97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming

[jreeves]

Stanford????get real, Chris. Think about this.... Stanford says that the Sun accounts for a fraction of global warming, right??? Now just pretend we didn't have a Sun. Wouldn't you have one very cold dead planet??? I rest my case.

The Sun has not increased its radiation enough to account for the warming.

Chris, I give up...you wore me out. You will never get it. If you study your graph with all those colored lines...the temp. really doesn't go along with your CO2 line. During 1880 and 1910 CO2 was rising, and the temps were falling. During the 1940's and 1950 the same thing was going on...now this was with the chart you provided. Go back to school son. And your quaore from this post about the Sun's radiation....well, obviously your wrong there too, because there wasenough radiation to warm us up in the 1990's. Chris I'm not going to post anymore here, because I think I stated my case good enough to you...a right wing nut.

Oh come on, don't you enjoy debating the brainless?

 

[Chris]

I enjoy when people have no facts, only insults.

 

[jreeves]

I enjoy when people have no facts, only insults.

You wouldn't know a fact if it smacked you in the face. Cooling temperatures while CO2 emmissions have grown, increased ice cover....etc...

 

[Chris]

I enjoy when people have no facts, only insults.

You wouldn't know a fact if it smacked you in the face. Cooling temperatures while CO2 emmissions have grown, increased ice cover....etc...

This year is the bottom of the solar cycle. That's why.

It is going to be 74 degrees here tomorrow by the way.

 

[jreeves]

I enjoy when people have no facts, only insults.

You wouldn't know a fact if it smacked you in the face. Cooling temperatures while CO2 emmissions have grown, increased ice cover....etc...

This year is the bottom of the solar cycle. That's why.

It is going to be 74 degrees here tomorrow by the way.

Lmao, what have CO2 emmissions done in the last year? Which is it, the sun or CO2 emmissions?

 

[Chris]

You wouldn't know a fact if it smacked you in the face. Cooling temperatures while CO2 emmissions have grown, increased ice cover....etc...

This year is the bottom of the solar cycle. That's why.

It is going to be 74 degrees here tomorrow by the way.

Lmao, what have CO2 emmissions done in the last year? Which is it, the sun or CO2 emmissions?

Both. That's the point.

It isn't one or the other.

 

[jreeves]

This year is the bottom of the solar cycle. That's why.

It is going to be 74 degrees here tomorrow by the way.

Lmao, what have CO2 emmissions done in the last year? Which is it, the sun or CO2 emmissions?

Both. That's the point.

It isn't one or the other.

We are on an upswing in the solar cycle remember it was flat bottom last year? It's fun to argue in circles...

 

[Old Rocks]

Because of the Milankovic Cycle.

Milankovic Cycles, has to do with planetary wobble, there is truth to that, but also, and the global warming alarmists don't talk about, is the solar cycles of the Sun. They will try and tell you it has little effect with all the warming going on because of Man made CO2. Like in an earlier post, if the government was really concerned about all the Man made CO2, they would be hitting up China, India, and Russia. The dirty little secret of these damn alarmists is that those countries don't have the money that could be sucked from them. But, the United States of America is the cash cow for the world. These alarmists don't have a nickels worth of common sense between them. They read and listen to the their far left wing nuts for orders. I used to think that Old Rocks was just a global warming fanatic, I did have some respect for his passion. But after reading some of his posts in other threads with politics, he is certainly just a left wing nut that hates everything but the far left liberals. I have no respect for the man what soever.

LOL. And you are an ignoramous. There has been no increase in total solar irradiance for the last 50 years that we have had satellites accurately monitoring the sun.

Yes, we are vitally concerned with the GHG outputs of China, India, and Russia. But we can hardly lecture them on their output, when we do nothing about ours.

I neither need nor desire your respect. You see it counts for nothing. You have shown yourself to be driven by ideology, rather than reacting to reality.

 

[Old Rocks]

Because that is what the earth does, it goes through cycles of heating and cooling.

What mechanism is causing it to warm?

The Sun, you dumb ass. Have you ever heard the term, "Keep it simple, stupid"? Well the Earth and the Sun have been doing it for billions of years.

No, the sun has nothing at all to do with the increase in the warming in at least the last 50 years. We have had solar observatories in orbit for that long, and there has been no increase in the total solar irradiance. So, no increase in solar irradiance, then it has to be another factor.

What other major factor in the Earth's heat budget has changed? Were the Earth totally dependent on just the sun, our planet would be permentanly frozen. Without the CO2 that the atmosphere contains, the average temperature of the Earth's surface would be well below the freezing point of water. However, the earth's atmosphere does contain GHGs, and we enjoy, for the most part, a temperate climate. But, we have changed the control on our heat budget. We have added nearly 40% more CO2 in just over 150 years. And the temperature is climbing as a result.

