Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I suppose that's how it might look to someone as severely retarded as you are....soooooo delusional.Wrong again. We all have received an enormous number of "clues" that you are an insane and very ignorant little retard who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. As you just demonstrated once again.
You keep projecting your flaws and shortsightedness on others..Yup, you sure are!Moron.
But, hey, we all already know. You've made that fact completely obvious, many, many times already.
Quite true. Eventually everybody dies. Of course, most people's brains die at the same time as their body. You have the distinction of having a body that's still living but a brain that apparently died a long time ago.We're all gonna die!!! ROFL
lol...Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.
Try to learn the basics before bothering the grownups.
And CO2 doesn't get processed by plants?Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. Try to learn the basics before bothering the grownups.
And CO2 doesn't get processed by plants?Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. Try to learn the basics before bothering the grownups.
CO2 is quite versatile. It is essential to plant life AND it is a greenhouse gas that heats the Earth by retaining more of the sun's energy within the atmosphere. I can tell that this info strains the limits of your very minimal comprehension abilities.
So, ..., what is your point?
no you haven't givenme or any other skeptic on here an experiment that shows what 120PPMof CO2 does to climate/ temperature. You lie. Not surprising, but you lie with that statement. And you can't provide it. I'm still waiting. Nope i gave you years from 1940 to 1970 the temperatures did not go up, they went down, and CO2 was increasing at the time. The fact is you have not provided any evidence to support your claim. So intellectually speaking you're full of lies.then provide the end of the debate and provide the experiment. You and yours keep posting the same old crap and no experiment. the argument is what it is, either you wish to debate it or not. I have been waiting for months upon months for the experiment. provide it and let's move forward. It seems you are the one in violation to the board rules, you provide a basis of argument and are ignoring the request to continue said argument. So, let's move forward and you or your pals provde the experiment or admit you don't have it! it is a very simple request.
But it's been given to you, several times. Why should we waste time giving it all to you again, given you'd clearly just lie about it again? The issue isn't the experiment, it's your pathological dishonesty.
You need to address that issue. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to admit to your dishonesty, apologize for it, and promise to do better. If you show you're willing to be intellectually honest, people will be willing to take time out to educate you.
Same old debunked denier cult propaganda meme.
moronSame old debunked denier cult propaganda meme.
2014 - hottest year on record.
Followed by 2010, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2013, and then 1998.
14 of the 15 hottest years on record have occured in this century.
October was the 356th CONSCUTIVE month with temperatures higher than the twentieth century average.
The world's oceans are the warmest on record.
The most recent 12-month period, November 2013–October 2014, broke the record (set just last month) for the all-time warmest 12-month period in the 135-year period of record.
November 2013 and May, June, August, September, and October 2014 were all the warmest on record for their respective months.
Same old debunked denier cult propaganda meme.
2014 - hottest year on record.
Followed by 2010, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2013, and then 1998.
14 of the 15 hottest years on record have occured in this century.
October was the 356th CONSCUTIVE month with temperatures higher than the twentieth century average.
The world's oceans are the warmest on record.
The most recent 12-month period, November 2013–October 2014, broke the record (set just last month) for the all-time warmest 12-month period in the 135-year period of record.
November 2013 and May, June, August, September, and October 2014 were all the warmest on record for their respective months.
Lying again, Admiral. At what point can we call you pathologicaljc, we've given you the experiment dozens of times. You're just a liar.
Along with Frank and Skook, any thread you enter is trashed by your appearance. Can't your throw your endless tantrums somewhere else? The grownups are trying to talk.
Same old debunked denier cult propaganda meme.
2014 - hottest year on record.
Followed by 2010, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2013, and then 1998.
14 of the 15 hottest years on record have occured in this century.
October was the 356th CONSCUTIVE month with temperatures higher than the twentieth century average.
The world's oceans are the warmest on record.
The most recent 12-month period, November 2013–October 2014, broke the record (set just last month) for the all-time warmest 12-month period in the 135-year period of record.
