# The truth about CO2 and climate change



## Redfish (Nov 17, 2014)

*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!" *


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

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.






People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the  primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

Now to the AGW/far left programmed minions, none or the real science here will compute..


----------



## Redfish (Nov 17, 2014)

Come AGW advocates.  lets hear your refutation of those FACTS.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 17, 2014)

Are you seriously going to peddle that erumor? Now, before you start spewing at me about being a liberal who believes in Goebbal's Warming, Im not either. But there is certainly a debate going on in the science and using this type of shit only makes the alarmists look more intelligent.

it's damaging.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 17, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Are you seriously going to peddle that erumor? Now, before you start spewing at me about being a liberal who believes in Goebbal's Warming, Im not either. But there is certainly a debate going on in the science and using this type of shit only makes the alarmists look more intelligent.
> 
> it's damaging.


 

Yeah, posting the truth is damaging.  Are you


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 17, 2014)

*Plimer lies a lot.*

Are Volcanoes or Humans Harder on the Atmosphere - Scientific American

This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 17, 2014)

The truth is that Pilmer's claim regarding volcanoes is not scientifically correct. 

I will agree with him on how the models are used in Climate science, but claiming a volcanic eruption released more Co2 than man has tried to save in just four days...that ain't truth, partner.

You're welcome.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 17, 2014)

*From the USGS:*

USGS Release Human Activities Produce More Carbon Dioxide Emissions Than Do Volcanoes 6 14 2011 11 30 00 AM 

VANCOUVER, Wash. — On average, human activities put out in just three to five days, the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide that volcanoes produce globally each year. This is one of the messages detailed in a new article "Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide" by Terrance Gerlach of the U.S. Geological Survey appearing in this week's issue of Eos, from the American Geophysical Union. 

"The most frequent question that I have gotten (and still get), in my 30 some years as a volcanic gas geochemist from the general public and from geoscientists working in fields outside of volcanology, is 'Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities?' Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this question is "No"—anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions," said Gerlach.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 17, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *Plimer lies a lot.*
> 
> Are Volcanoes or Humans Harder on the Atmosphere - Scientific American
> 
> ...


 
Scientists disagree.   BTW, the US is seeing record cold temps this year, and the ice caps are growing.   Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo. ?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 17, 2014)

Plimer's book, Heavan and Earth, has universally been panned by scientists as being completely riddled with errors. Not a good recommendation for using in a debate on any subject.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 17, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> The truth is that Pilmer's claim regarding volcanoes is not scientifically correct.
> 
> I will agree with him on how the models are used in Climate science, but claiming a volcanic eruption released more Co2 than man has tried to save in just four days...that ain't truth, partner.
> 
> You're welcome.


 

coming from you---------------------------------------nope.   but thanks for trying.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 17, 2014)

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.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> 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.



Yes such words a could, might, possible, etc. in the minds of the AGW cult means that it will...


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > The truth is that Pilmer's claim regarding volcanoes is not scientifically correct.
> ...



OK, then. Go ahead and peddle it. You look lie a moron, but I ain't in the business of trying to stop a guy who is desperate to shoot himself in the foot intellectually.

Have at it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 17, 2014)

Kosh, those are the Milankovic Cycles, a totally differant thing than what we are seeing now. The analog to what we are seeing now is the periods at the end of the Permian and Triassic.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Nov 17, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> 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.



Jesus. Now you're going to peddle that bullshit line.

I gotta go. Nothing but bullshit up in here.


----------



## Saigon (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish said:


> the ice caps are growing.



You have to laugh, don't you?


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Kosh, those are the Milankovic Cycles, a totally differant thing than what we are seeing now. The analog to what we are seeing now is the periods at the end of the Permian and Triassic.



Yes I know real science trumps AGW religious dogma.

And once again the propaganda machine drones on and on not based in in sort of reality..


----------



## Redfish (Nov 17, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> 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.


----------



## konradv (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish said:


> Scientists disagree.   BTW, the US is seeing record cold temps this year, and the ice caps are growing. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo. ?



Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo, you should study up on the real science and not just post whatever fits your bias.  Maybe you won't look like such a fool in the future,


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > the ice caps are growing.
> ...



Yep have to laugh..

It is like trying to measure climate during a warming phase and blaming humans for it..

However if you want to see proof that the ice caps are growing here is some real science to show you what is happening.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists disagree.   BTW, the US is seeing record cold temps this year, and the ice caps are growing. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo. ?
> ...



Man these far left/AGW cult members are irony impaired..


----------



## Redfish (Nov 17, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > the ice caps are growing.
> ...


 

yes, posting bullshit does make one laugh.

here's some truth for ya.    With pictures, not bullshit graphs.

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


----------



## konradv (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Someone with a truly critical mind would wonder what made them change their minds so fast.  Never mind that the notion wasn't as widespread as you'd have us believe.  The easy answer is it was because of the money, but many were saying it long before the grant money got big.


----------



## konradv (Nov 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Do you even know what irony means?  t certainly doesn't involve reporting on weather, when we're talking about climate.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists disagree.   BTW, the US is seeing record cold temps this year, and the ice caps are growing. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo. ?
> ...


 

LOL,   speaking of posting bias  and looking like a fool^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

run for the mountains the sea is rising and nothing will be left of the US except the rocky mountains.   Run, chicken little, run.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



YEs and now they are so invested in this that they must continue their gravy train ride and continue to feed their egos.

But then again the far left/AGW cult will never acknowledge such things as then, they would have to admit to being wrong!


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Another far left/AGW cult poster showing that they are truly irony impaired.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


 

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.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 17, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *Plimer lies a lot.*
> 
> Are Volcanoes or Humans Harder on the Atmosphere - Scientific American
> 
> ...



*How many volcanoes are there in the world?*
The exact number of volcanoes is unknown. It also depends on the definition of a "volcano": for instance, there are "volcanic fields" that comprise hundreds of individual eruption centers (such as conder cones, maars, shield volcanoes) that are all relataed to the same magma chamber and that may or not be counted as a single "volcano".
There are probably millions of volcanoes that have been active during the whole lifespan of the earth. During the past 10,000 years, there are about 1500 volcanoes on land that are known to have have been active, while the even larger number of submarine volcanoes is unknown. At present, there are about 600 volcanoes that have had known eruptions during recorded history, while about 50-70 volcanoes are active (erupting) each year. At any given time, there is an average of about 20 volcanoes that are erupting. 
For more details, look at what the Smithsonian Institution says about this question.

How many volcanoes are there in the world


----------



## konradv (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish said:


> 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.


----------



## BlindBoo (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Plimer lies a lot.*
> ...



Winter comes early as snow cold pummel upper Midwest - CNN.com

Residents in the northern United States can thank a whopping Pacific tropical cyclone for the wintry blast.

*Super Typhoon Nuri was akin to Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy rolled into one*. It had the strength of a category 5 hurricane, CNN's Sater said.

It is the strongest Northern Pacific post-tropical cyclone on record, the NWS said.

Its remnants explosively intensified up north over Alaska's Aleutian Islands last week and plowed into cold air, which added violent energy to the storm. It was similar to what happened with Superstorm Sandy in the Atlantic two years ago and earned the storm the little-used "bomb cyclone" moniker.

The hybrid storm rammed into the jet stream, causing it to whip south, dragging Arctic air down with it.


Sea Ice?  Sure it grows every November.

Daily Arctic Sea Ice Maps


----------



## Redfish (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


 

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.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Oh my the far left/AGW cult once again shows that they do care about real science just pushing their religious agenda.






It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.


----------



## konradv (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



More proof that the far left/AGW cult is irony impaired..


----------



## BlindBoo (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

BlindBoo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



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!


----------



## Redfish (Nov 17, 2014)

BlindBoo said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 

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


----------



## BlindBoo (Nov 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



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


----------



## Saigon (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish -

Do you admit that arctic ice is dropping?

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


----------



## Redfish (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


 

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 (Nov 17, 2014)

Saigon said:


> 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 (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Nov 17, 2014)

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 (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


 

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 (Nov 17, 2014)

BlindBoo said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



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 (Nov 17, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Redfish -
> 
> I looked at your pictures.....this is what I found:
> 
> ...


 


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 (Nov 17, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Redfish -
> 
> I looked at your pictures.....this is what I found:
> 
> ...




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 (Nov 17, 2014)

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 - 



Saigon said:


> 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 (Nov 17, 2014)

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 (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish said:


> 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 (Nov 17, 2014)

Saigon said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 

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 (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish said:


> *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.
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 17, 2014)

Saigon said:


> 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 (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > first of all your claim about humans and CO2 has been disproven several times.
> ...


 

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 (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > first of all your claim about humans and CO2 has been disproven several times.
> ...



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 (Nov 17, 2014)

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 (Nov 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Your graph is pure, unadulterated fantasy.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 17, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Redfish -
> 
> I have not posted a one time measurement.
> 
> ...


 

In a word,  NO.  short term changes do not prove a trend.   Are you really so stupid that you don't get that?


----------



## konradv (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish said:


> 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.



I see, to hell with facts.  What happens to the energy that CO2 absorbs?  Think about that for a while, instead of listening to propaganda.  Since you brought up Gore, I realize you don't really understand much.  The people that do, discuss the topic; those that don't, talk about Gore.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


 

only in the genetically defective liberal mind do facts equal fantasy.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


 

the truth has been posted,  if you choose to ignore it, fine.    I really don't care what you believe. 

better tell your canibis plants that CO2 is bad for them,   they really like it and need it to survive.

but what happens to the energy that water vapor absorbs?     should we ban water?


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



When you decide to actually post a fact, do let the rest of us know.


----------



## konradv (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish said:


> the truth has been posted,  if you choose to ignore it, fine.    I really don't care what you believe.
> 
> better tell your canibis plants that CO2 is bad for them,   they really like it and need it to survive.
> 
> but what happens to the energy that water vapor absorbs? should we ban water



The water cycle is well known.  It both traps and blocks energy.  Now tell me what happens to the energy CO2 absorbs and forget the stupid banning comments.  It just underscores your lack of knowledge and logic.


