Gather all ye Greenhouse Skeptics

[Abraham3]

I've never met anyone who can be described as a "greenhouse skeptic." Nobody with even the most basic of education doubts the existence of the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

Then you should get out and meet the crew here. Most of the deniers here have rejected it, though I suppose some aren't aware they're doing so.

No one has denied the climate changes.

I never said they did. I said they were denying the Greenhouse Effect. How many times has Crusader Frank, for instance, told us that 200 ppm change in CO2 will have no effect on the climate? How many times has GunnySgt demanded an experiment that will prove 200 ppm of CO2 would warm the planet? The list goes on.

 

[SwimExpert]

From Wikipedia, Greenhouse Effect

Greenhouse gases

By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:[21][22]
water vapor, 36–70%
carbon dioxide, 9–26%
methane, 4–9%
ozone, 3–7%

According to your own source that you provide, CO2 accounts at most for only 26% of the greenhouse effect. And you still have the mental sloth to insist that CO2 levels are causing "run away" warming?

 

[Abraham3]

I'm saying 200PPM of additional CO2 has no effect on temperature

But that's a really stupid thing to say. 280 ppm is keeping your ass and the asses of everyone else on this planet from freezing to death. This Arctic cold snap would be the weather in July.

That's a really stupid thing to day. The primary greeehouse gas in the atmosphere is water.

That's a really stupid thing to SAY. I never said CO2 was the only GREENHOUSE gas and the CO2 in the atmosphere is most certainly warming the planet.

 

[Abraham3]

I see the AGW cultists are out promoting their religious beliefs again.

CO2 does NOT drive climate, never has, nor did it cause an extension.

Science Fiction is sometimes pretty cool, but this thread of religious fiction is just boring.

They are out in full force trying to spin the fact that there is severe cold and they don't want people to remember that they said in the past that this wouldn't happen.

That would be a lie. No one here and no climate scientist in the last 20 years has ever told you "this wouldn't happen".

 

[SwimExpert]

Then you should get out and meet the crew here. Most of the deniers here have rejected it, though I suppose some aren't aware they're doing so.

No one has denied the climate changes.

I never said they did. I said they were denying the Greenhouse Effect. How many times has Crusader Frank, for instance, told us that 200 ppm change in CO2 will have no effect on the climate? How many times has GunnySgt demanded an experiment that will prove 200 ppm of CO2 would warm the planet? The list goes on.

Yet again, you dishonestly (or maybe just stupidly) misrepresent people's positions. Nothing in what they have said denies the existence of the greenhouse effect. They simply disagree that the aforesaid levels of CO2 will cause substantial increases in the overall greenhouse effect.

 

[Abraham3]

In other words, the people who make their living studying global warming won't bite the hand that feeds them.

Are SwimExpert, FlaCalTenn and IanC trying not to bite the hand that feeds them? They don't agree with Frank's nonsense (that 200 ppm change in CO2 levels will have no effect on temperature).

 

[RollingThunder]

Why do YOU guys think the Earth is not -18C?

Because water vapor keeps us warm.

And CO2, methane and ozone.

Do you deny that?

Are you kidding? After all you've witnessed on this forum? You really need to ask?

If their puppet masters told them to, these denier cult cretins would deny their pants were on fire even if their balls were roasting like a Thanksgiving turkey.

And you expect them to give up their cherished delusions and myths just because you show them overwhelming scientific evidence that debunks those myths? LOL. You'd have better luck trying to deprogram a hard core member of the Flat Earth Society.

You should really know better by now, Abe. The deniers on here are either brainwashed rightwingnut retards or they are trolls who are getting paid to push the lies and propaganda created by the fossil fuel industry and promote the corporate agenda of destroying environmental protections. Either way, they are beyond the reach of facts, logic or rational thought. By all means, continue to debunk their lies and misinformation for the benefit of others who may read these threads but don't ever expect to penetrate the walls of ignorance, stupidity and misinformation that protect the denier cultists' deranged denial of reality.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why does the AGWCult deny the Sun's role in Earth climate?

