Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[SAT]

the stupid is strong in this one.

You haven't made a single post in this thread that was anything other than stupid. Your contribution has been nothing but tired, baseless insults-no useful information, no well-thought out arguments, nothing. Big fat zero.

well, you sure told me.

tissue?

Wow, great comeback. You really are an original. At any point do you plan on posting about the topic?

 

[SAT]

Surface and satellite-based observations show a decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent during the past 46 years. A comparison of these trends to control and transient integrations (forced by observed greenhouse gases and tropospheric sulfate aerosols) from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and Hadley Centre climate models reveals that the observed decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent agrees with the transient simulations, and both trends are much larger than would be expected from natural climate variations. From long-term control runs of climate models, it was found that the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability, assuming that the models' natural variability is similar to that found in nature, is less than 2 percent for the 1978–98 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 1953–98 sea ice trends. Both models used here project continued decreases in sea ice thickness and extent throughout the next century.

Again. Do you understand the words in bold?

Global Warming and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent

And?

Why do you pretend you don't see things?

I asked you if you understood the words in bold.

 

[RollingThunder]

Again. Do you understand the words in bold?

Global Warming and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent

And?

Why do you pretend you don't see things?

I asked you if you understood the words in bold.

Why does he (and all of them) pretend he doesn't see things, like scientific evidence? It is called 'being in denial' and it involves a kind of selective blindness and refusal to see. As the saying goes: 'there are none so blind as those who will not see'. Most of these AGW denier cult cretins are so deep in denial that the crocodiles are nibbling their toes but they remain oblivious.

 

[SAT]

My claim is that there is no science demonstrating the significance and/or magnitude of man made CO2 on any warming.

That's your idiotic claim, all right. A claim that you can't back up in any way. ....

I'm sorry. I would back it up if it were possible to prove a negative, that is.

Didn't we see a link showing that there's a difference between natural and man-made CO2?

Oh, here we go:

‘The CO2 rise is natural’—No skeptical argument has been more definitively disproven | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

By analyzing the isotopes of the carbon and oxygen atoms making up atmospheric CO2, in a process similar to carbon dating, scientists can and have detected a human "fingerprint." What they have found via the isotope signatures can be thought of as "old" carbon, which could only come from fossil fuel deposits, combined with "young" oxygen, as is found in the air all around us. So present day combustion of fossilized hydrocarbon deposits (natural gas, coal, and oil) is definitely the source of the CO2 currently accumulating -- just as common sense tells us.

For more of the nitty gritty technicalities straight from the climate scientists, including links to the actual research that established this, visit RealClimate's article on how we know the CO2 is ours.

Here's the article being cited:

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

As it says at the link "Real Climate Science from Real Climate Scientists".

 

[SAT]

And?

Why do you pretend you don't see things?

I asked you if you understood the words in bold.

Why does he (and all of them) pretend he doesn't see things, like scientific evidence? It is called 'being in denial' and it involves a kind of selective blindness and refusal to see. As the saying goes: 'there are none so blind as those who will not see'. Most of these AGW denier cult cretins are so deep in denial that the crocodiles are nibbling their toes but they remain oblivious.

Ditto that. And they've tried to pretend they're using science to do it.

 

[SAT]

That's your idiotic claim, all right. A claim that you can't back up in any way. ....

I'm sorry. I would back it up if it were possible to prove a negative, that is.

Didn't we see a link showing that there's a difference between natural and man-made CO2?

Oh, here we go:

‘The CO2 rise is natural’—No skeptical argument has been more definitively disproven | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

By analyzing the isotopes of the carbon and oxygen atoms making up atmospheric CO2, in a process similar to carbon dating, scientists can and have detected a human "fingerprint." What they have found via the isotope signatures can be thought of as "old" carbon, which could only come from fossil fuel deposits, combined with "young" oxygen, as is found in the air all around us. So present day combustion of fossilized hydrocarbon deposits (natural gas, coal, and oil) is definitely the source of the CO2 currently accumulating -- just as common sense tells us.

For more of the nitty gritty technicalities straight from the climate scientists, including links to the actual research that established this, visit RealClimate's article on how we know the CO2 is ours.

Here's the article being cited:

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

As it says at the link "Real Climate Science from Real Climate Scientists".

RealClimate

Here's the link to the main page.

 

[Si modo]

Again. Do you understand the words in bold?

Global Warming and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent

And?

Why do you pretend you don't see things?