----------



## Saigon (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish said:


> In a word, NO. short term changes do not prove a trend. Are you really so stupid that you don't get that?



Thanks for answering...and somehow I don't think my stupidity is an issue here. 

Let's look at a slightly longer perspective, although I think for most people the fact that the catastrophic drop in ice is EXACTLY the opposite of what you claimed earlier in this thread is probably clear evidence of something....

What do you do you see in this chart, for instance...





History of Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Part 1 Open Mind


----------



## BluesLegend (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish said:


> Come AGW advocates.  lets hear your refutation of those FACTS.



They won't because they are liars. This isn't about emissions or global warming, that's just an ends to a means, an angle of attack to achieve their real goal. Do you really think they care about the spotted owl or some damn desert tortious? No. Of the 50 plus ranchers who were grazing cattle on public lands that were pretty much desolate useless lands they used the desert tortious to run them off the land, of the 50 plus ranchers they ran off all but one by heaping restrictions and regulations on the ranchers until they gave up. If you want to piss off the liberals just make money on public lands this enrages them to no end. Ditto with the spotted owl, the libs hated that corporations were making money harvesting trees on public lands so they used the spotted owl and endangered species act to wipe them out. When dealing with these liberals you have to understand you are dealing with lying bitter people.


----------



## Saigon (Nov 17, 2014)

And one last one, showing the trend since 1953....what trend does it showm Redfish?


----------



## konradv (Nov 17, 2014)

BluesLegend said:


> They won't because they are liars. This isn't about emissions or global warming, that's just an ends to a means, an angle of attack to achieve their real goal. Do you really think they care about the spotted owl or some damn desert tortious? No. Of the 50 plus ranchers who were grazing cattle on public lands that were pretty much desolate useless lands they used the desert tortious to run them off the land, of the 50 plus ranchers they ran off all but one by heaping restrictions and regulations on the ranchers until they gave up. If you want to piss off the liberals just make money on public lands this enrages them to no end. Ditto with the spotted owl, the libs hated that corporations were making money harvesting trees on public lands so they used the spotted owl and endangered species act to wipe them out. When dealing with these liberals you have to understand you are dealing with lying bitter people.



You're the liar.  No one is purposely trying to hurt ranchers or anyone else.


----------



## JoeNormal (Nov 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> 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!



This might be the most simpleminded statement I've seen yet.  Where in AGW theory does it say that yearly variations are not to be expected?


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > In a word, NO. short term changes do not prove a trend. Are you really so stupid that you don't get that?
> ...



And what was the Ice levels at 10,000 years ago? 100,000 years ago?

The far left/AGW cult cont8inues to push religious dogma over real and actual sconce..


----------



## konradv (Nov 17, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > According to AGW lore, the ice caps are not supposed to grow..
> ...



Unfortunately that's the kind of argument we usually see from the deniers.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Oh my the irony impairment posts continue without hesitation..

The true deniers of science are the AGW cult members, but hey don't that real science stuff impede your AGW religious dogma..

More proof that AGW/far left cult are true deniers of actual real science..


----------



## Saigon (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish said:


> Come AGW advocates. lets hear your refutation of those FACTS.





Redfish said:


> TW, the US is seeing record cold temps this year, and the ice caps are growing. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo. ?



So I am delighted to say that I think the claim about ice caps has been totally proven wrong, beyond any reasonable doubt. 

I am so glad we won't be heaing that nonsense again.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > According to AGW lore, the ice caps are not supposed to grow..
> ...



As always the AGW cult is wrong even when it comes to their own religion..

The only time they say such things is like now when there has been no significant warming for the past 15 years..

However the AGW cult still believes the computer models over actual observations..






Please provide the dataset with source code that proves CO2 drives climate..


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Come AGW advocates. lets hear your refutation of those FACTS.
> ...



Still spamming the boards with AGW religious nonsense?


----------



## mamooth (Nov 17, 2014)

Kosh, when are you going to apologize for deliberately using forged and fudged data?

You're a proud and unapologetic liar for your cult. Hence, everyone correctly assumes everything you say is a lie, unless independent evidence shows otherwise. The only response necessary to any of your posts is to point out your history of pathological dishonesty.


----------



## JoeNormal (Nov 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



I was hoping you'd bring up this bit of classic denier stupidity.  Here's the reference graph from one of your buddies:






Flat for almost 18 years.  What?  How could that be?  Well, you start in the hottest month in the Northern Hemisphere and end in a cool month - April in this case.  They were probably tempted to show that temperature was going down by ending in January but even the brain-dead denier cult would have smelled bullshit then.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



And once again the AGW cult shows that deny even their own cult to push the agenda..

Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown Reuters

Yep you and your old outdated propaganda continue to prove that it is about pushing religious agenda than actual real science..

Keep posting as it proves that the far left/AGW cult proves that they are the one and true deniers of science..

Again another graph showing how the AGW religion is bunk:






It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.

Also still waiting for those datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate, you know the whole basis on which your religion was founded?


----------



## JoeNormal (Nov 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Also still waiting for those datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate, you know the whole basis on which your religion was founded?



If I thought you were smart enough to grasp the theory, I'd point you to a site or two.  Alas...


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Also still waiting for those datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate, you know the whole basis on which your religion was founded?
> ...



More proof that the AGW cult can not even understand their own religious dogma..

So you do not have those datasets with source that proves CO2 droves climate as it is written in the AGW scriptures..

So in other words you can not prove your religion with any actual science..


----------



## BluesLegend (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > They won't because they are liars. This isn't about emissions or global warming, that's just an ends to a means, an angle of attack to achieve their real goal. Do you really think they care about the spotted owl or some damn desert tortious? No. Of the 50 plus ranchers who were grazing cattle on public lands that were pretty much desolate useless lands they used the desert tortious to run them off the land, of the 50 plus ranchers they ran off all but one by heaping restrictions and regulations on the ranchers until they gave up. If you want to piss off the liberals just make money on public lands this enrages them to no end. Ditto with the spotted owl, the libs hated that corporations were making money harvesting trees on public lands so they used the spotted owl and endangered species act to wipe them out. When dealing with these liberals you have to understand you are dealing with lying bitter people.
> ...



Awe don't be mad that I exposed the lying left for who they truly are. They ran off all but one of the 50+ ranchers with restrictions and regulations citing the desert tortoises...wait for it...while at the same time killing desert tortoises that were in the way of their pet government project. Oh man that's going to leave a mark.


----------



## JoeNormal (Nov 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Tell you what, you state in your own words what makes a greenhouse gas a greenhouse gas and I'll start taking you more seriously.


----------



## konradv (Nov 17, 2014)

BluesLegend said:


> Awe don't be mad that I exposed the lying left for who they truly are. They ran off all but one of the 50+ ranchers with restrictions and regulations citing the desert tortoises...wait for it...while at the same time killing desert tortoises that were in the way of their pet government project. Oh man that's going to leave a mark.



How did we get from CO2 to ranchers?  You're just trying to derail the thread.  If that's what you want to talk about, start your own thread.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



So in other words you do not have those datasets and source code that proves CO2 controls climate..






People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the  primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

Come on still waiting for that post with datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate..

I bet I see more deflection and dodging and AGW religious dogma..


----------



## Siete (Nov 17, 2014)

Co2 in the atmosphere is the reason arctic ice is melting from the bottom up ... got it.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > Awe don't be mad that I exposed the lying left for who they truly are. They ran off all but one of the 50+ ranchers with restrictions and regulations citing the desert tortoises...wait for it...while at the same time killing desert tortoises that were in the way of their pet government project. Oh man that's going to leave a mark.
> ...



Actually more proof that that the AGW cult does not read their own scriptures very well as farming/ranching is considered to be part of the Human Caused dogma.

Oh man the irony impairment is really bad with tis one..


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

Siete said:


> Co2 in the atmosphere is the reason arctic ice is melting from the bottom up ... got it.




More proof that the AGW/far left religious dogma trumps real and actual science..


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Roy Spencer?  Really?  Bahahahahahaha.


----------



## BluesLegend (Nov 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > BluesLegend said:
> ...



The left hates having their noses rubbed in the rotted festering stench of their lies. Before global warming it was deadly holes in the ozone mutating frogs, which was of course proven to be completely false. Before that it was actually global cooling. The sea ice is vanishing. Polar bears are going extinct. We'd be here all days discussing their lies.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



So can you post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate?

Do you have any real science to back up your stance other than the A typical AGW cult religious mentality?


----------



## Siete (Nov 17, 2014)

Antarctic s Ice Shelves Melting From the Bottom Up


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 17, 2014)

Siete said:


> Antarctic s Ice Shelves Melting From the Bottom Up



The fucking Warmers never run out of bullshit excuses and ignore the fact that the Earth is the biggest DENIER!!!

Look up undersea vulcanism, there's your culprit


----------



## JoeNormal (Nov 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



You must have this stored as a macro on your computer.  Sure makes it a lot simpler than actually understanding any of the mechanisms at play I guess.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 17, 2014)

Saigon said:


> And one last one, showing the trend since 1953....what trend does it showm Redfish?


 

I see a chart created by someone with an agenda.   Believe it if you want,   man is not destroying the planet's climate,  man may be polluting some parts of the planet, but that has nothing to do with climate change.


----------



## Siete (Nov 17, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > Antarctic s Ice Shelves Melting From the Bottom Up
> ...



look up the oceans are getting warmer.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

Siete said:


> Antarctic s Ice Shelves Melting From the Bottom Up



Yes the whole bunk argument "The ocean ate my global warming"..

Well that has been debunked so many times, yet the AGW cult lets these things get published..

And once again the AGW religion trumps actual science fact..






