Are there any liberal still worried about global warming?

[RKMBrown]

Hmm, who to believe? Scientists or people who think the earth is only thousands of years old? Scientists with fossils or people who believe we were shimmered into being from a pile of dirt.

Such a difficult choice.

Huh?

 

[konradv]

Yeah so... It seems the experts agree with me:

American Chemical Society

The main driver is clouds, not C02. Thus the question is what happens to clouds when CO2 increases. So far it would appear that the slight increase in temp, results in more clouds where it's hotter and water sources are present resulting in cooler temperatures. With the exception being in winter months when clouds can actually act as a blanket. Wait isn't that good too? Why is warmer winters and cooler summers bad? Maybe this global warming, if it does happen, will be a good thing for us all.

Current world flora and fauna have evolved to flourish at the current range of temps. Significantly changing that could lead to the next mass extinction. Just because some things might be better at higher temps, doesn't mean things will be better in the end. Previous temp swings have occurred over tens to hundreds of thousands of years allowing for slow adaptation. We're currently talking about the last 200.

 

[konradv]

Scientists Now 99.999% Sure Humans Are Causing Climate Change

Iol, a little to late for that bullshit.

Only too late if you can explain what happens the energy that rising CO2 traps. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Lol. It is incumbent on the person who makes claims to back them up. Since "science" is wrong about global warming, as shown by the evidence, it might also mean that there is no energy being trapped as suggested since if it were, it would indeed cause warming.

It's a well known fact and easily shown with a basic lab spectrophotometer that CO2 absorbs in the IR range, ergo you just admitted that CO2 does cause warming.

Great. Then show me

Since CO2's ability to absorb IR is easily shown, the reason I say you admitted that CO2 can cause warming is because you said "if it were{absorbed], it[CO2] would indeed cause warming.

 

[konradv]

You're dodging a simple question. Your alleged science is at the heart of fossil fuel extraction restriction. Why?

None of my analysis has involved the extraction system. Show me where I've mentioned it. If I'm dodging anything, it's participation in a little "gotcha" game you have planned. You're the one that's dodging the question of what the point is, since I'm going to need more information to even attempt to answer it. If it's such a simple question, you should be able to answer it for all of us. You haven't believed any answers I've posted previously, so why are you suddenly putting so much importance on this one?

Still no response? Like you said, it's a simple question. I think the notion that I smelled a rat is confirmed.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah so... It seems the experts agree with me:

American Chemical Society

The main driver is clouds, not C02. Thus the question is what happens to clouds when CO2 increases. So far it would appear that the slight increase in temp, results in more clouds where it's hotter and water sources are present resulting in cooler temperatures. With the exception being in winter months when clouds can actually act as a blanket. Wait isn't that good too? Why is warmer winters and cooler summers bad? Maybe this global warming, if it does happen, will be a good thing for us all.

Current world flora and fauna have evolved to flourish at the current range of temps. Significantly changing that could lead to the next mass extinction. Just because some things might be better at higher temps, doesn't mean things will be better in the end. Previous temp swings have occurred over tens to hundreds of thousands of years allowing for slow adaptation. We're currently talking about the last 200.

Huh? What mass extinctions are you talking about? Please tell me you're not running around with your hands over your head screaming "MASS EXTINCTION IS NIGH!!!"

 

[konradv]

Yeah so... It seems the experts agree with me:

American Chemical Society

The main driver is clouds, not C02. Thus the question is what happens to clouds when CO2 increases. So far it would appear that the slight increase in temp, results in more clouds where it's hotter and water sources are present resulting in cooler temperatures. With the exception being in winter months when clouds can actually act as a blanket. Wait isn't that good too? Why is warmer winters and cooler summers bad? Maybe this global warming, if it does happen, will be a good thing for us all.