November 2013 and May, June, August, September, and October 2014 were all the warmest on record for their respective months.
moron
And what % of green house gases is co2 vs water vapor?
And where's the uncontrolled temperature increase predicted by your consensus? What happened to it?
Why are the Polar Bears doing so well? Why haven't they died yet as predicted by your consensus?
Really?lol...Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.
Try to learn the basics before bothering the grownups.
You might want to google co2 feedback before you embarrass yourself any further.
you appear to be correct my friendIt looks like the denier cultists can't stand to face the truth about our rapidly warming planet.
2014 is going to be the hottest year on record which will mean that 14 of the 15 hottest years on record have happened since the beginning of this century.
Moron thinks there's no cycle for CO2. All that excess CO2 just sticks around like unused bacon grease in your fridge till there's no more room in the fridge and we all die!And what % of green house gases is co2 vs water vapor?
Water vapor has a bigger effect. Now, why do you think that matters?
I'll help you out. Additional water vapor quickly rains out. Additional CO2 stays around.
Unless, of course, CO2 raises the temperature, which raises the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold. That's why water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. More CO2 causes more water vapor. More water vapor does not cause more CO2.
And where's the uncontrolled temperature increase predicted by your consensus? What happened to it?
Which of your kook leaders told you a "uncontrolled temperature increase " was predicted?
I'm being charitable there, by assuming you're just hopelessly brainwashed instead of dishonest. If that's not the case, let us know.
Why are the Polar Bears doing so well? Why haven't they died yet as predicted by your consensus?
Same thing. Did your DearLeaders brainwash you into saying something that crazy, or are you being deliberately dishonest?
And what % of green house gases is co2 vs water vapor?
Water vapor has a bigger effect. Now, why do you think that matters?
I'll help you out. Additional water vapor quickly rains out. Additional CO2 stays around.
Unless, of course, CO2 raises the temperature, which raises the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold. That's why water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. More CO2 causes more water vapor. More water vapor does not cause more CO2.
And where's the uncontrolled temperature increase predicted by your consensus? What happened to it?
Which of your kook leaders told you a "uncontrolled temperature increase " was predicted?
I'm being charitable there, by assuming you're just hopelessly brainwashed instead of dishonest. If that's not the case, let us know.
Why are the Polar Bears doing so well? Why haven't they died yet as predicted by your consensus?
Same thing. Did your DearLeaders brainwash you into saying something that crazy, or are you being deliberately dishonest?
Oh, ReallyKrazyMoron, of course there is a "cycle for CO2". Every year enormous amounts of CO2 are naturally released and absorbed, and this process had remained in a homeostatic balance for millions of years. However, since the time when mankind started burning fossil fuels, humans have added an un-natural component to the mix in the form of fossil carbon that had been locked away from the atmosphere for tens or hundreds of millions of years. There are no new carbon sinks to absorb this new, extra, un-natural CO2 (although the oceans have absorbed a lot of what mankind has released, but there is a fast approaching limit to how much CO2 they can absorb, plus this process is causing ocean acidification and severely endangering the ocean ecologies), so it has been accumulating in the atmosphere, raising CO2 levels by about 43% so far, from 280ppm to over 400ppm. The residence time of this extra CO2 in our atmosphere is from centuries to several thousand years. That's the time it would take natural processes to remove the extra CO2 and lower CO2 levels to their pre-industrial levels.Moron thinks there's no cycle for CO2. All that excess CO2 just sticks around like unused bacon grease in your fridge till there's no more room in the fridge and we all die!
And what % of green house gases is co2 vs water vapor?
Water vapor has a bigger effect. Now, why do you think that matters?
I'll help you out. Additional water vapor quickly rains out. Additional CO2 stays around.
Unless, of course, CO2 raises the temperature, which raises the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold. That's why water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. More CO2 causes more water vapor. More water vapor does not cause more CO2.
And where's the uncontrolled temperature increase predicted by your consensus? What happened to it?
Which of your kook leaders told you a "uncontrolled temperature increase " was predicted?
