97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming

[Chris]

Why are these glaciers melting?

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/repeatphoto/Pairs/RepeatPhoto_pairs_Fullset_compr.pdf

Because that's what nature does ... changes.

The only reason people want to rant and rave about it is because you either have stock in an environut company that's making a fortune on the fear or you have to have something to fight for and just can't find a good cause to fight for. Might I suggest you turn all that fight against ... I don't know ... cancer, diabetes, you know, something that's real.

I agree, however, there are some people who just pathologically loathe man kind.

I'm not going to deny natural climate change but to blame it on man is ridiculous.

What these man made global warming nuts wont tell you is that ONE volcanic eruption spews more poison into the atmosphere then man kind has produced since the industrial revolution.

Volcanic eruptions cool the earth.

So what's your point?

 

[Meister]

Because that's what nature does ... changes.

The only reason people want to rant and rave about it is because you either have stock in an environut company that's making a fortune on the fear or you have to have something to fight for and just can't find a good cause to fight for. Might I suggest you turn all that fight against ... I don't know ... cancer, diabetes, you know, something that's real.

I agree, however, there are some people who just pathologically loathe man kind.

I'm not going to deny natural climate change but to blame it on man is ridiculous.

What these man made global warming nuts wont tell you is that ONE volcanic eruption spews more poison into the atmosphere then man kind has produced since the industrial revolution.

Volcanic eruptions cool the earth.

So what's your point?

That's it, Chris??? I did notice you didn't have the 'nads to refute what my post stated. Let's see what rockhead comes up with.

 

[Chris]

I agree, however, there are some people who just pathologically loathe man kind.

I'm not going to deny natural climate change but to blame it on man is ridiculous.

What these man made global warming nuts wont tell you is that ONE volcanic eruption spews more poison into the atmosphere then man kind has produced since the industrial revolution.

Volcanic eruptions cool the earth.

So what's your point?

That's it, Chris??? I did notice you didn't have the 'nads to refute what my post stated. Let's see what rockhead comes up with.

Refute what? That volcanoes effect climate? Of course they do. But that doesn't change the fact that we have increased the level of CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. And this increase in CO2 is relentless and continuous and accelerating.

 

[Meister]

Volcanic eruptions cool the earth.

So what's your point?

That's it, Chris??? I did notice you didn't have the 'nads to refute what my post stated. Let's see what rockhead comes up with.

Refute what? That volcanoes effect climate? Of course they do. But that doesn't change the fact that we have increased the level of CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. And this increase in CO2 is relentless and continuous and accelerating.

Chris, you might want to back up a few posts to an earlier post I had. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough for you. Also, I would like to know where it states that MAN has increased CO2 by forty percent?

 

[Chris]

Meister, if you do a little research, you will discover that we have a record of CO2 in the atmosphere that goes back 600,000 years. CO2 is currently at the highest level in all that time. We are adding 8 billion metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. That's one ton of CO2 for every person on the earth.

 

[Meister]

Meister, if you do a little research, you will discover that we have a record of CO2 in the atmosphere that goes back 600,000 years. CO2 is currently at the highest level in all that time. We are adding 8 billion metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. That's one ton of CO2 for every person on the earth.

Chris, Rising temperatures could be the leading indicator and the CO2 is the lagging indicator. Also, you can't say that it's MAN that has put 40% of CO2 in the atmosphere You can't find that in any of your left wing wacko sites. Also, Chris....there has been higher CO2 in our atmosphere. Your leaning too much on your left wing sites dude.

 

[Charles_Main]

We'll never be able to save the environment now. The Damn Dems are going to spend us into ruin. Bu in ruin at least our emissions should drop. hey maybe thats their plan.

 

[Chris]

CO2 over the last 600,000 years....

CO2 Concentration (ppm) by Date - Swivel

 

[Chris]

“The average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume, which means that 22 molecules of carbon dioxide were added to, or removed from, every million molecules of air,” Zeebe said.

Since the beginning of the widespread human use of fossil fuels in the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 100 parts per million.