I asked you if you understood the words in bold.

Normally when one says and they want to know what your point is.

What is your point?

The bolded words do nothing to back up your claim. I also suggest you try to comprehend the earlier discussion about falsifiability.

 

[gslack]

I give SAT credit for one thing, he is a persistent little idiot.. he has no problem looking like a complete moron so long as he gets people to talk to him.. I suppose that can be a good thing in some circles... or not...

 

[SAT]

And?

Why do you pretend you don't see things?

I asked you if you understood the words in bold.

Normally when one says and they want to know what your point is.

What is your point?

The bolded words do nothing to back up your claim. I also suggest you try to comprehend the earlier discussion about falsifiability.

Not necessarily. Sometimes one is trying to hide their failure by pretending not to see. Which is your present situation.

I've seen deniers who denied the science, but you take it to a whole new level. You don't even see words.

This sentence is one I'm asking you to read, and to comment on:

From long-term control runs of climate models, it was found that the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability, assuming that the models' natural variability is similar to that found in nature, is less than 2 percent for the 1978–98 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 1953–98 sea ice trends.

Do you understand what that sentence means?

Do you understand the meaning of those statistics?

For both, please comment.

 

[Si modo]

I give SAT credit for one thing, he is a persistent little idiot.. he has no problem looking like a complete moron so long as he gets people to talk to him.. I suppose that can be a good thing in some circles... or not...

As I said earlier, I have always been perplexed by those who have no problem looking like morons. For some, they even get a sense of accomplishment from it. Go figure.

 

[SAT]

This sentence is one I'm asking you to read, and to comment on:

From long-term control runs of climate models, it was found that the probability of the observed trends resulting from natural climate variability, assuming that the models' natural variability is similar to that found in nature, is less than 2 percent for the 1978–98 sea ice trends and less than 0.1 percent for the 1953–98 sea ice trends.

Do you understand what that sentence means?

Do you understand the meaning of those statistics?

For both, please comment.

 

[SAT]

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

This is how we know that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity.

And we know what increased CO2 does in the environment.

 

[Si modo]

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

This is how we know that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity.

....

Now, if only someone had said that it wasn't.

 

[SAT]

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

This is how we know that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity.

....

Now, if only someone had said that it wasn't.

Oh, plenty of people have said that it wasn't. You know that.

So if we're agreed on that, then we also know what increased levels of CO2 do in the atmosphere.

So we're done.

Global warming is the result of human activity.

 

[del]

You haven't made a single post in this thread that was anything other than stupid. Your contribution has been nothing but tired, baseless insults-no useful information, no well-thought out arguments, nothing. Big fat zero.

well, you sure told me.

tissue?

Wow, great comeback. You really are an original. At any point do you plan on posting about the topic?

no, i should have thought that was obvious even to a towering intellect such as yours.

 

[SAT]

You made a wise choice.

 

[del]

That's your idiotic claim, all right. A claim that you can't back up in any way. ....

I'm sorry. I would back it up if it were possible to prove a negative, that is.

Didn't we see a link showing that there's a difference between natural and man-made CO2?

Oh, here we go:

‘The CO2 rise is natural’—No skeptical argument has been more definitively disproven | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

By analyzing the isotopes of the carbon and oxygen atoms making up atmospheric CO2, in a process similar to carbon dating, scientists can and have detected a human "fingerprint." What they have found via the isotope signatures can be thought of as "old" carbon, which could only come from fossil fuel deposits, combined with "young" oxygen, as is found in the air all around us. So present day combustion of fossilized hydrocarbon deposits (natural gas, coal, and oil) is definitely the source of the CO2 currently accumulating -- just as common sense tells us.

For more of the nitty gritty technicalities straight from the climate scientists, including links to the actual research that established this, visit RealClimate's article on how we know the CO2 is ours.

Here's the article being cited:

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

As it says at the link "Real Climate Science from Real Climate Scientists".

if it's on their web page, it must be true.

 

[SAT]

 

[del]

You made a wise choice.

my father told me when i was a child that one doesn't get smarter hanging around with dumber. so far, he's been right on the money.

 

[Si modo]

RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?



This is how we know that the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity.

....

Now, if only someone had said that it wasn't.

Oh, plenty of people have said that it wasn't. You know that.

So if we're agreed on that, then we also know what increased levels of CO2 do in the atmosphere.

So we're done.

Global warming is the result of human activity.

You're missing just a few things there, kid.