I'm being charitable there, by assuming you're just hopelessly brainwashed instead of dishonest. If that's not the case, let us know.
Why are the Polar Bears doing so well? Why haven't they died yet as predicted by your consensus?
Same thing. Did your DearLeaders brainwash you into saying something that crazy, or are you being deliberately dishonest?Oh, ReallyKrazyMoron, of course there is a "cycle for CO2". Every year enormous amounts of CO2 are naturally released and absorbed, and this process had remained in a homeostatic balance for millions of years. However, since the time when mankind started burning fossil fuels, humans have added an un-natural component to the mix in the form of fossil carbon that had been locked away from the atmosphere for tens or hundreds of millions of years. There are no new carbon sinks to absorb this new, extra, un-natural CO2 (although the oceans have absorbed a lot of what mankind has released, but there is a fast approaching limit to how much CO2 they can absorb, plus this process is causing ocean acidification and severely endangering the ocean ecologies), so it has been accumulating in the atmosphere, raising CO2 levels by about 43% so far, from 280ppm to over 400ppm. The residence time of this extra CO2 in our atmosphere is from centuries to several thousand years. That's the time it would take natural processes to remove the extra CO2 and lower CO2 levels to their pre-industrial levels.Moron thinks there's no cycle for CO2. All that excess CO2 just sticks around like unused bacon grease in your fridge till there's no more room in the fridge and we all die!
Common Climate Misconceptions: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Yale University - Climate Connections
Zeke Hausfather —
December 16, 2010
Understanding the carbon cycle is a key part of understanding the broader climate change issue. But a number of misconceptions floating around the blogosphere confuse basic concepts to argue that climate change is irrelevant because of the short residence time of carbon molecules in the atmosphere and the large overall carbon stock in the environment.
It turns out that while much of the “pulse” of extra CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere would be absorbed over the next century if emissions miraculously were to end today, about 20 percent of that CO2would remain for at least tens of thousands of years.
The complex global carbon cycle process involves carbon absorption and release by the atmosphere, oceans, soils, and organic matter, and also emissions from anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion and land-use changes. The figure below shows the best estimate of annual carbon fluxes from main sources and sinks.
View larger image - Figure from Oak Ridge National Laboratories (Units in gigatons of carbon).
At first glance, it may seem that the narrow black arrows representing anthropogenic sources are relatively insignificant, making up only a few percent of the total carbon released to the atmosphere in any given year. To understand why anthropogenic emissions are of concern, it is important to think of the carbon cycle as a balance of sorts; every year around 230 gigatons of carbon dioxide are released to the atmosphere, and around 230 gigatons of carbon dioxide are absorbed by the world’s oceans and biosphere. This balance forms an equilibrium of sorts, with the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide remaining largely unchanged over time. However, anthropogenic emissions throw this process out of kilter, adding a new source of emissions unmatched by additional sinks.
The carbon dioxide record over the past 10,000 years demonstrates this situation: the modern period exhibits a large spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide coincident to the time humans started burning fossil fuels.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 10,000 years. From the IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM.
Graphing emissions over the modern period against changes in atmospheric concentrations illustrates a clear relationship between emissions and increasing CO2 concentrations.
Via Wikipedia.
It is important to note that not all anthropogenic emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere. Indeed, about half of annual CO2 emissions are absorbed by the ocean and vegetation, and this percentage of absorption, called the airborne fraction, is currently the subject of vigorous debate over whether or not it is changing over time. Scientists can model the absorption of anthropogenic carbon by year for different sinks.
Image from the Global Carbon Project.
Determining the residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a rather complex problem. A common misconception arises from simply looking at the annual carbon flux and the atmospheric stock; after all, with 230 gigatons absorbed by the oceans and land every year, and a total atmospheric stock of 720 gigatons, one might expect the average molecule of CO2 to remain in the atmosphere for only three to four years.
Such an approach poorly frames the issue, however. It is not the residence time of an individual molecule that is relevant. What really matters is just how long it will take for the stock of anthropogenic carbon emissions that has accumulated in the atmosphere to be reabsorbed.