It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (generally called the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was significantly warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period. The polar bears did just fine during those warmer periods.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



AGW is the accepted paradigm according to 97% of climate scientists.  You are among neither the 97% that agree, nor the 3% that disagree since you aren't even a scientist.  Yet your claim, by your own admission, is in the denialist camp.  As such, it is for you to provide a scientific refutation of AGW.  It is not for me to provide data in support of the 97% since it is widely published and available to anyone who cares to read it, including you.  And it is certainly not for me to provide documentation to support your view.  That is your problem, not mine.  I didn't post the graph above, and am not under any obligation to support it.  That falls to the person who did post it.  Got anything like that?


----------



## Saigon (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish - 

You claimed the Arctic is growing. 

The fact is the Arctic is melting, and rapidly. 

The end.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



In 2008, a Stanford scientist revealed “direct links” between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and “increases in human mortality” — globally, he found that as many as “20,000 air-pollution-related deaths per year per degree Celsius may be due to this greenhouse gas.” The next year, Bachmann, who is not a scientist, said that “carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.”

For those who would deny that she really said something this stupid, here's video -



And don't hassle me for bringing an idiot right wing politician into this. Some dunderhead put this thread in Politics instead of Environment, where it belongs ...


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



These far left/AGW cult members still continue to post their bunk even after it proven wrong over and over again, showing it is based on a religious agenda not rooted in science..






The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the media, and Al Gore repeatedly say that the science of global warming is settled and that only a radical fringe group of corporate-sponsored scientists disagree with the scientific consensus that man is causing global warming. Over $50 billion has been spent to support that believe. However, even as far back as 2003 a  survey was conducted among all climate scientists (those actually having climate PhDs and working specifically on climate issues) showed that there was barely a majority, let alone a consensus that man was causing global warming. When the question was asked, "was the scientific debate about climate change over," less than half of the respondents agreed with the question. An equal number disagreed. This is far from a consensus among scientists who can actually speak to the issue.

In 2001 a voluntary petition  was sent to all scientists in the United States stating that, among other things, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." At that time, 17,000 scientists signed it. When the same petition was sent out in 2008, 31,000 scientists signed it, almost double the number in 2001. Nine thousand of these had PhD's in the physical sciences.

This compares to only about 60 (not 2500) that support the IPCC's man-caused theory. More are signing every day. The IPCC's, media's, and Gore's instance that there is a consensus among scientists that the science is settled is completely false, designed to hide the fact that the entire effort is politically, not scientifically, motivated. Every effort is made to silence the dissenters, yet more and more scientists are speaking out because the actual science supporting man-caused warming is non-existent.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



More proof that the far left/AGW cult will push their religious agenda and ignore real and actual science.

Once again proving that the real science deniers are the far left/AGW cult..


----------



## Redfish (Nov 17, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Redfish -
> 
> You claimed the Arctic is growing.
> 
> ...


 

the arctic ice grows each year when its winter in the northern hemisphere, the antarctic ice grows when its winter in the southern hemisphere.    the opposite happens when its summer in either hemisphere.   Its caused by the earth's tilt on its axis.   It has nothing to do with CO2, or chinese coal fired electric plants.

If you want to talk about pollution, lets do that.  But pollution does not cause climate change.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 17, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...


 

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT POLLUTION--------EVERONE AGREES THAT WE NEED TO STOP POLLUTING OUR PLANET.  

POLLUTION AND CLIMATE CHANGE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS

PUT THE BONG DOWN AND THINK


----------



## Siete (Nov 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



your pretty charts are "real science" ????

you're a REAL moron.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

Siete said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Yeah they were taken form IPCC studies, NOAA charts, NASA, tec..

So I guess that mean those agencies are bunk...

You see the far left will even denounce their own sources if it is convenient for them.

So that would be a NO on the datasets and source code that proves CO2 drives climate..

Oh well I asked the cult member to post actual science and so far not one has produced it..


----------



## Siete (Nov 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


----------



## Kosh (Nov 17, 2014)

Siete said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...



So yes that would be a NO to posting any actual science like datasets and source code that proves CO2 controls climate..

Only been asking the AGW cult that for 30+ years. Still asking and not one can produce the actual science in 30 years..

All I get is the same old far left/AGW religious dogma..


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Do you ever Vette your sources?  Ever?

*Dr. Michael S. Coffman - is the President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc. (EPI) and Chief Executive Officer of both Sovereignty International and Local Environment and Resource Network (LEARN). A retired paper industry executive, Coffman is a global warming skeptic, property rights advocate and proponent of the idea that international co-operation represents moves to impose a New World Order on citizens of the world via a system of global governance.[1]
In a biographical note Coffman claims that he "played a key role in stopping the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity Treaty) in the U.S. Senate one hour before the ratification vote".[2][3]*


Coffman is a former executive for Champion International, a major forestry products and paper mill corporation that has a vested interest in having people believe in global warming denialism.  He also has no education or scientific experience whatsoever in climatge science.

*Kristie Pelletier - *is a friggin office manager.  Bhahahahahahahahaha!!!!

This is the best you've got???


----------



## konradv (Nov 17, 2014)

Kosh said:


> So yes that would be a NO to posting any actual science like datasets and source code that proves CO2 controls climate..
> Only been asking the AGW cult that for 30+ years. Still asking and not one can produce the actual science in 30 years.



You're pushing a red herring here.  Climate scientists say CO2 CONTRIBUTES to climate change.  No one with any knowledge says CO2 controls climate.  So, there are no such data sets that you're requesting.  CO2 is only one of a number of factors that influence climate, but it is the one effected by humans.  If you haven't seen the relevant data in 30 years, you haven't been looking.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2014)

Saigon said:


> 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.


 It is what losers do don't you know?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > In a word, NO. short term changes do not prove a trend. Are you really so stupid that you don't get that?
> ...


 and it was once ice free!! You are asking a stupid question to which you want a specific answer.  The answer is the Arctic was once free of ice and the planet was fine.  Move on!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > So yes that would be a NO to posting any actual science like datasets and source code that proves CO2 controls climate..
> ...


exactly, there are no records that show that any CO2 does anything to climate or temperatures.  Once you can provide that link that shows 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to climate we can finish the discussion, until then, you are pushing a red herring.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Kosh, when are you going to apologize for deliberately using forged and fudged data?
> 
> You're a proud and unapologetic liar for your cult. Hence, everyone correctly assumes everything you say is a lie, unless independent evidence shows otherwise. The only response necessary to any of your posts is to point out your history of pathological dishonesty.


 I see you got your boilerplate out!!!  Ha................ you make me laugh soooooo much.  It's really insane.  Avoid all mirrors!!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Also still waiting for those datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate, you know the whole basis on which your religion was founded?
> ...


 you can't and fail.  We all know this.  See, that is the point of the deniers club glad you're a strong member.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


----------



## konradv (Nov 17, 2014)

jc456 said:


> exactly, there are no records that show that any CO2 does anything to climate or temperatures.  Once you can provide that link that shows 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to climate we can finish the discussion, until then, you are pushing a red herring.



I don't need records to know that CO2 absorbs IR radiation.  That's can be shown very simply on a lab spectrophotometer. Explain what happens to that radiation in light if the Law of Conservation of Energy.  If it's absorbed it has to go somewhere.  Statistically half should get emitted out into space and the rest toward earth.  What would it do but add to the heat load.  Your turn.


----------



## JoeNormal (Nov 17, 2014)

jc456 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Tell me in your own words what makes a greenhouse gas a greenhouse gas.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > exactly, there are no records that show that any CO2 does anything to climate or temperatures.  Once you can provide that link that shows 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to climate we can finish the discussion, until then, you are pushing a red herring.
> ...


 See the facts are CO2 is logarithmic and as such the more CO2 does not affect climate.  So you can either show your experiment that proves your point or accept defeat on the challenge.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...


 do you not know?


----------



## JoeNormal (Nov 17, 2014)

jc456 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Yes, I do.  I'd like to see if you do.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...


 Why, do I pose an issue for you? Or, can you show the experiment that shows what adding 120 PPM of CO2 does to climate?  You got that one?  See once you provide me that, I will gladly answer your question.


----------



## konradv (Nov 17, 2014)

jc456 said:


> See the facts are CO2 is logarithmic and as such the more CO2 does not affect climate.  So you can either show your experiment that proves your point or accept defeat on the challenge.



Just because it's logarithmic, doesn't mean there's no effect.  CO2 has gone up 30-40% since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, depending on whose numbers you use.  On a logarithmic scale that's approximately 11-15%.  I think you need to show that that isn't significant.  I've proven that CO2 absorbs energy and that the increase is non-trivial.  I think it's your turn to prove something.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2014)

konradv said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > See the facts are CO2 is logarithmic and as such the more CO2 does not affect climate.  So you can either show your experiment that proves your point or accept defeat on the challenge.
> ...


 So prove your point!


----------



## JoeNormal (Nov 17, 2014)

jc456 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You come off in typical denier fashion - long on vitriol and short on fact.  And if you knew ANYTHING about science, you'd know that there can never be a single experiment that shows what adding 120 ppm to the atmosphere will do under real world conditions.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...


right!!!!!!

Edit:  BTW, Herr Koch did one in 1901. Go look for it.  It backs my side.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 17, 2014)

But that shows that you fail hard at the science. Which is nothing new. We've explained why you failed, but sadly, you're far too stupid to understand it. It doesn't help that your cult commands you to not understand the science.

What you do need to understand is that your kook beliefs don't change reality. No matter how stupid you get, the physics don't change, and the world is still warming. You'll keep screaming that it can't be so, but the world doesn't care. The only thing your conspiracy nuttery affects is how many strokes you'll get in the denier cult circle jerk rituals.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 17, 2014)

mamooth said:


> But that shows that you fail hard at the science. Which is nothing new. We've explained why you failed, but sadly, you're far too stupid to understand it. It doesn't help that your cult commands you to not understand the science.
> 
> What you do need to understand is that your kook beliefs don't change reality. No matter how stupid you get, the physics don't change, and the world is still warming. You'll keep screaming that it can't be so, but the world doesn't care. The only thing your conspiracy nuttery affects is how many strokes you'll get in the denier cult circle jerk rituals.


