's harder to hide fraud when you don't have computers and refuse to allow people independent verification.

 

[Saigon]

How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?
.

It's interesting to see that the point you seem to most struggle with isn't actually a scientific one, but more of a question of imagination.

I think we can say now that we know that the CO2 released by human acitivity is effecting the climate, and is having a profound effect on glaciers and polar ice - and how it does so is fairly well understood.

Do you also doubt the existance of gravity?

 

[IanC]

How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?
.

It's interesting to see that the point you seem to most struggle with isn't actually a scientific one, but more of a question of imagination.

I think we can say now that we know that the CO2 released by human acitivity is effecting the climate, and is having a profound effect on glaciers and polar ice - and how it does so is fairly well understood.

Do you also doubt the existance of gravity?

really?!?

yet you have no problem when the warmists tell you that it must be CO2 because they can think of no other reason why the earth has warmed. interesting.

you bring up glaciers and polar ice. surely it is the temperature and local conditions that cause ice to melt, evapourate or be blown out to warmer waters. or are you saying that there are special features to CO2 that specifically target ice?

there has been a massive loss of ice since the LIA, most of it by 1900. newspaper records have been calling attention to it for at least 200 years.

do you think Hansen and the boys take melting or reforming ice into consideration when they make their 'adjustments' to long standing thermometer readings? after all it would seem to be reasonable that ice forms when it is cold and melts when it is warm, right? be careful if you decide to answer, because it is a trick question.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

I'll "wake up" when I see climate scpetics present a convincing case.

I find most conspiracy theories (holocaust denial, 9/11 truthers) can ask some powerful questions, but what they utterly unable to do is to present a sound narrative that explains the physical evidence.

When climate sceptics present a case which explains, for instance, why 97% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat, and retreating at what seems to be an ever-increasing pace, plus explanatiosn for melting arctic ice, increased storm patterns, desertification etc - I'll absolutely look at it.

I strongly doubt we'll ever see such a case presented.

Here is a perfect example of intellectual dishonesty in action. I presented you with evidence of the poor degree of scientific research pervasive throughout the climatology field and you ignore it.

You have lost any shred of objectivity and made it plain for all to see. I bet that when presented with irrefutable evidence that the planet is cooling (the opposite of the predictions of the AGW crowd) you will remain blissfully ignorant and continue with your silly belief in the charlatans.

Sad, very sad.

 

[westwall]

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

LOL!!!!!!!!! Code, you are really full of it. You are stating that chart backs up your assertation that warming is occuring at present at the same rate it has been occurring for the last 400 years? From 1600 to 1800 that graph is about flat, from 1800 to 1900, a little warming, from 1900 to present, a rapidly increasing warmth, the graph is going straight up.

How the hell did you arrive at your interpretation of that graph?

Ahhhh yes the hockey shtick graph. Proven fake but you religious fanatics will never go against dogma.

 

[westwall]

There is no question at all that the graph shows a dramatic rise from around halfway through the 20th century.

Are you seriously claiming that it does not exist?

The FACT remains that mankind is INCAPABLE of doing more than what nature itself does.

How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?

Answer? it can't. It is a faith designed to subjugate man to ecofascism and the caprice of petty small minded men concerned for their own wealth and power.

Your refusal to comprehend something does not tie nature's hands.

And yet the AGW crowd has been proven wrong over and over and over again. A more complete lack of success would be hard to find. Now Hansen is resorting to falsifying the historical temp records to bolster his failed predictions.

Looks like the AGW crowd doesn't understand as much as the sceptics do. Everytime we check their work it comes up short.

 

[westwall]

How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?
.

It's interesting to see that the point you seem to most struggle with isn't actually a scientific one, but more of a question of imagination.

I think we can say now that we know that the CO2 released by human acitivity is effecting the climate, and is having a profound effect on glaciers and polar ice - and how it does so is fairly well understood.

Do you also doubt the existance of gravity?

What effect on polar ice? It has been within the same zone for years. Me thinks your meme is a little tired and now useless.

 

[IanC]

The FACT remains that mankind is INCAPABLE of doing more than what nature itself does.

How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?

Answer? it can't. It is a faith designed to subjugate man to ecofascism and the caprice of petty small minded men concerned for their own wealth and power.

Your refusal to comprehend something does not tie nature's hands.

And yet the AGW crowd has been proven wrong over and over and over again. A more complete lack of success would be hard to find. Now Hansen is resorting to falsifying the historical temp records to bolster his failed predictions.

Looks like the AGW crowd doesn't understand as much as the sceptics do. Everytime we check their work it comes up short.

no shit sherlock. I had to laugh when the Gergis paper got pulled. the skeptical stat cowboys over at Climate Audit have enough data on the proxies now, and enough experience dealing with the corrupted methodologies, to eviscerate most of these data-weak conclusion-heavy papers that come out of the hockey team and friends. no wonder Mann and his henchmen wanted to hide their work. can you imagine what would happen if MBH98 were to come out today?

 

[Big Fitz]

How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?
.

It's interesting to see that the point you seem to most struggle with isn't actually a scientific one, but more of a question of imagination.

I think we can say now that we know that the CO2 released by human acitivity is effecting the climate, and is having a profound effect on glaciers and polar ice - and how it does so is fairly well understood.

Do you also doubt the existance of gravity?

Logic and math are imagination now?

Huh. Interesting proof of your mental accuity.

 

[bobgnote]

One thing we should all be able to agree on, stupid people shouldn't breed.