The simplest way to approximate the time it will take to reabsorb the anthropogenic flux is to calculate how long it would take for the atmosphere to revert to preindustrial levels of 280 parts per million if humans could cease emissions immediately. If the current net sink of around 4 gigatons of carbon per year remained constant over time, it would take about 50 years for the atmosphere to return to 280 ppm. However, there is no reason to think that these sinks would remain constant as emissions decrease. Indeed, it is more realistic to anticipate that the net sink would shrink in proportion to the decrease in emissions.
Scientists can approach this problem in a number of different ways. They can use models of carbon sink behavior based on their best knowledge of the physics of ocean carbon absorption and the biosphere. They can also use records of changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide during glacial periods in the distant past to estimate the time it takes for perturbations to settle out.
Using a combination of various methods, researchers have estimated that about 50 percent of the net anthropogenic pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years, and about 70 percent in the first 100 years. Absorption by sinks slows dramatically after that, with an additional 10 percent or so being removed after 300 years and the remaining 20 percent lasting tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before being removed.
As University of Washington scientist David Archer explains, this “long tail” of absorption means that the mean lifetime of the pulse attributable to anthropogenic emissions is around 30,000 to 35,000 years.
Figure via Global Warming Art.
So while a good portion of warming attributable to carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions would be removed from the atmosphere in a few decades if emissions were somehow ceased immediately, about 10 percent will continue warming Earth for eons to come. This 10 percent is significant, because even a small increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases can have a large impact on things like ice sheets and sea level if it persists over the millennia.
And what % of green house gases is co2 vs water vapor?
Water vapor has a bigger effect. Now, why do you think that matters?
I'll help you out. Additional water vapor quickly rains out. Additional CO2 stays around.
Unless, of course, CO2 raises the temperature, which raises the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold. That's why water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. More CO2 causes more water vapor. More water vapor does not cause more CO2.
And where's the uncontrolled temperature increase predicted by your consensus? What happened to it?
Which of your kook leaders told you a "uncontrolled temperature increase " was predicted?
I'm being charitable there, by assuming you're just hopelessly brainwashed instead of dishonest. If that's not the case, let us know.
Why are the Polar Bears doing so well? Why haven't they died yet as predicted by your consensus?
Same thing. Did your DearLeaders brainwash you into saying something that crazy, or are you being deliberately dishonest?Oh, ReallyKrazyMoron, of course there is a "cycle for CO2". Every year enormous amounts of CO2 are naturally released and absorbed, and this process had remained in a homeostatic balance for millions of years. However, since the time when mankind started burning fossil fuels, humans have added an un-natural component to the mix in the form of fossil carbon that had been locked away from the atmosphere for tens or hundreds of millions of years. There are no new carbon sinks to absorb this new, extra, un-natural CO2 (although the oceans have absorbed a lot of what mankind has released, but there is a fast approaching limit to how much CO2 they can absorb, plus this process is causing ocean acidification and severely endangering the ocean ecologies), so it has been accumulating in the atmosphere, raising CO2 levels by about 43% so far, from 280ppm to over 400ppm. The residence time of this extra CO2 in our atmosphere is from centuries to several thousand years. That's the time it would take natural processes to remove the extra CO2 and lower CO2 levels to their pre-industrial levels.Moron thinks there's no cycle for CO2. All that excess CO2 just sticks around like unused bacon grease in your fridge till there's no more room in the fridge and we all die!
Common Climate Misconceptions: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Yale University - Climate Connections
Zeke Hausfather —
December 16, 2010
Understanding the carbon cycle is a key part of understanding the broader climate change issue. But a number of misconceptions floating around the blogosphere confuse basic concepts to argue that climate change is irrelevant because of the short residence time of carbon molecules in the atmosphere and the large overall carbon stock in the environment.
It turns out that while much of the “pulse” of extra CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere would be absorbed over the next century if emissions miraculously were to end today, about 20 percent of that CO2would remain for at least tens of thousands of years.