 Did you tape record that?  you need to listen to it daily 24 by 7 by 365, that will  enlighten you!!


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 17, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



During the entire history of man on this Earth, the Arctic has NEVER been free of ice.  Using your logic, because the Earth once had an atmosphere with no oxygen, the Earth would be fine if it had no oxygen in the future.  Well, that may be true for the Earth, but not for it's inhabitants.  According to the IUCN, there are currently 22,413 at risk of going extinct, largely because of the activities of man on this planet.  Many, such as the Bluefin Tuna and Atlantic Cod, are an important food source for millions. Overfishing and climate change are wreaking havoc on marine ecosystems, and you think that is peachy keen.  And I suspect that your children, and their children will know who to blame in the future.  And it won't be people like me, that's for sure.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 17, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.  Congratulations, asshole.  What your response tells us is that you don't subscribe to the scientific method.  And that puts your posts squarely outside of the purview of these conversations, since we are talking about science, not skullduggery.

Cheers,


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



OK, Buddy Boy, name one Scientific Society in the world, one National Academy of Science, or one major University that states that AGW is wrong. If all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policy statements that state AGW is real, then one would have to say there is a pretty strong consensus.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 17, 2014)

Redfish said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Asshole, provide a link to your claims or stand branded a liar. Show who and how the claims about humans and CO2 have been disproven several times. I mean, we only have all the records of the coal are petroleum burned for the last century.


----------



## konradv (Nov 17, 2014)

jc456 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Just because CO2's effect is logarithmic, doesn't mean there's no effect.  CO2 has gone up 30-40% since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, depending on whose numbers you use.  On a logarithmic scale that's approximately 11-15%.  I think you need to show that that isn't significant.  I've proven that CO2 absorbs energy and that the increase is non-trivial.  I think it's your turn to prove something.
> ...


It's your turn.  I feel I've shown CO2 can have an effect.  So far you haven't proven anything.  You keep talking about some guy proving your point, but we haven't seen the goods.  Either tell us what his proof is or give us a cite.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 18, 2014)

konradv said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


 

water vapor has more of a radiation blocking effect than CO2.   Do you fools want to ban water next?


----------



## Redfish (Nov 18, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


 

When you can provide proof that the acts of humans caused the last ice age (climate change) we can talk,  until then you might as well just sit in front of your algore alter and pray to your prophet.


----------



## Saigon (Nov 18, 2014)

The myth: 



Redfish said:


> BTW, the US is seeing record cold temps this year,



The reality:

You may have heard that September 2014 was the warmest September ever recorded and that the past six months were the hottest April through September in 130 years of records. NASA Earth Observatory readers sometimes ask: How much does it matter when a monthly or yearly temperature record is broken? And where does global temperature data come from?

For instance, the map above depicts temperature anomalies, or changes from the norm, between April and September 2014; it does not show absolute temperatures. Reds and blues show how much warmer or cooler each area was during that period in 2014 compared to an averaged base period of the same months from 1951–1980.







NASA GISS Research Features Rising Temperatures A Month Versus a Decade


----------



## Redfish (Nov 18, 2014)

Saigon said:


> The myth:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


and in your small mind a 6 month variation proves climate change?   OK,  sure,  now take that paxil and go back to sleep.


----------



## Saigon (Nov 18, 2014)

Redfish - 

Your claim is false. 

The global trend shows clear warming. 

You made two claims on page one of this thread. Both have been proven to be false. 

If you're smart - you will adjust your position so that it is backed by facts.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 18, 2014)

*Here you go;*

*Berkeley Earth*

*Global land temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years*
Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.




Temperature, CO2, and volcano data | More recent data | High-resolution image


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 18, 2014)

Berkeley Earth

*Dr. Muller severly disappointed the deniars when he did this study.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 18, 2014)

Redfish said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Now you are one dumb corksmoker there, old boy. The CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the atmosphere, which causes the uptake of more water vapor in the atmosphere, which creates more warming.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 18, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


 

tell me dingleberry,  what % of the atmosphere is CO2?    do you have any idea?

same question for H2O, 

then tell me that your hypothesis is logical.   Hint, its not.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 18, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


 

But just for drill, lets assume that you are correct,  exactly what do you want the human beings living on planet earth to do?   give us a specific list,  not bullshit like "care about the planet"   "stop using fossil fuels"   What specifically do you and your prophet algore want humanity to do?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 18, 2014)

No hint, you are one dumb fucker. The anthropogenic CO2 in our atmosphere is over 40% of the present level of 400+ ppm. And the increase in water vapor from that increase is about 4%. You can find it in scientific literature, I don't have time to babysit another failed intellect.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 18, 2014)

Gore Rule invoked. Whoever brings up Gore first reveals themselves to be a brainless cult pissdrinker, and thus forfeits the thread for their side.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 18, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> No hint, you are one dumb fucker. The anthropogenic CO2 in our atmosphere is over 40% of the present level of 400+ ppm. And the increase in water vapor from that increase is about 4%. You can find it in scientific literature, I don't have time to babysit another failed intellect.


 

CO2 is .039% of the atmosphere.   thats less than 1/2 of one percent.    CO2 is not destroying our planet.   all plant life is dependent on CO2 for survival.

Man is not causing the climate to heat up or cool down.  

Relax, the sky is not falling, the oceans are not going to boil.

why not focus on a real problem, like pollution or over population, or ebola, or starving people in india?  

you libs have this obsession with AGW that is wasting time and money that could be spent on some real problems.

I guess the defective liberal gene is real and active.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Gore Rule invoked. Whoever brings up Gore first reveals themselves to be a brainless cult pissdrinker, and thus forfeits the thread for their side.


 

he is your prophet,  its not nice to deny your prophet.


----------



## Saigon (Nov 18, 2014)

Redfish - 

Isn't it amazing that even when you can see what side the facts and science are on - you still want to stay standing somewhere else?

There aren't many topics where people so knowingly CHOOSE to be wrong.


----------



## konradv (Nov 18, 2014)

Redfish said:


> CO2 is .039% of the atmosphere.   thats less than 1/2 of one percent.    CO2 is not destroying our planet.   all plant life is dependent on CO2 for survival.
> Man is not causing the climate to heat up or cool down.



Absolute CO2 percentage isn't what's important.  It's the increase that's the problem, ~40% since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.  The earth would be much cooler without CO2, even considering its low absolute concentration.

The goal isn't the complete elimination of CO2, but finding ways to limit its emission before catastrophic warming can take place.  Of course we need CO2.  No one's denying that.  If you want claim that humans aren't causing the earth to heat up, you'll have to explain what happens to the heat energy the added 40% absorbs.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2014)

konradv said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


 hahahaahahahaha sure you do.  You pull an end around and think yo somehow satisfied the question. nope.  You don't get off not providing anything.  Provide the link s0n.  You said you had it, so provide it!  Cat got your fingers?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2014)

konradv said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 is .039% of the atmosphere.   thats less than 1/2 of one percent.    CO2 is not destroying our planet.   all plant life is dependent on CO2 for survival.
> ...


 to which you have zero evidence will ever happen.  did you hear me ZERO EVIDENCE s0n.  You FAIL.......


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


oh  contrare. I swear by the science.  I say the sciece says that adding 120 PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere does nothing to temperatures.  Prove me wrong!!!!!! I have the experiment in 1901 Herr Koch, give me one from your argument.  Oh that's right, you can't.  yet, you just want us all to believe in ghosts and gobblins


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


 dude Herr Koch proved in 1901 that adding additional CO2 does nothing to the IR lightwaves.   Why is that so hard for you?  See your problem is you have nothing to support your claim.  You waddle on here and there about science, yet you have no scientific evidence.  You have failed models and manipulated data and you think that quantifies it for you!! haahahahaaahhaha FAIL s0n!!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Berkeley Earth
> 
> *Dr. Muller severly disappointed the deniars when he did this study.*


 I trust no data from Berkeley Earth.  It's all adjusted..............


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


 No proof.....FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 18, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument



> Some people have been arguing that simple physics shows there is already so much CO2 in the air that its effect on infrared radiation is "saturated"— meaning that adding more gas can make scarcely any difference in how much radiation gets through the atmosphere, since all the radiation is already blocked. And besides, isn’t water vapor already blocking all the infrared rays that CO2 ever would?
> 
> The arguments do sound good, so good that in fact they helped to suppress research on the greenhouse effect for half a century. In 1900, shortly after Svante Arrhenius published his pathbreaking argument that our use of fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment. He sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, containing somewhat less gas in total then would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. That’s not much, since the concentration in air is only a few hundred parts per million. Herr Koch did his experiments in a 30cm long tube, though 250cm would have been closer to the right length to use to represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Herr Koch reported that when he cut the amount of gas in the tube by one-third, the amount of radiation that got through scarcely changed. The American meteorological community was alerted to Ångström’s result in a commentary appearing in the June, 1901 issue of Monthly Weather Review, which used the result to caution "geologists" against adhering to Arrhenius’ wild ideas.
> 
> ...



To so summarize:



> So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the "saturation argument" against global warming, here’s all you need to say: (a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.
> Then you can heave a sigh, and wonder how much different the world would be today if these arguments were understood in the 1920′s, as they could well have been if anybody had thought it important enough to think through.



And finally, if you actually swore by science, you would have made an effort to keep up to date by reading current periodicals or at a minimum, taken a friggin class above the elementary school level post-WWI.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 and yet from the same document:
"
The arguments do sound good, so good that in fact they helped to suppress research on the greenhouse effect for half a century. In 1900, shortly after Svante Arrhenius published his pathbreaking argument that our use of fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment. He sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, containing somewhat less gas in total then would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. That’s not much, since the concentration in air is only a few hundred parts per million. Herr Koch did his experiments in a 30cm long tube, though 250cm would have been closer to the right length to use to represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. *Herr Koch reported that when he cut the amount of gas in the tube by one-third, the amount of radiation that got through scarcely changed*. The American meteorological community was alerted to Ångström’s result in a commentary appearing in the June, 1901 issue of Monthly Weather Review, which used the result to caution "geologists" against adhering to Arrhenius’ wild ideas.
"


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 18, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Dufus, read what comes after. Jeez.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 So I'm glad you agree, that for the most part, the entire debate is over.  The fact is that saturation happens and proved in that document as you and I point out.  So what's the problem?