Current world flora and fauna have evolved to flourish at the current range of temps. Significantly changing that could lead to the next mass extinction. Just because some things might be better at higher temps, doesn't mean things will be better in the end. Previous temp swings have occurred over tens to hundreds of thousands of years allowing for slow adaptation. We're currently talking about the last 200.

Huh? What mass extinctions are you talking about? Please tell me you're not running around with your hands over your head screaming "MASS EXTINCTION IS NIGH!!!"

Yeah so... It seems the experts agree with me:

American Chemical Society

The main driver is clouds, not C02. Thus the question is what happens to clouds when CO2 increases. So far it would appear that the slight increase in temp, results in more clouds where it's hotter and water sources are present resulting in cooler temperatures. With the exception being in winter months when clouds can actually act as a blanket. Wait isn't that good too? Why is warmer winters and cooler summers bad? Maybe this global warming, if it does happen, will be a good thing for us all.

Current world flora and fauna have evolved to flourish at the current range of temps. Significantly changing that could lead to the next mass extinction. Just because some things might be better at higher temps, doesn't mean things will be better in the end. Previous temp swings have occurred over tens to hundreds of thousands of years allowing for slow adaptation. We're currently talking about the last 200.

Huh? What mass extinctions are you talking about? Please tell me you're not running around with your hands over your head screaming "MASS EXTINCTION IS NIGH!!!"

Just mentioned as a possibility to a poster who suggested that higher temperatures would be a good thing for all of us. Why jump on me about something that has historic precedence, but no comment about a possibly disastrous maybe? It's that kind of comment that indicates to me that this isn't really about the science at all, but part of a political agenda. I'm afraid many people don't really understand it, so they're willing to parrot whatever's said by someone who fits their bias. Also, NO, I've never seen Gore's movie.

 

[RKMBrown]

Just mentioned as a possibility to a poster who suggested that higher temperatures would be a good thing for all of us. Why jump on me about something that has historic precedence, but no comment about a possibly disastrous maybe? It's that kind of comment that indicates to me that this isn't really about the science at all, but part of a political agenda. I'm afraid many people don't really understand it, so they're willing to parrot whatever's said by someone who fits their bias. Also, NO, I've never seen Gore's movie.

Of all the things to worry about from asteroids to nuclear war isn't mass extinctions from AGW last on the list?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You're dodging a simple question. Your alleged science is at the heart of fossil fuel extraction restriction. Why?

None of my analysis has involved the extraction system. Show me where I've mentioned it. If I'm dodging anything, it's participation in a little "gotcha" game you have planned. You're the one that's dodging the question of what the point is, since I'm going to need more information to even attempt to answer it. If it's such a simple question, you should be able to answer it for all of us. You haven't believed any answers I've posted previously, so why are you suddenly putting so much importance on this one?

Still no response? Like you said, it's a simple question. I think the notion that I smelled a rat is confirmed.

The point is that your theory, your climangelical religion, is the reason for fossil fuel extraction restriction. It's your politics. I want you to explain the causation.

 

[Freewill]

Oh I will, Mr. C Little, I will.

Good, good, while you're doing that, ruminate about what's happening to the energy rising CO2 is trapping and tell us how it's cooling the earth.

I think you hand wring is causing the heat up, at least locally.

Maybe the CO2 has reached saturation thus there will be no more temperature increase. That seems to make the most sense.

 

[Freewill]

Examine for your self the last 12 years, a negative .02 trend. Global Land Sea, Annual.

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

Year	Anomaly	Rank
2002	0.61°C	8
2003	0.62°C	10
2004	0.58°C	4
2005	0.65°C	12
2006	0.59°C	7
2007	0.59°C	5
2008	0.51°C	1
2009	0.59°C	5
2010	0.65°C	12
2011	0.53°C	2
2012	0.57°C	3
2013	0.62°C	10

[THEAD] [/THEAD]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[konradv]

You're dodging a simple question. Your alleged science is at the heart of fossil fuel extraction restriction. Why?