The complex global carbon cycle process involves carbon absorption and release by the atmosphere, oceans, soils, and organic matter, and also emissions from anthropogenic fossil fuel combustion and land-use changes. The figure below shows the best estimate of annual carbon fluxes from main sources and sinks.
View larger image - Figure from Oak Ridge National Laboratories (Units in gigatons of carbon).
At first glance, it may seem that the narrow black arrows representing anthropogenic sources are relatively insignificant, making up only a few percent of the total carbon released to the atmosphere in any given year. To understand why anthropogenic emissions are of concern, it is important to think of the carbon cycle as a balance of sorts; every year around 230 gigatons of carbon dioxide are released to the atmosphere, and around 230 gigatons of carbon dioxide are absorbed by the world’s oceans and biosphere. This balance forms an equilibrium of sorts, with the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide remaining largely unchanged over time. However, anthropogenic emissions throw this process out of kilter, adding a new source of emissions unmatched by additional sinks.
The carbon dioxide record over the past 10,000 years demonstrates this situation: the modern period exhibits a large spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide coincident to the time humans started burning fossil fuels.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 10,000 years. From the IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM.
Graphing emissions over the modern period against changes in atmospheric concentrations illustrates a clear relationship between emissions and increasing CO2 concentrations.
Via Wikipedia.
It is important to note that not all anthropogenic emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere. Indeed, about half of annual CO2 emissions are absorbed by the ocean and vegetation, and this percentage of absorption, called the airborne fraction, is currently the subject of vigorous debate over whether or not it is changing over time. Scientists can model the absorption of anthropogenic carbon by year for different sinks.
Image from the Global Carbon Project.
Determining the residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a rather complex problem. A common misconception arises from simply looking at the annual carbon flux and the atmospheric stock; after all, with 230 gigatons absorbed by the oceans and land every year, and a total atmospheric stock of 720 gigatons, one might expect the average molecule of CO2 to remain in the atmosphere for only three to four years.
Such an approach poorly frames the issue, however. It is not the residence time of an individual molecule that is relevant. What really matters is just how long it will take for the stock of anthropogenic carbon emissions that has accumulated in the atmosphere to be reabsorbed.
The simplest way to approximate the time it will take to reabsorb the anthropogenic flux is to calculate how long it would take for the atmosphere to revert to preindustrial levels of 280 parts per million if humans could cease emissions immediately. If the current net sink of around 4 gigatons of carbon per year remained constant over time, it would take about 50 years for the atmosphere to return to 280 ppm. However, there is no reason to think that these sinks would remain constant as emissions decrease. Indeed, it is more realistic to anticipate that the net sink would shrink in proportion to the decrease in emissions.
Scientists can approach this problem in a number of different ways. They can use models of carbon sink behavior based on their best knowledge of the physics of ocean carbon absorption and the biosphere. They can also use records of changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide during glacial periods in the distant past to estimate the time it takes for perturbations to settle out.
Using a combination of various methods, researchers have estimated that about 50 percent of the net anthropogenic pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years, and about 70 percent in the first 100 years. Absorption by sinks slows dramatically after that, with an additional 10 percent or so being removed after 300 years and the remaining 20 percent lasting tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before being removed.
As University of Washington scientist David Archer explains, this “long tail” of absorption means that the mean lifetime of the pulse attributable to anthropogenic emissions is around 30,000 to 35,000 years.
Figure via Global Warming Art.
So while a good portion of warming attributable to carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions would be removed from the atmosphere in a few decades if emissions were somehow ceased immediately, about 10 percent will continue warming Earth for eons to come. This 10 percent is significant, because even a small increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases can have a large impact on things like ice sheets and sea level if it persists over the millennia.
Well, of course you are. You demonstrate that fact with every post you make, ReallyKrazyMoron.what a moron..
Right....big words confuse you....LOL.homeostatic balance...
For two and a half million years CO2 levels have not exceeded 300ppm."get this... for "millions" of years.