“That means human activities are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere about 14,000 times as fast as natural processes do,” Zeebe said.

And it appears to be getting worse: the U.S. government reported last week that in 2007 alone, atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 2.4 parts per million.

Earth Can’t Keep Up with Modern Carbon Emissions - Science - redOrbit

 

[Meister]

“The average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume, which means that 22 molecules of carbon dioxide were added to, or removed from, every million molecules of air,” Zeebe said.

Since the beginning of the widespread human use of fossil fuels in the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 100 parts per million.

“That means human activities are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere about 14,000 times as fast as natural processes do,” Zeebe said.

And it appears to be getting worse: the U.S. government reported last week that in 2007 alone, atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 2.4 parts per million.

Earth Can’t Keep Up with Modern Carbon Emissions - Science - redOrbit

Chris, let's let rockhead get involved with this. You still haven't refuted the fact that the CO2 could very well be a lagging indicator of the Earth's temperature rising. Which mean by the way, that the Sun has more to do with this than your paid for sites. Next, when the ice ages...all of them were retreating, I'm sure there were higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Lastly.....You still haven't proved that MAN is responsible for 40% of the CO2 emitted. Like I said it could very well be a lagging indicator. Let's just end this discussion for now, you need to go back to the books.

 

[Chris]

“The average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume, which means that 22 molecules of carbon dioxide were added to, or removed from, every million molecules of air,” Zeebe said.

Since the beginning of the widespread human use of fossil fuels in the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 100 parts per million.

“That means human activities are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere about 14,000 times as fast as natural processes do,” Zeebe said.

And it appears to be getting worse: the U.S. government reported last week that in 2007 alone, atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 2.4 parts per million.

Earth Can’t Keep Up with Modern Carbon Emissions - Science - redOrbit

Chris, let's let rockhead get involved with this. You still haven't refuted the fact that the CO2 could very well be a lagging indicator of the Earth's temperature rising. Which mean by the way, that the Sun has more to do with this than your paid for sites. Next, when the ice ages...all of them were retreating, I'm sure there were higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Lastly.....You still haven't proved that MAN is responsible for 40% of the CO2 emitted. Like I said it could very well be a lagging indicator. Let's just end this discussion for now, you need to go back to the books.

CO2 has not changed more than 22 ppm in the last 600,000 years. Now it is up by 100. That proves man is the cause.

You just won't admit it.

 

[Meister]

“The average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume, which means that 22 molecules of carbon dioxide were added to, or removed from, every million molecules of air,” Zeebe said.

Since the beginning of the widespread human use of fossil fuels in the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen by 100 parts per million.

“That means human activities are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere about 14,000 times as fast as natural processes do,” Zeebe said.

And it appears to be getting worse: the U.S. government reported last week that in 2007 alone, atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 2.4 parts per million.

Earth Can’t Keep Up with Modern Carbon Emissions - Science - redOrbit

Chris, let's let rockhead get involved with this. You still haven't refuted the fact that the CO2 could very well be a lagging indicator of the Earth's temperature rising. Which mean by the way, that the Sun has more to do with this than your paid for sites. Next, when the ice ages...all of them were retreating, I'm sure there were higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Lastly.....You still haven't proved that MAN is responsible for 40% of the CO2 emitted. Like I said it could very well be a lagging indicator. Let's just end this discussion for now, you need to go back to the books.

CO2 has not changed more than 22 ppm in the last 600,000 years. Now it is up by 100. That proves man is the cause.

You just won't admit it.

You goofball, it hasn't remained at 22 ppm for 600,000 years. You really believe that??? You are a prize, Chris. Thank God your Mother loves you.

 

[Chris]

Chris, let's let rockhead get involved with this. You still haven't refuted the fact that the CO2 could very well be a lagging indicator of the Earth's temperature rising. Which mean by the way, that the Sun has more to do with this than your paid for sites. Next, when the ice ages...all of them were retreating, I'm sure there were higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Lastly.....You still haven't proved that MAN is responsible for 40% of the CO2 emitted. Like I said it could very well be a lagging indicator. Let's just end this discussion for now, you need to go back to the books.