Population is over 7 billion humans, and many of these are wicked stupid. Don't do it, DD and D. Your kid might be a pub, with DKS, CRS, and HUB. Downies for Romney, stop getting to know each other. And you Democrats, if you are a little D, please don't make it with a D, 'cause if you do it, with a D, your little idiot will be DDD! DDD! DDD!

FDR was a drunk. He didn't really have polio. He let Pearl get bombed to crap, like Obama will let global warming get way over, on the US. Get real, DDs. You guys are all like Obamney, with the CRS, DKS, and HUB. And don't forget, DDD!

D to the three, teeheehee? No laughing, you bitches need to re-green the Earth.

 

[Big Fitz]

One thing we should all be able to agree on, stupid people shouldn't breed.

Population is over 7 billion humans, and many of these are wicked stupid. Don't do it, DD and D. Your kid might be a pub, with DKS, CRS, and HUB. Downies for Romney, stop getting to know each other. And you Democrats, if you are a little D, please don't make it with a D, 'cause if you do it, with a D, your little idiot will be DDD! DDD! DDD!

FDR was a drunk. He didn't really have polio. He let Pearl get bombed to crap, like Obama will let global warming get way over, on the US. Get real, DDs. You guys are all like Obamney, with the CRS, DKS, and HUB. And don't forget, DDD!

D to the three, teeheehee? No laughing, you bitches need to re-green the Earth.

The vet called. Your appointment to be spayed has been moved up to tomorrow morning. So remember not to eat or drink up to 12 hours before you come in.

As for your lobotomy, it seems there's complications, so they want you to come back in on Friday for more testing. The scars are healing nice though.

 

[Big Fitz]

How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?
.

It's interesting to see that the point you seem to most struggle with isn't actually a scientific one, but more of a question of imagination.

I think we can say now that we know that the CO2 released by human acitivity is effecting the climate, and is having a profound effect on glaciers and polar ice - and how it does so is fairly well understood.

Do you also doubt the existance of gravity?

If you're claiming that 0.0024% of gravity is man's fault and is making gravity stronger, yes.

 

[code1211]

How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?
.

It's interesting to see that the point you seem to most struggle with isn't actually a scientific one, but more of a question of imagination.

I think we can say now that we know that the CO2 released by human acitivity is effecting the climate, and is having a profound effect on glaciers and polar ice - and how it does so is fairly well understood.

Do you also doubt the existance of gravity?

We can also say that the Temperature of today is approaching the temperature of 5000 years ago and about a degree cooler than the temperature of 8000 years ago.

Since what I have written is something that actually happened and can actually be demonstrated by the growth of today's glaciers from points more receded than today from that point in time, why must we assume that Anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the current warming.

During this interglacial, we have been warmer than we are now and that was thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution.

The cooling of the Little ice Age ended and reversed hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution.

The mere fact that the climate is changing does nothing to isolate a cause. You need to isolate a cause before you can say, "I think we can say now that we know that the CO2 released by human acitivity is effecting the climate, and is having a profound effect on glaciers and polar ice - and how it does so is fairly well understood."

Correlation is not causation and similar effects to those that you cite absent the cause you cite would seem to prove that you are jumping to an unjustified conclusion.

The only question following that is why are you doing this and the answer will demonstrate why this is a political topic.

 

[code1211]

How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?
.

It's interesting to see that the point you seem to most struggle with isn't actually a scientific one, but more of a question of imagination.

I think we can say now that we know that the CO2 released by human acitivity is effecting the climate, and is having a profound effect on glaciers and polar ice - and how it does so is fairly well understood.

Do you also doubt the existance of gravity?

really?!?

yet you have no problem when the warmists tell you that it must be CO2 because they can think of no other reason why the earth has warmed. interesting.

you bring up glaciers and polar ice. surely it is the temperature and local conditions that cause ice to melt, evapourate or be blown out to warmer waters. or are you saying that there are special features to CO2 that specifically target ice?

there has been a massive loss of ice since the LIA, most of it by 1900. newspaper records have been calling attention to it for at least 200 years.

do you think Hansen and the boys take melting or reforming ice into consideration when they make their 'adjustments' to long standing thermometer readings? after all it would seem to be reasonable that ice forms when it is cold and melts when it is warm, right? be careful if you decide to answer, because it is a trick question.

Pat on the back!

 

[Big Fitz]

How can an additional 0.0024% of atmospheric composition do all these incredible things?
.

It's interesting to see that the point you seem to most struggle with isn't actually a scientific one, but more of a question of imagination.

I think we can say now that we know that the CO2 released by human acitivity is effecting the climate, and is having a profound effect on glaciers and polar ice - and how it does so is fairly well understood.

Do you also doubt the existance of gravity?

We can also say that the Temperature of today is approaching the temperature of 5000 years ago and about a degree cooler than the temperature of 8000 years ago.

Since what I have written is something that actually happened and can actually be demonstrated by the growth of today's glaciers from points more receded than today from that point in time, why must we assume that Anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of the current warming.

During this interglacial, we have been warmer than we are now and that was thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution.

The cooling of the Little ice Age ended and reversed hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution.

The mere fact that the climate is changing does nothing to isolate a cause. You need to isolate a cause before you can say, "I think we can say now that we know that the CO2 released by human acitivity is effecting the climate, and is having a profound effect on glaciers and polar ice - and how it does so is fairly well understood."

Correlation is not causation and similar effects to those that you cite absent the cause you cite would seem to prove that you are jumping to an unjustified conclusion.

The only question following that is why are you doing this and the answer will demonstrate why this is a political topic.

No no... they're not hunchbacked... they just got their asses kicked up there.

Explains the walk and why their legs are so long.