Have there been other periods in the Earth's history where there was a rapid increase in GHGs? Yes, a number of them. The P-T extinction event, the PETM event in the late Paleocene, early Eocene, that also involve a minor extinction event, are just two of several. So we know what happens when there is a rapid buildup of GHGs in the atmosphere. What we do not know is at what point the process becomes irreversible. But we are on our way to finding out.

 

[Old Rocks]

Stanford????get real, Chris. Think about this.... Stanford says that the Sun accounts for a fraction of global warming, right??? Now just pretend we didn't have a Sun. Wouldn't you have one very cold dead planet??? I rest my case.

The Sun has not increased its radiation enough to account for the warming.

Chris, I give up...you wore me out. You will never get it. If you study your graph with all those colored lines...the temp. really doesn't go along with your CO2 line. During 1880 and 1910 CO2 was rising, and the temps were falling. During the 1940's and 1950 the same thing was going on...now this was with the chart you provided. Go back to school son. And your quote from this post about the Sun's radiation....well, obviously your wrong there too, because there was enough radiation to warm us up in the 1990's. Chris I'm not going to post anymore here, because I think I stated my case good enough to you...a right wing nut.

Sheesh, folks like you are amazing! There are a number of other things going on besides the increase in CO2. First, the eruption of Krakatoa depressed the tempretures from 1883 to at least 1890. Second, there are natural cycles, such as the El Nino-La Nina cycle that increase and decrease global temperatures.

No, you have presented no case. All you have presented is unsupported opinion, opinion contrary to all evidence that the scientists have shown us.

 

[dilloduck]

The Sun has not increased its radiation enough to account for the warming.

Chris, I give up...you wore me out. You will never get it. If you study your graph with all those colored lines...the temp. really doesn't go along with your CO2 line. During 1880 and 1910 CO2 was rising, and the temps were falling. During the 1940's and 1950 the same thing was going on...now this was with the chart you provided. Go back to school son. And your quote from this post about the Sun's radiation....well, obviously your wrong there too, because there was enough radiation to warm us up in the 1990's. Chris I'm not going to post anymore here, because I think I stated my case good enough to you...a right wing nut.

Sheesh, folks like you are amazing! There are a number of other things going on besides the increase in CO2. First, the eruption of Krakatoa depressed the tempretures from 1883 to at least 1890. Second, there are natural cycles, such as the El Nino-La Nina cycle that increase and decrease global temperatures.

No, you have presented no case. All you have presented is unsupported opinion, opinion contrary to all evidence that the scientists have shown us.

no one cares and you have failed to create the fear that you so desperately want the rest of us to feel.

 

[Andrew2382]

you do realize that Humans are only responsible for 3.5% of the CO2 in the Atmosphere.

 

[Old Rocks]

you do realize that Humans are only responsible for 3.5% of the CO2 in the Atmosphere.

Do you realize that you haven't the faintest idea of what you are saying?

EIA - Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy

 

[Meister]

you do realize that Humans are only responsible for 3.5% of the CO2 in the Atmosphere.

Do you realize that you haven't the faintest idea of what you are saying?

EIA - Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!! Oh brother

 

[Old Rocks]

you do realize that Humans are only responsible for 3.5% of the CO2 in the Atmosphere.

Do you realize that you haven't the faintest idea of what you are saying?

EIA - Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!! Oh brother

Ever bother to read anything from credible sources on this subject? Ever bother to read anything at all? Thus far, I see nothing in your replies that indicate that you are capable of rational thought.

 

[Meister]

Do you realize that you haven't the faintest idea of what you are saying?

EIA - Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!! Oh brother

Ever bother to read anything from credible sources on this subject? Ever bother to read anything at all? Thus far, I see nothing in your replies that indicate that you are capable of rational thought.

Old Rocks, I'm just going to say this once...have you ever bothered to read anything from a credible source on this subject???? Everything has been from your liberal wing nut sources...EVERYTHING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

 

[Chris]

Melting glaciers, melting ice caps, and rising temperatures have no political affiliation.

 

[KittenKoder]

Melting glaciers, melting ice caps, and rising temperatures have no political affiliation.

No ... but statistics and interpretation does.

 

[Old Rocks]

Kitten, the glaciers I have walked on and by for the last 45 years are not subject to interpretation or statistics. The photos from the satelites that clearly show the retreat of the glaciers on all continents are not statistics. The "Drunken Forests" of Alaska are not statistics.

There is a warming occuring, and as with all things natural, there is a reason why it is warming.

 

[KittenKoder]

Kitten, the glaciers I have walked on and by for the last 45 years are not subject to interpretation or statistics. The photos from the satelites that clearly show the retreat of the glaciers on all continents are not statistics. The "Drunken Forests" of Alaska are not statistics.

There is a warming occuring, and as with all things natural, there is a reason why it is warming.

Ignoring some facts to focus on only those which support your claim ... yes they are being interpreted.