CO2 has not changed more than 22 ppm in the last 600,000 years. Now it is up by 100. That proves man is the cause.

You just won't admit it.

You goofball, it hasn't remained at 22 ppm for 600,000 years. You really believe that??? You are a prize, Chris. Thank God your Mother loves you.

When people can't accept evidence, they resort to personal attacks.

The Antarctic ice core records are well established. We are adding 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. There is no mystery about what is going on.

 

[Meister]

CO2 has not changed more than 22 ppm in the last 600,000 years. Now it is up by 100. That proves man is the cause.

You just won't admit it.

You goofball, it hasn't remained at 22 ppm for 600,000 years. You really believe that??? You are a prize, Chris. Thank God your Mother loves you.

When people can't accept evidence, they resort to personal attacks.

The Antarctic ice core records are well established. We are adding 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. There is no mystery about what is going on.

Calling you a goofball?? You haven't proven anything, I'm just saying there is alternative reasons for what is going on. You resort to your junk science...don't give me all those sites, they are bought and paid for, Chris. Plus, the Sun is warming, and you can't comprehend that. I have stated that CO2 might be a lagging indicator to what's going on and you can't prove otherwise. If all you stated is true...we wouldn't have nothing but rising temperatures with no downturn, but you can't comprehend that. Geeze, you are a goofball, Chis...just like rockhead.

 

[Chris]

You goofball, it hasn't remained at 22 ppm for 600,000 years. You really believe that??? You are a prize, Chris. Thank God your Mother loves you.

When people can't accept evidence, they resort to personal attacks.

The Antarctic ice core records are well established. We are adding 8 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. There is no mystery about what is going on.

Calling you a goofball?? You haven't proven anything, I'm just saying there is alternative reasons for what is going on. You resort to your junk science...don't give me all those sites, they are bought and paid for, Chris. Plus, the Sun is warming, and you can't comprehend that. I have stated that CO2 might be a lagging indicator to what's going on and you can't prove otherwise. If all you stated is true...we wouldn't have nothing but rising temperatures with no downturn, but you can't comprehend that. Geeze, you are a goofball, Chis...just like rockhead.

The Stanford Solar scientists say it's not the sun.

Global Warming -- Research Issues

 

[JohnStOnge]

I feel compelled to once again note that there is no way to get an estimate of what CO2 levels were globally 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, or 600,000 years ago from ice cores. I think that people really need to make the distinction between what investigators believe based on informed assessment of what's in ice cores and what is known to be fact.

The reason is that an observation of a CO2 concentration in an ice core is one element of the population "all CO2 concentrations occurring at all points in the Earth's atmosphere at that time." To have an unbiased estimate of, say, the mean CO2 concentration at the time, you'd need a probability sample of that population. You'd need randomization. Also, to have a relatively small standard error around the estimate, you need a relatively large sample size. An ice core observation is one observation that is taken at that point because the's where it's possible and convenient to take it. And even if they took a million ice cores and were able to take a million readings from the same time, they'd just have a very large sample that was not collected so as to assure an unbiased estimate.

In any case, 600,000 years represents about 2 1/100ths of one percent of the tenure of life on this planet. It is not, when taken in context, a long time.

 

[Old Rocks]

I feel compelled to once again note that there is no way to get an estimate of what CO2 levels were globally 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, or 600,000 years ago from ice cores. I think that people really need to make the distinction between what investigators believe based on informed assessment of what's in ice cores and what is known to be fact.

The reason is that an observation of a CO2 concentration in an ice core is one element of the population "all CO2 concentrations occurring at all points in the Earth's atmosphere at that time." To have an unbiased estimate of, say, the mean CO2 concentration at the time, you'd need a probability sample of that population. You'd need randomization. Also, to have a relatively small standard error around the estimate, you need a relatively large sample size. An ice core observation is one observation that is taken at that point because the's where it's possible and convenient to take it. And even if they took a million ice cores and were able to take a million readings from the same time, they'd just have a very large sample that was not collected so as to assure an unbiased estimate.