None of my analysis has involved the extraction system. Show me where I've mentioned it. If I'm dodging anything, it's participation in a little "gotcha" game you have planned. You're the one that's dodging the question of what the point is, since I'm going to need more information to even attempt to answer it. If it's such a simple question, you should be able to answer it for all of us. You haven't believed any answers I've posted previously, so why are you suddenly putting so much importance on this one?

Still no response? Like you said, it's a simple question. I think the notion that I smelled a rat is confirmed.

The point is that your theory, your climangelical religion, is the reason for fossil fuel extraction restriction. It's your politics. I want you to explain the causation.

Why should I explain it? I'm arguing on the basis of science. The political angle is normally the province of the deniers. Thanks for finally acknowledging that you were attempting to engage in a "gotcha", however. You'll have to do better next time, though. You're much too transparent.

 

[konradv]

Examine for your self the last 12 years, a negative .02 trend. Global Land Sea, Annual.

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

Year	Anomaly	Rank
2002	0.61°C	8
2003	0.62°C	10
2004	0.58°C	4
2005	0.65°C	12
2006	0.59°C	7
2007	0.59°C	5
2008	0.51°C	1
2009	0.59°C	5
2010	0.65°C	12
2011	0.53°C	2
2012	0.57°C	3
2013	0.62°C	10

[THEAD] [/THEAD]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Those are temps and can vary widely of such a short period of time. I'll celebrate when you can show the same for CO2.

 

[konradv]

Oh I will, Mr. C Little, I will.

Good, good, while you're doing that, ruminate about what's happening to the energy rising CO2 is trapping and tell us how it's cooling the earth.

I think you hand wring is causing the heat up, at least locally.

Maybe the CO2 has reached saturation thus there will be no more temperature increase. That seems to make the most sense.

Maybe? That's all you've got? How do you make any determination on the subject with a maybe? Here's a fact with no 'maybe' involved. CO2 concentrations have been higher in the past.

 

[konradv]

Just mentioned as a possibility to a poster who suggested that higher temperatures would be a good thing for all of us. Why jump on me about something that has historic precedence, but no comment about a possibly disastrous maybe? It's that kind of comment that indicates to me that this isn't really about the science at all, but part of a political agenda. I'm afraid many people don't really understand it, so they're willing to parrot whatever's said by someone who fits their bias. Also, NO, I've never seen Gore's movie.

Of all the things to worry about from asteroids to nuclear war isn't mass extinctions from AGW last on the list?

The chances of AGW being the cause are much higher than the other two.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You're dodging a simple question. Your alleged science is at the heart of fossil fuel extraction restriction. Why?

None of my analysis has involved the extraction system. Show me where I've mentioned it. If I'm dodging anything, it's participation in a little "gotcha" game you have planned. You're the one that's dodging the question of what the point is, since I'm going to need more information to even attempt to answer it. If it's such a simple question, you should be able to answer it for all of us. You haven't believed any answers I've posted previously, so why are you suddenly putting so much importance on this one?

Still no response? Like you said, it's a simple question. I think the notion that I smelled a rat is confirmed.

The point is that your theory, your climangelical religion, is the reason for fossil fuel extraction restriction. It's your politics. I want you to explain the causation.

Why should I explain it? I'm arguing on the basis of science. The political angle is normally the province of the deniers. Thanks for finally acknowledging that you were attempting to engage in a "gotcha", however. You'll have to do better next time, though. You're much too transparent.

I asked you a scientific question and you've made the entire thing political. Explain the causation /correlation between fossil fuel extraction restriction and improved climate issues.

 

[konradv]

You're dodging a simple question. Your alleged science is at the heart of fossil fuel extraction restriction. Why?

None of my analysis has involved the extraction system. Show me where I've mentioned it. If I'm dodging anything, it's participation in a little "gotcha" game you have planned. You're the one that's dodging the question of what the point is, since I'm going to need more information to even attempt to answer it. If it's such a simple question, you should be able to answer it for all of us. You haven't believed any answers I've posted previously, so why are you suddenly putting so much importance on this one?