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 18, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The problem is that you pulled one paragraph from the beginning of the article, and ignored everything that came after (i.e., the part that explained why Herr Koch's claim was bullshit).  What scientifically literate person (as you claim to be) does that?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 none of the rest disproved the experiment!  Seems to me if they truly believed the experiment was in error, repeat the experiment.  Nope, made some statements moved the agument to water vapor and alas, the goalposts moved.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 18, 2014)

jc, in full view of everyone, you ran from the data that destroys your bullshit pseudoscience.

Honest people don't have to run from the science. You do. 'Nuff said.

Think about it. Do you really want to spend the rest of your life choosing to lie on behalf of your cult? And it's not like you're fooling anyone. If anything, you're making people think you're part of a liars' cult. So why keep humiliating yourself?


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 18, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It shows that Koch's experiment is irrelevant to the action of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Explain this:


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc, in full view of everyone, you ran from the data that destroys your bullshit pseudoscience.
> 
> Honest people don't have to run from the science. You do. 'Nuff said.
> 
> Think about it. Do you really want to spend the rest of your life choosing to lie on behalf of your cult? And it's not like you're fooling anyone. If anything, you're making people think you're part of a liars' cult. So why keep humiliating yourself?


 What is that you state is my lie?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Holy crap batman, what the 'f' is that.  See it get's hotter in the northern hemisphere because of the shift in axis of the earth, not because of CO2.  I'm sorry, I find that video anything but evidence of something other than a kiddie show.

Here is a link, go read it...

David Archibald.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 18, 2014)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc, in full view of everyone, you ran from the data that destroys your bullshit pseudoscience.
> ...



That Koch's experiment disproves global warming, among other lies.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 18, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I didn't expect you to understand that video.  See, in order to have that capability, you must first have a brain, then have the ability to use it, and then, have some minimal science training to understand the big words.  You fail utterly in all categories.  Poor miserable you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 18, 2014)

he arguments do sound good, so good that in fact they helped to suppress research on the greenhouse effect for half a century. In 1900, shortly after Svante Arrhenius published his pathbreaking argument that our use of fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment. He sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, containing somewhat less gas in total then would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. That’s not much, since the concentration in air is only a few hundred parts per million. Herr Koch did his experiments in a 30cm long tube, though 250cm would have been closer to the right length to use to represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. *Herr Koch reported that when he cut the amount of gas in the tube by one-third, the amount of radiation that got through scarcely changed*. The American meteorological community was alerted to Ångström’s result in a commentary appearing in the June, 1901 issue of Monthly Weather Review, which used the result to caution "geologists" against adhering to Arrhenius’ wild ideas.

*Good God, JC, the sentence in red alone invalidates the whole experiment. That was supremely sloppy work.*
"


----------



## jc456 (Nov 19, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> he arguments do sound good, so good that in fact they helped to suppress research on the greenhouse effect for half a century. In 1900, shortly after Svante Arrhenius published his pathbreaking argument that our use of fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment. He sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, containing somewhat less gas in total then would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. That’s not much, since the concentration in air is only a few hundred parts per million. Herr Koch did his experiments in a 30cm long tube, though 250cm would have been closer to the right length to use to represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. *Herr Koch reported that when he cut the amount of gas in the tube by one-third, the amount of radiation that got through scarcely changed*. The American meteorological community was alerted to Ångström’s result in a commentary appearing in the June, 1901 issue of Monthly Weather Review, which used the result to caution "geologists" against adhering to Arrhenius’ wild ideas.
> 
> *Good God, JC, the sentence in red alone invalidates the whole experiment. That was supremely sloppy work.*
> "


 oh gawd, everyday and you still lose. it says would have been closer, but it doesn't say it was wrong.  So again ....FAIL..................WiNNiNg everyday on here.  Me, the nonscientist, and they can't beat me.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 19, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 yeah because it is something made while on crack.  Me personally don't use the stuff so it would be hard for me to grasp its intent.  Which you don't even know.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 19, 2014)

More kook losing: The two main USA school textbook publishers agree to remove denier nonsense from their textbooks.

Second Texas Textbook Publisher Drops Climate-Denial Entry Amid Backlash - NationalJournal.com


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 19, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I am quite certain you would know more about crack than I do.  Though it does explain your responses.  Here's some friendly advice for you -


Crisis management.

You need it.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 19, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


no worries you're not certain of anything.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 19, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I am pretty certain of the laws of physics.  How about yourself?


----------



## Crick (Nov 19, 2014)

JC, did you have the sound turned off when you watched that video?


----------



## Redfish (Nov 20, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 

record cold temps all over the world this week.   Global warming is real.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 20, 2014)

Redfish said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Really?  You really want to argue about the weather and call it climate?  Facepalm, dude.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2014)

fishy
record cold temps all over the world this week. Global warming is real
.............................................................................................................................

*Well fishy, all over the world?*

Heat Wave Continues for Brazil Paraguay Bolivia

Southern Brazil, Paraguay and Bolivia remain in the midst of a baking and, for some, record heat wave.

Temperatures in southern Brazil, Paraguay and Bolivia will continue to soar 6 to 12 C (10 to 20 F) above normal through Saturday as cooling thunderstorms remain absent.

This includes in Asuncion in Paraguay, Santa Cruz de la Sierra in Bolivia and Sao Paulo in Brazil. Rio de Janeiro will heat up this weekend.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2014)

*Cookies must be enabled. The Australian

TEMPERATURES are forecast to reach 38C in Sydney today, and up to 40C in the west, as NSW braces itself for the sweltering heat.*

The mercury had already soared past 30C in the CBD by 9am in what could be the hottest November day in four years. The average temperature for this time of year is 25C.

Severe fire danger warnings have been issued for the greater Sydney region, north western and central ranges, upper central west plains and greater hunter.

*Hmmmmmmmmm.............................*


----------



## jc456 (Nov 21, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *Cookies must be enabled. The Australian
> 
> TEMPERATURES are forecast to reach 38C in Sydney today, and up to 40C in the west, as NSW braces itself for the sweltering heat.*
> 
> ...


 hahaahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahhahahaahahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaahahahahahaha


----------



## jc456 (Nov 21, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> fishy
> record cold temps all over the world this week. Global warming is real
> .............................................................................................................................
> 
> ...


 hmmmm .....again, not sure where you get your news.

*South America Weather Conditions*

*Barranquilla*
86°

*Belem*
88°

*Belo Horizonte*
82°

*Bogota*
64°

*Brasilia*
84°

*Buenos Aires*
70°

*Cali*
79°

*Caracas*
76°

*Cordoba*
72°

*Curitiba*
73°

*Fortaleza*
82°

*Goiania*
88°

*Guayaquil*
79°

*Lima*
70°

*Maceio*
88°

*Montevideo*
68°

*Quito*
63°

*Rio de Janeiro*
79°

*Santiago*
66°

Oh and it is raining in Paraguay


----------



## jc456 (Nov 21, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *Cookies must be enabled. The Australian
> 
> TEMPERATURES are forecast to reach 38C in Sydney today, and up to 40C in the west, as NSW braces itself for the sweltering heat.*
> 
> ...


 Hmmmmmmmmm.......................................
 link


----------



## Redfish (Nov 21, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Cookies must be enabled. The Australian
> ...


 

record cold some places, record heat in others.   in other words,  normal.  

Man is not changing the climate of our planet.   But if you want to believe it, go right ahead.   move to the woods, live under a tree and eat worms,   save the planet-------------idiot.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 21, 2014)

Redfish said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 that was addressed to the old guy scrocks, right?


----------



## Redfish (Nov 21, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 

yes, it was,  sorry if I wasn't clear.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 21, 2014)

Redfish said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 NP, just wanted to check.  You responded on my post.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 21, 2014)

Redfish said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Nov 21, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 hahahahahahahahaha great post.  It is exactly what you all feel.  We know that you can't provide that one simple experiment, and that you're fnn tired of us questioning the fact that the statement isn't is there climate change, it is if climate change is caused by humans.  Standing in front of sixteen people dropping 'f' bombs doesn't change any facts.  And the real fact is you have no proof of your idiotic claim.  So, 'f' me, well 'f' you!!!!


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 21, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



It is, largely, what many feel, particularly within the scientific community.  And jc, you are no scientist, that much is clear to everyone.  So when you decide to get off your fat arse and get a real education, you will be doing yourself, and everyone else a favor.  Until then, frac off.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 21, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 Well I've stated many times on here that I am not. I am a concerned citizen of the US, and as such I have every right to ask the question I do.  The problem is, the scientists can't produce.  Now, why is that on me?  Why is it I found a hole in their plan?  Because I use my brain and I ask questions when something doesn't smell right.  And this stinks to high heavens.  So you can post all your mumbo jumbo science crap, but what you can't post is the experiment that shows 120 PPM of CO2 affecting temperatures.  Until you or they do, I WiN!!!!!! In other words the story is a bust because there is no evidence to support the claim.  But hey, you keep wondering if I'm a scientist or not.  hah.......


----------



## Redfish (Nov 21, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 



right, man-made climate change is a hoax and those who support it are frauds.   You will never convince them of their stupidity any more than you will convince a muslim that God does not want him to kill all non-muslims.    Thats the way it is with religions, and AGW is a religion


----------



## mamooth (Nov 21, 2014)

We really try to help the deniers here.

Why? Because we hate to see the mentally handicapped get taken advantage of. That's just not right, to manipulate the low-IQ denier crowd for personal and political gain.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> We really try to help the deniers here.
> 
> Why? Because we hate to see the mentally handicapped get taken advantage of. That's just not right, to manipulate the low-IQ denier crowd for personal and political gain.


 hahahahaahahahahahahhahha..now that is special!!!!!!