In any case, 600,000 years represents about 2 1/100ths of one percent of the tenure of life on this planet. It is not, when taken in context, a long time.

There is very little variation of CO2 content in the atmosphere. And 600,000 years represents about three times as long as Homo Sapiens has existed.

 

[JohnStOnge]

[There is very little variation of CO2 content in the atmosphere. And 600,000 years represents about three times as long as Homo Sapiens has existed.

Homo sapiens is a young species if things are as they're thought to be. I suspect it (we) could handle conditions as they were for most of the history of life. Not all, but most. And we certainly, I think, could handle all of the conditions that have occurred over the last 60 million years or so.

On CO2 variation: I've tried to find something on CO2 measurements at different points that would allow me to develop some idea of variability but haven't been successful. I found this: World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (WDCGG) .

But as far as I can tell the spots at which they measure CO2 don't really allow for any kind of assessment of overall variability. For example, I did a query on every spot at which they measure CO2 in a "square" defined by the area between latitude 15 N to 30 S and longitude 90W to 30 W. That encompasses the Amazon basin. The only station that came back as including CO2 measurements was at the very northern extreme of the defined area on an Island out in the carribean.

It would be a tedious process to go through all the CO2 sites. Maybe I'll do that for fun. But it looks to me like they're intentionally avoiding localities that would be reasonably expected to introduce significant variability. I think I can figure out why they do that. But there's no way they can have an ubiased estimate of mean CO2 level (or variability, for that matter).

The situation is the same with estimating variance as it is with estimating a mean. You have to have a probability sample. They don't have any. In fact from what I've seen so far in looking at that site they are intentionally biasing their estimate to understate the variation as well as the mean. Which I guess would make people on your side worry even more.

 

[Chris]

I feel compelled to once again note that there is no way to get an estimate of what CO2 levels were globally 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, or 600,000 years ago from ice cores. I think that people really need to make the distinction between what investigators believe based on informed assessment of what's in ice cores and what is known to be fact.

The reason is that an observation of a CO2 concentration in an ice core is one element of the population "all CO2 concentrations occurring at all points in the Earth's atmosphere at that time." To have an unbiased estimate of, say, the mean CO2 concentration at the time, you'd need a probability sample of that population. You'd need randomization. Also, to have a relatively small standard error around the estimate, you need a relatively large sample size. An ice core observation is one observation that is taken at that point because the's where it's possible and convenient to take it. And even if they took a million ice cores and were able to take a million readings from the same time, they'd just have a very large sample that was not collected so as to assure an unbiased estimate.

In any case, 600,000 years represents about 2 1/100ths of one percent of the tenure of life on this planet. It is not, when taken in context, a long time.

600,000 years is not a long time?

This is how lame the deniers are.

They are forced to argue that 600,000 years is not a representative sample.

Unbelievable!

 

[del]

I feel compelled to once again note that there is no way to get an estimate of what CO2 levels were globally 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, or 600,000 years ago from ice cores. I think that people really need to make the distinction between what investigators believe based on informed assessment of what's in ice cores and what is known to be fact.

The reason is that an observation of a CO2 concentration in an ice core is one element of the population "all CO2 concentrations occurring at all points in the Earth's atmosphere at that time." To have an unbiased estimate of, say, the mean CO2 concentration at the time, you'd need a probability sample of that population. You'd need randomization. Also, to have a relatively small standard error around the estimate, you need a relatively large sample size. An ice core observation is one observation that is taken at that point because the's where it's possible and convenient to take it. And even if they took a million ice cores and were able to take a million readings from the same time, they'd just have a very large sample that was not collected so as to assure an unbiased estimate.

In any case, 600,000 years represents about 2 1/100ths of one percent of the tenure of life on this planet. It is not, when taken in context, a long time.

600,000 years is not a long time?

This is how lame the deniers are.

They are forced to argue that 600,000 years is not a representative sample.

Unbelievable!

of 3+ billion?
it's not.
keep swinging, kirky.