Still no response? Like you said, it's a simple question. I think the notion that I smelled a rat is confirmed.

The point is that your theory, your climangelical religion, is the reason for fossil fuel extraction restriction. It's your politics. I want you to explain the causation.

Why should I explain it? I'm arguing on the basis of science. The political angle is normally the province of the deniers. Thanks for finally acknowledging that you were attempting to engage in a "gotcha", however. You'll have to do better next time, though. You're much too transparent.

I asked you a scientific question and you've made the entire thing political. Explain the causation /correlation between fossil fuel extraction restriction and improved climate issues.

You answer the question. Why should I? You're not really interested in what I have to say beyond setting me up for a "gotcha". I already indicated I wasn't interested in or knowledgeable on the subject. I do dispute that it's a scientific question, however. You're obviously trying to set something up that "proves" I have a non-scientific agenda. Once again, you're way too obvious. The political slant is what you're after, IMO. This is the "Politics" forum, so I've been surprised for quite a while that the thread hasn't been moved.

 

[Freewill]

Oh I will, Mr. C Little, I will.

Good, good, while you're doing that, ruminate about what's happening to the energy rising CO2 is trapping and tell us how it's cooling the earth.

I think you hand wring is causing the heat up, at least locally.

Maybe the CO2 has reached saturation thus there will be no more temperature increase. That seems to make the most sense.

Maybe? That's all you've got? How do you make any determination on the subject with a maybe? Here's a fact with no 'maybe' involved. CO2 concentrations have been higher in the past.

Here is an article on why the CO2 concentration is saturated already. Although there are others who disagree I think it safe to say that the concentration has not decreased but the temperature, at least for the last 12 years has stabilized. So even to a layman it certainly looks like saturation.

But thanks for flying off at the handle without the least bit of effort to become informed.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Physicist CO2 Greenhouse Effect is Already Saturated

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Freewill]

Examine for your self the last 12 years, a negative .02 trend. Global Land Sea, Annual.

Climate at a Glance National Climatic Data Center NCDC

Year	Anomaly	Rank
2002	0.61°C	8
2003	0.62°C	10
2004	0.58°C	4
2005	0.65°C	12
2006	0.59°C	7
2007	0.59°C	5
2008	0.51°C	1
2009	0.59°C	5
2010	0.65°C	12
2011	0.53°C	2
2012	0.57°C	3
2013	0.62°C	10

[THEAD] [/THEAD]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Those are temps and can vary widely of such a short period of time. I'll celebrate when you can show the same for CO2.

So what are you now arguing, that temperature does not follow CO2 concentration? Really?

Gore's famous temperature verses CO2 concentration honestly showed that CO2 concentration followed temperature by about 400 or so years. As temperature started to rise CO2 concentrations dropped and then responded to the increase, and there is logical and easy to understand reasons why. you ought to look into it.

 

[konradv]

Oh I will, Mr. C Little, I will.

Good, good, while you're doing that, ruminate about what's happening to the energy rising CO2 is trapping and tell us how it's cooling the earth.

I think you hand wring is causing the heat up, at least locally.

Maybe the CO2 has reached saturation thus there will be no more temperature increase. That seems to make the most sense.

Maybe? That's all you've got? How do you make any determination on the subject with a maybe? Here's a fact with no 'maybe' involved. CO2 concentrations have been higher in the past.

Here is an article on why the CO2 concentration is saturated already. Although there are others who disagree I think it safe to say that the concentration has not decreased but the temperature, at least for the last 12 years has stabilized. So even to a layman it certainly looks like saturation.

But thanks for flying off at the handle without the least bit of effort to become informed.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Physicist CO2 Greenhouse Effect is Already Saturated

I'm supposed to take seriously an article with a title like that? Hardly what I'd call a serious scientific treatise. It's a thinly veiled political screed.