----------



## Redfish (Nov 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> We really try to help the deniers here.
> 
> Why? Because we hate to see the mentally handicapped get taken advantage of. That's just not right, to manipulate the low-IQ denier crowd for personal and political gain.


 

deniers?   nope, just intelligent human beings who are capable of logical rational thinking.

But if you want to be a member of the AGW cult and follow the prophet algore, go right ahead,   There is no law against being stupid.

mentally handicapped?    do a google search on the defective liberal gene,   you might learn something about your disease.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 22, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The problem is not that scientists aren't producing.  The problem is that idiots like you who aren't qualified to  wipe their arses are hindering their efforts with your politicizing their every finding.  And yes you have every right to ask questions, INFORMED questions.  And until you do, you are wasting everyone's time.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 22, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 

the AGW prophet algore said that by now there would be no arctic sea ice and half of florida would be under water.   Do we really have to wonder why anyone questions the AGW religion?


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 22, 2014)

Redfish said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Gee, that's the first time I've heard that snide remark.  Oh wait...


----------



## Redfish (Nov 22, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 

funny how the truth keeps popping up, isn't it?


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 22, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...





lol.........tough shit on you s0n!! Get used to it.......not going away like...............ever. Which is exactly why your "consensus" science is not mattering ANYWHERE in the real world. Nobody is giving a fuck about the science in 2014 and every single energy projection decades out from now show renewables still being in the fringe shithole end of the spectrum!!!

We are loving idiot status s0n!!! Academic intellectual bs is...............and you can go right on with the pompous arrogance. At the end of the day though...............




Dang.....every time I play that vid above ^^ and think of the AGW assholes, I swear......I laugh my balls off.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 22, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



And that is exatly what this is about, isn't it?  Fossil fuelers are deathly afraid of the competition so they make up a non-existent "scientific" controversy in an attempt to stifle that competition.  And they are willing to take down the planet in order to do it.  Well tough titties, bitch.  Alternative energy is happening - right now.  Get used to it


----------



## mamooth (Nov 22, 2014)

We don't have to ask if skook got beat up on the playground. It's clear even the girls beat skook up on the playground.

Not all deniers are skook-type sissies, but most crying sissies are deniers. The cult attracts that type.


----------



## Vigilante (Nov 22, 2014)




----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 22, 2014)

mamooth said:


> We don't have to ask if skook got beat up on the playground. It's clear even the girls beat skook up on the playground.
> 
> Not all deniers are skook-type sissies, but most crying sissies are deniers. The cult attracts that type.



^ Uses "Mann's Nature Trick" to Hide the Decline


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 22, 2014)

Vigilante said:


>



As if solar cells kill birds.  How stupid is that???


----------



## Yarddog (Nov 22, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Are you seriously going to peddle that erumor? Now, before you start spewing at me about being a liberal who believes in Goebbal's Warming, Im not either. But there is certainly a debate going on in the science and using this type of shit only makes the alarmists look more intelligent.
> 
> it's damaging.




well, what part of that is a lie?


----------



## Vigilante (Nov 22, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



I see you are on a par with Franco in intelligence.....you want to know how STUPID you are.... how about 900 DEGREES stupid!!!


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 22, 2014)

Vigilante said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



Solar cells do not harm birds.  Solar reflectors do.  What are depicted in the cartoon are solar cell panels.  But since you "publicans" are so concerned for the welfare of birds, how many of you have our cat(s) spayed or nutered and kept in doors so they don't kill birds?  Because domestic cats kill far more birds than any human activitiy.  And yet you people don't seem to be concerned at all about that fact.


----------



## cultsmasher (Nov 22, 2014)

Redfish said:


> *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.
> 
> ...


  Redfish,
  On average, all of the earth's volcanoes each year put out an estimated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere.  Each year, the activities of humans are responsible for putting out 26.8 Billion tons.  Here are some graph to look at.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 23, 2014)

cultsmasher said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > *Where does Carbon Dioxide really come from?
> ...


 

as I  have said several times,  if you want to believe that man is changing the climate of the planet earth by using fossil fuels, go right ahead and believe it.  

The facts are:
1. CO2 is not a pollutant
2. CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere
3. there are no renewable energy sources that can currently replace fossil fuels
4. we should be looking for alternatives
5. the AGW religion is making the USA more dependent on the ragheads that hate us
6. the climate of earth has been changing for millions of years
7. the climate of earth will be changing millions of years from now
8. man has never had anything to do with it
9. Pollution is a real problem,  pollution is bad, pollution does not cause climate change
10. the prophet algore LIED to you.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 23, 2014)

Saigon said:


> The myth:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The out put of a MODEL without basis in reality. with all the added adjustments they have made over the years...  Garbage!


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 23, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > The myth:
> ...



Models are small facsimilies of the real thing.  As such, they certainly do have a basis in reality.  Even NASA uses models when designing spaceships and missions.  If they didn't, they'd be back in the 1950s with you.


----------



## Saigon (Nov 23, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> The out put of a MODEL without basis in reality. with all the added adjustments they have made over the years... Garbage!



Then look at real world measurements - look at glaciers, rising sea levels or the melting Arctic Ice. 

But no - you're happy with your head in the sand and your fingers in your ears, fantasising about politics.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 24, 2014)




----------



## Redfish (Nov 24, 2014)

Kosh said:


>


 

yes, in the minds of members of the AGW cult, actual temp measurements are inaccurate and fantasy models are gospel.

and, they also miss that we are talking about tenths of a degree.  which could be a calibration error either way.

its a joke,  but lets all move into the forest and eat worms to save the planet.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The out put of a MODEL without basis in reality. with all the added adjustments they have made over the years... Garbage!
> ...


 where?


----------



## Redfish (Nov 24, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The out put of a MODEL without basis in reality. with all the added adjustments they have made over the years... Garbage!
> ...


 

funny,  but real world measurements do not support your religious ferver.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2014)

Redfish said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


 so I still haven't seen what the next gen equipment is that is mattering in the world today.  I see discussions about money, but still unclear how money controls the atmosphere!  I know CO2 doesn't, and to date, still no experiment.  So what is their solution?  What is the get out of jail card?  Where is it?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The out put of a MODEL without basis in reality. with all the added adjustments they have made over the years... Garbage!
> ...


so what?  So what are you going to do about it?  Where are you with the next gen solution?  Where is it?  Why is Germany going back to Coal if things are moving forward to replace it?  You fail everyday on here because you have no solutions, all you have are statements made and altered graphs.  When in reality the top country, the US is colder than average for the last 18 years.  So, so what are you doing about it?


----------



## Redfish (Nov 24, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


 

exactly, not one liberal will tell you what it is that they want mankind to do. 

here's a chance libs,   tell us specifically what you want the people of planet earth to do to save the planet from "climate change"


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2014)

Redfish said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 BTW, I hate freacken cold weather!!!! I hate it.  I want global warming. Where is it at?  Oh yeah, Australia.


----------



## IanC (Nov 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...




a cartoon doesnt have to be factually correct, it has to get the point across in a concise and hopefully funny manner. this one did.

deflection to domestic cats is pretty lame in a conversation about global warming.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


Models are only as accurate as knowing all the variables.  We are not even close to having all of earths "variables" thus the models are crap! Hell these people use a static number for water vapor which can change by 70% in minuets over large areas.  Not modeling the 95% of GHG's is a fools errand!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2014)

Saigon said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The out put of a MODEL without basis in reality. with all the added adjustments they have made over the years... Garbage!
> ...



Fascinating, look at real world measurement unadjusted by the men purporting the lie show COOLING!






I wonder why NOAA and NASA are hiding USCRN data from view....  Because it shows their adjustments lies...


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 26, 2014)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...



Except that the point in the cartoon was that solar power cells kill birds.  Except that they don't.  So the only thing funny about it was how ill-informed the author is about solar power and how silly it is that people like you find it to be funny.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 26, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Have you ever used one of these models (or any scientific model, for that matter)?


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 26, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Wattsup?  Really? Bhwahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 nope, it was funny!!!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


 what's up Doc to you!


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 26, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Which proves my point,  Thank you.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 26, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



That you people believe the nonsense posted by a politically drive former dj over that of real scientists would be funny as hell if it wasn't such a sad statement on the condition of our edu(ma)cation system.


----------



## IanC (Nov 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



no, the point is that some forms of renewables like solar collectors and wind farms kill birds. you cannot show those to scale so the artist depicted solar panels. the cartoon is funny and easily understandable. the snow is a wonderful touch.


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 28, 2014)

IanC said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



If that were true, the author would have depicted solar collectors and wind farms.  I don't see those depicted in this cartoon.  Do you?  Cats and power lines kill far more birds than solar collectors or wind farms.  But then, you knew that already.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 

windmills kill birds, idiot.   the cartoon was poking fun at the entire hypocrisy of the alternate power zealots.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I have used many models and once they are proven failure I move on. The predictive stage is always enlightening.  Out of 126 models NONE of them pass the statistical analysis and fail.  Every single climate model to date fails.


 

Having morons want to stop fossil fuel use on a model that is not predictive of anything is a fools errand. Note that this graph indicates IPCC model C or the lowest predictive sets of models. All other models in both the A and B sets are so grossly out of line they are considered outliers when challenged against reality.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



One hell of a lot more reliable than Wiki or SKS..


----------



## orogenicman (Nov 30, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Oh really?  What models have you used?  What code was used to create the models?  Can you provide the database you used to create these models you claim to have used?  Or are you confused and thought today was make up shit Thursday?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



How about you and fagetti hair ball show me what 120ppm has done. Be specific and show how you determined mans contribution, how it has affected climactic systems, and how you determined what effect it had.

I'll wait...  Ive asked this of every single alarmist on this board and to date not one of the little alarmists have produced even a wiff of science. They have produced a whole lot of shit and smelly crap but not a lick of science.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2014)

*Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks*

Josep G. Canadell a , b , 
Corinne Le Quéré c , d , 
Michael R. Raupach a , 
Christopher B. Field e ,
Erik T. Buitenhuis c , 
Philippe Ciais f , 
Thomas J. Conway g , 
Nathan P. Gillett c , 
R. A. Houghton h , and
Gregg Marland i , j
Author Affiliations


Edited by William C. Clark, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved September 17, 2007 (received for review March 27, 2007)


Abstract
Full Text
Authors & Info
Figures
SI
Metrics
Related Content
PDF
PDF + SI

*Abstract*
The growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), the largest human contributor to human-induced climate change, is increasing rapidly. Three processes contribute to this rapid increase. Two of these processes concern emissions. Recent growth of the world economy combined with an increase in its carbon intensity have led to rapid growth in fossil fuel CO2 emissions since 2000: comparing the 1990s with 2000–2006, the emissions growth rate increased from 1.3% to 3.3% _y_ −1. The third process is indicated by increasing evidence (_P_ = 0.89) for a long-term (50-year) increase in the airborne fraction (AF) of CO2emissions, implying a decline in the efficiency of CO2 sinks on land and oceans in absorbing anthropogenic emissions. Since 2000, the contributions of these three factors to the increase in the atmospheric CO2growth rate have been ≈65 ± 16% from increasing global economic activity, 17 ± 6% from the increasing carbon intensity of the global economy, and 18 ± 15% from the increase in AF. An increasing AF is consistent with results of climate–carbon cycle models, but the magnitude of the observed signal appears larger than that estimated by models. All of these changes characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected and sooner-than-expected climate forcing.

*Real scientists research, not flap-yap pulled out of your asshole, Billy Boob.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2014)

*Long-term observations of atmospheric CO2 and carbon isotopes at continental sites in Germany - LEVIN - 2002 - Tellus B - Wiley Online Library

Long-term observations of atmospheric CO2 and carbon isotopes at continental sites in Germany

INGEBORG LEVIN†, 
ROLF. GRAUL and
1 NEIL B. A. TRIVETT 2
*

*Abstract*
A network for regional atmospheric CO2 observations had already been established in Germany by 1972, consisting of 5 stations with basically different characteristics: Westerland, a coastal station at the North Sea, 2 regional stations, Waldhof and Deuselbach, as well as 2 mountain stations, Brotjacklriegel at the eastern boarder of Germany and Schauinsland in the Black Forest. In addition to CO2concentration observations, from 1977 onwards quasi-continuous 13CO2 and 14CO2 measurements were performed on samples from the Schauinsland site, and for the short period 1985-1988, 14CO2 measurements were also made on Westerland samples. CO2 data selection based on wind velocity allows for an estimate of the representative continental CO2 level over Europe. The peak-to-peak amplitude of the seasonal cycles is between 12.1 ppmv (Schauinsland) and 17.6 ppmv (Waldhof). The phase of the seasonal cycles at the German sites is shifted if compared to maritime background sites with the concentration maxima occuring already between beginning of February and beginning of April, the minima in August. The long-term mean CO2 increase rate in the last 20 years at Westerland and Schauinsland is 1.49 and 1.48 ppmv yr−1, respectively. The mean δ13C of the seasonal source CO2 at Schauinsland is calculated from unselected δ13C and CO2 data to be − 25.1‰. From the 14C observations in unselected CO2, we derive yearly mean fossil fuel contributions at Westerland of 4 ppmv, and at Schauinsland of only 2.5 ppmv. Based on the seasonality of the fossil fuel CO2 component at Schauinsland and on concurrently observed atmospheric 222Radon activities, we derive a seasonal amplitude of the fossil fuel CO2source which is higher by a factor of 3 compared to emission estimates for Europe.

*Of course, these are real scientists writing these articles, not internet pretenders like you, Billy Boob.*


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 that it was funny, I agree!!!!


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 1, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



that people like you find it to be funny.

Thanks for playing.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 yep because we have  a sense of humor.  You should invest in one.


----------



## Roadrunner (Dec 1, 2014)

TakeAStepBack said:


> Are you seriously going to peddle that erumor? Now, before you start spewing at me about being a liberal who believes in Goebbal's Warming, Im not either. But there is certainly a debate going on in the science and using this type of shit only makes the alarmists look more intelligent.
> 
> it's damaging.


AGW theorists, crypto-zoologists, ancient alien theorists; birds of a feather.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 1, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> > Are you seriously going to peddle that erumor? Now, before you start spewing at me about being a liberal who believes in Goebbal's Warming, Im not either. But there is certainly a debate going on in the science and using this type of shit only makes the alarmists look more intelligent.
> ...



AGW denialists, hollower Earthers, Flat Earthers, Creationists; bird of a feather.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 1, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > TakeAStepBack said:
> ...


 hahahahhaahaahahhaha the patent post when one doesn't have any answers.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 1, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks*
> 
> Josep G. Canadell a , b ,
> Corinne Le Quéré c , d ,
> ...





Old Rocks said:


> *Long-term observations of atmospheric CO2 and carbon isotopes at continental sites in Germany - LEVIN - 2002 - Tellus B - Wiley Online Library*
> 
> *Long-term observations of atmospheric CO2 and carbon isotopes at continental sites in Germany*
> 
> ...



The thing about the Null Hypothesis is that EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE  trumps all the models in the world.


> There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees.* It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.*



Given Natural variation there is no warming to attribute to CO2..


----------



## Redfish (Dec 2, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks*
> ...


 

it was never about man made global warming or climate change,  it was about governmental control over how people live.   The liberal mind cannot tolerate freedom.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 2, 2014)

Redfish said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The government controls many aspects of your life, whether or not you want it to.  You are not allowed to murder.  You are not allowed to steal.  You are not allowed to do a lot of things.  Freedom is not a free pass to negatively impact the lives of others.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 2, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


 Federal government or local and state?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 2, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Yes.  You didn't know this?  Huh.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> The government controls many aspects of your life, whether or not you want it to.  You are not allowed to murder.  You are not allowed to steal.  You are not allowed to do a lot of things.  Freedom is not a free pass to negatively impact the lives of others.



I suppose you are blissfully unaware that government now controls all aspects of your life.  You can prove me wrong by naming 3 things that you may now do without government interference at either the local, state or federal level without going into the most mundane aspects of your life.  Lets hear them.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 2, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 I wondered if you did.  My issue is not with local or state interference, it is the federal that I have problems with.


----------



## Redfish (Dec 2, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


 

should each of us be able to decide what kind of light bulbs to use and how much water comes out of our shower head?  

murder and stealing are moral issues,   light bulbs and shower heads are control issues.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 2, 2014)

Ah yes, when we all use just as much electricity as we want, and the brownouts start, then the grid goes down, we are all free to have no electricity. Except for those folks who were smart enough to ignore idiots like you and put in their own solar or wind. And when we all use as much water as we want, and the resevoir goes dry, then we are all free to do without water. You are a fucked up moron, Redfish. There are already several states with cities that are very low on water.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 2, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



So to be clear, you are anti-U.S.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 2, 2014)

Redfish said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Last time I was at Lowes, there were at least 100 different or more types of light bulbs.  Seems to me there are plenty from which to choose.

So you don't mind legislating morality as long as it doesn't involve taking away your "right" to waste profuse amounts of energy on inefficient product.  Got it.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 2, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 So to be clear, I am against federal government involvement in my day to day life, yes!!!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 2, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


to avoid being killed by toxic mercury, yeah!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Dec 2, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah yes, when we all use just as much electricity as we want, and the brownouts start, then the grid goes down, we are all free to have no electricity. Except for those folks who were smart enough to ignore idiots like you and put in their own solar or wind. And when we all use as much water as we want, and the resevoir goes dry, then we are all free to do without water. You are a fucked up moron, Redfish. There are already several states with cities that are very low on water.


 where has that happened at?  let's see those facts laid out with evidence.  Most electrical draw is from furnaces and air conditioning units.  so How good are those, how about TVs, refrigeraters, ovens/stove/ multi- room homes, and while we're here your recourse is to have everyone die!!!


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 2, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Did you support the EPA when it decreased the allowable level of mercury in our waters?  Do you support the EPA - at all?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 2, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You must live a miserable existence if this is what you worry about each and every day.  You do realize that National fire safety standards is a federal government intrusion into your life, right?  you realize that OSHA standards are intruding on your life each and every day, right?  Along with stardards that require safe underground storage tanks at your local gas station, right?  As well, as protecting you from foreign invaders - every day.  But to be clear, you are an ungrateful, anti-American.  Got it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 2, 2014)

Now JC, you flap-yap without ever showing your sources of information. There are many, many sources for information concerning the water shortages in the US.





*All Around The US, Risks Of A Water Crisis Are Much Bigger Than People Realize*




GRACE WYLER

 

MAY 22, 2013, 3:58 PM
With about half of the country still suffering from extreme drought, farmers and businesses in the Western United States are looking at another hot, dry summer. 

And the country's water risk is a lot worse than most assessments suggest, according to a recent study from the Columbia University Water Center. 

Taking into account past patterns of drought and water use, the Columbia study reveals that several major metro areas, including New York City, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, are at high risk for water scarcity, along with the Great Plains agricultural belt extending from North and South Dakota down to North Texas. 









Read more: America s Water Problem Is Way Worse Than Everybody Thinks - Business Insider

*Now why don't you post how that is not a problem?*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 2, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Now JC, you flap-yap without ever showing your sources of information. There are many, many sources for information concerning the water shortages in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How moronic!


----------



## PredFan (Dec 2, 2014)

Scientists who debunk AGW aren't real scientists.
It was Global Warming, until there wasn't any, then it was Climate Change, but that isn't fooling anyone, so they changed it to Climate Disruption, but no one is using that so it's back to Climate Change again.
The answer to Global Warming is socialism.
Climate is climate unless it disagrees, then it's weather.
The AGW faithful are allowed to cherry pick, but the deniers are not.
If there's flooding, it's climate change.
If there is drought, it's climate change.
If it's cold, it's climate change.
If it's warm, it's climate change.
If there is snow, it's climate change.
No snow? It's climate change.
If there are lots of storms, it's climate change.
If there are no storms, it's climate change.
Wildfires, it's climate change.
Mudslides, it's climate change.
Rising rivers, it's climate change.
Rivers drying up, it's climate change.
Earthquakes, it's climate change.
Volcanos, it's climate change.
Stub your toe, it's climate change.
Girlfriend leaves you, it's climate change.


----------



## Redfish (Dec 2, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah yes, when we all use just as much electricity as we want, and the brownouts start, then the grid goes down, we are all free to have no electricity. Except for those folks who were smart enough to ignore idiots like you and put in their own solar or wind. And when we all use as much water as we want, and the resevoir goes dry, then we are all free to do without water. You are a fucked up moron, Redfish. There are already several states with cities that are very low on water.


 
they are not low because some people are using "more than their fair share" of water,   they are low because there are too many people.

If you want to take on a real problem, why not take on over population?

conservation is great,   conservation is a derivative of conservative.   Government mandated conservation is taking away freedom.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 2, 2014)

PredFan said:


> Scientists who debunk AGW aren't real scientists.
> It was Global Warming, until there wasn't any, then it was Climate Change, but that isn't fooling anyone, so they changed it to Climate Disruption, but no one is using that so it's back to Climate Change again.
> The answer to Global Warming is socialism.
> Climate is climate unless it disagrees, then it's weather.
> ...



Sig Heil!


----------



## Redfish (Dec 2, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 

yep, hundreds of kinds of expensive dangerous bulbs made in china, but not one incandesent bulb made in the USA.   What progress----------------------------------------------


----------



## Redfish (Dec 2, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists who debunk AGW aren't real scientists.
> ...


 

thats your line as you kowtow to obama and flush your toilet twice to get all the shit to go down-----its insanity.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 2, 2014)

Redfish said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Most bulbs weren't made in the U.S. BEFORE the incandescent ban, dufus.


----------



## Redfish (Dec 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 

not true, dufus


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2014)

Redfish said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Sure it is.  Look it up, bubba.


----------



## Redfish (Dec 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 

you made the claim, you prove it, bubba.   Ever hear of GE, Westinghouse, Edison?   American companies that made incondescent bulbs in the USA.

But its OK with me if you prefer the expensive hazardous chinese ones.   Enjoy the mercury vapors if you break one.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 I was never afraid of nature, I am of the EPA, yep!!!!


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2014)

Redfish said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Yes they do make bulbs.  But the bulk of the bulbs sold here in the states were cheap chinese bulbs.  Now the new ones are made primarily here.  Which means more jobs here, bubba.


----------



## Redfish (Dec 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 

You lefties need to understand the difference between man made pollution and man made climtate change.   pollution is real and should be drastically reduced,  climate change is a hoax.

if you fools would concentrate on the real problem, we might make some progress.


----------



## Redfish (Dec 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 

nothing in your last post is true.  Go to home depot and check where all of the bulbs are made.   Hint, it ain't the USA.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 3, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Now JC, you flap-yap without ever showing your sources of information. There are many, many sources for information concerning the water shortages in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


what is it you need from me as a source?  The fact is most of the mumbo jumbo you pop up on the message board is just that, mumbo jumbo.  I've told you that over and over.  Now what is it you need to see from me?  Why Lake Mead is low on water?  Dude, it's simple, go back to the number of people who used the lake when it was created and look today.  I don't need a link, you need to use your stupid head and realize that thousands upon thousands of people migrated to the area to use that water therefore, the lake will most likely loose water.  Doh, isn't that what is happening?  It has very little to do with some drought.  Again, I don't need a link to do the math.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2014)

Redfish said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Much of the CO2 emissions come from exhaust and stack emissions that also contain those pollutants you are so concerned about.  The real problem is people like you who fight tooth and nail against any solutions like a child who refuses to eat his peas.  Grow up.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 3, 2014)

Redfish said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 hahahahaahahahahahahhaahahaha.............Nicely done!!!!!


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now JC, you flap-yap without ever showing your sources of information. There are many, many sources for information concerning the water shortages in the US.
> ...



It has everything to do with the drought AND the number of people using it.  The reduction in the water level at lakes and reservoirs in the west is caused by both, but the drought has made it far worse than it ever could be by the number of people using it alone.  And it will get a lot worse before it gets better, if ever.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


  is fighting any new solutions?  show that to us.  You all have magic and bad inventions that don't work.  Not sure what that has to do with someone interfering with progress.  Name something that has been interfered with.


----------



## Redfish (Dec 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 

first of all CO2 is not a pollutant.   it is the natural bi product of animal life,  plants need it to survive.  it is not destroying the world.

The crap polluting china, india, and most of the third world is not CO2.

again, until you guys get over the obsession with CO2, nothing constructive can be done about real pollution.

and, for the record, pollution does not cause climate change.   There is absolutely no proof for that left wing fantasy.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



If I had magic, I could turn people like you into a cute little turtle and our problems would be solved.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


  that is total nonsense.  The fact is the people put grass and golf courses and many other things that use up that water.  Does drought affect the water table?  Yeah, probably, but it is not the major reason for the low water table.  People upon people!!!!!!!!


----------



## Redfish (Dec 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 

drought come and go,  overpopulation is here to stay.   people do not cause droughts, but people do cause more people.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 I knew common sense was lost on you!!! That' why you need people like me gone right?  Typical left wing nutjob!!!!!Booo, did I scare you?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2014)

Redfish said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Yes, it actually is a pollutant.  It is also toxic at moderately high concentrations.  The solution for CO2 and the other pollutants to which you refer is the same - reduce emissions.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 You do know that CO2 is not a pollutant right?  Please tell me you know this.  You can't be that stupid, or can you.  Vote is out!!!!


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Dude, I'm a former hydrogeologist by vocation, so trust me when I say that you don't know what you are talking about.  The combination of heavy usage and multiyear drough conditions are the ONLY reasons why these reservoirs in the west are drying up.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 facepalm, that's all I have for this post, facepalm dude..................................Oh well, stupid is holding on.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 N O P E


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Well, you are living proof of that, Just Crazy.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 3, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 so you're not going to answer with what sources you need from me?  So you come on here and make a statement about me and links and then you don't have the nut sack to give me an example of what you need?  You're useless dude, useless.  ahahhhhhhhhhhhh


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 3, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Much of the CO2 emissions come from exhaust and stack emissions that also contain those pollutants you are so concerned about.  The real problem is people like you who fight tooth and nail against any solutions like a child who refuses to eat his peas.  Grow up.



Wrong... Try again.. 

There is a big difference between CO2 and Soot... CO2 is not pollution where soot is. The US power generation plants have cleaned up over 95% of the soot and trace mercury that was placed up stacks during burn. NG has reduced the overall soot by another 3% from homes.  The US as a whole has one of the lowest soot and trace lead/mercury/other harmful items in the world.  Smog and Ozone are also the lowest in the world. 

The alarmists need to pull their heads out of their asses and realize killing our way of life and our economy only serves the communists who wish to rule us.. FUCK THAT!


----------



## Crick (Dec 3, 2014)

Do they have regular meetings?  The Communists.  Secret hand shakes? Groupies?  Magic Decoder Rings?


----------



## Redfish (Dec 4, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 

how did the actions of humans cause the dust bowl of the 1930s?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> Do they have regular meetings?  The Communists.  Secret hand shakes? Groupies?  Magic Decoder Rings?


 Well?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 4, 2014)

Redfish said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The dust bowl was caused by local farmers using plows that were unsuited to the soil type.  Those plows dug too deeply into the soil, which was then blown away by winds under drought conditions.  The result was that the productive soil layer was blown away.


----------



## Redfish (Dec 4, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 

'
Bwahahahahaha.    you are totally full of shit.   There was a long period of low rainfall.   It had nothing to do with fucking plows.   Damn,   you are one stupid dude.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 4, 2014)

Redfish said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Yes there was a long period of rainfall.  They call it a drought.  That is why I mentioned the "drought".  it is also true (and you can ask any USDA extension agent about this) that the settlers there, who were primarily from the east and didn't know any better, used conventional plows, which dug too deeply into the shallow soil.  And that soil was blown away, making the land useless for growing crops.  That is where all the dust came from, dude.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 4, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


where's that article sir?  I pulled up many articles and the only thing referenced in any of them was the fact that the grass was plowed under exposing more dirt, cattle grazed and ate the prairie grasses as well exposing soil.  2.5 million people left the area as a result.  Nowhere can I find what you wrote, perhaps you could show us the link? 

From the Chicago Tribune


----------



## Redfish (Dec 4, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 

he can't and won't.   libs just hate human beings and believe that they are destroying the world.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 4, 2014)

jc and redfish are only 77 years behind the basic science this time. That's better than they usually do.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 4, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc and redfish are only 77 years behind the basic science this time. That's better than they usually do.


 And still no experiment!!!!


----------



## Redfish (Dec 5, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc and redfish are only 77 years behind the basic science this time. That's better than they usually do.


 

what a bunch of crap.   What if it had rained after they plowed?   Damn, you libs are dumb creatures.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Feb 11, 2021)

OOPS !!


----------



## jc456 (Feb 11, 2021)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> OOPS !!
> 
> View attachment 455876


look how warm that Arctic Circle has been, it decided to share the warmth with us all. hahahahahahahahaha

Can't make it up the plain insanity of the ignorant left.


----------



## BluesLegend (Feb 11, 2021)

Joe Biden really looks stupid on 'climate change' now.


----------



## Stryder50 (Feb 18, 2021)

Kosh said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Sorry I don't have time to run through all the posts here, but for some perspective, a few charts graphs to consider;











Moving into a closer in time perspective, given humans/homo sapiens appear somewhere between 200-300,000 years ago;


----------