^ Hyperbole alert

 

[ScienceRocks]

From Wikipedia, Greenhouse Effect

Greenhouse gases

By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:[21][22]
water vapor, 36–70%
carbon dioxide, 9–26%
methane, 4–9%
ozone, 3–7%

According to your own source that you provide, CO2 accounts at most for only 26% of the greenhouse effect. And you still have the mental sloth to insist that CO2 levels are causing "run away" warming?

1. There's no run away greenhouse
2. 26% and increasing = increasing green house forcing.

 

[Abraham3]

It's funny to me that the AGW faithful think that cutting and pasting the work of others, without actually understanding what they are posting, somehow proves their knowledge.

If you can't explain it in your own words, you cannot argue that you know it.

What do you think I've pasted up here that I didn't understand?

 

[SwimExpert]

From Wikipedia, Greenhouse Effect

Greenhouse gases

By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:[21][22]
water vapor, 36–70%
carbon dioxide, 9–26%
methane, 4–9%
ozone, 3–7%

According to your own source that you provide, CO2 accounts at most for only 26% of the greenhouse effect. And you still have the mental sloth to insist that CO2 levels are causing "run away" warming?

1. There's no run away greenhouse
2. 26% and increasing = increasing green house forcing.

Please, by all means, give us the calculations. How much energy is directed towards the earth's surface as a result of current CO2 levels? How much more energy if the total mass of atmospheric CO2 doubles?

 

[westwall]

Give it up moron, you get your ass handed to you in one thread so you just start another one.

The Greenhouse Effect is real, no one us denying it. The planet may or may not be heating up, both of those points are irrelevant. What matters is the question of whether man has any effect on it. Clearly we are not.

If the Greenhouse Effect is real, how can you say that man - who has irrefutably pumped billions and billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, has raised the CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to in excess of 400 ppm - has had no effect?

Because man is not responsible for that increase. Man's contribution to the global CO2 budget is a paltry 5%. That means that of that 120 point increase, man is responsible for 6 of it. That's all. The rest is nature baby.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If that 6 caused a chain reaction that caused nature to move 110ppm of co2 from the carbon sinks to the atmosphere. Does it really make that much of a difference?

 

[westwall]

maybe it is true

after all mars was warmer then many parts of the Earth yesterday

--LOL

but then again Mars has 996,000 ppm co2

I thought Orogenicman has corrected you on this faux pas. My apologies if this is a repeat.

The atmospheric pressure on Mars is about 0.6 kPa (0.087 psi), 1/169th the Earth's pressure. Additionally its orbital radius is 227,000,000 km (141,051,000 miles), 52% further from the sun.

Orogenicman has demonstrated a catastrophic lack of mathematical skills. I wouldn't refer to him as a source if I were you.

 

[westwall]

If that 6 caused a chain reaction that caused nature to move 110ppm of co2 from the carbon sinks to the atmosphere. Does it really make that much of a difference?

By all means show us the math to support your contention.

 

[SwimExpert]

If that 6 caused a chain reaction that caused nature to move 110ppm of co2 from the carbon sinks to the atmosphere. Does it really make that much of a difference?

Fanciful speculation, completely devoid of any scientific merit.

 

[jon_berzerk]

maybe it is true

after all mars was warmer then many parts of the Earth yesterday

--LOL

but then again Mars has 996,000 ppm co2

I thought Orogenicman has corrected you on this faux pas. My apologies if this is a repeat.

The atmospheric pressure on Mars is about 0.6 kPa (0.087 psi), 1/169th the Earth's pressure. Additionally its orbital radius is 227,000,000 km (141,051,000 miles), 52% further from the sun.

Orogenicman has demonstrated a catastrophic lack of mathematical skills. I wouldn't refer to him as a source if I were you.

you got that right

 

[RollingThunder]

Give it up moron, you get your ass handed to you in one thread so you just start another one.

The Greenhouse Effect is real, no one us denying it. The planet may or may not be heating up, both of those points are irrelevant. What matters is the question of whether man has any effect on it. Clearly we are not.

If the Greenhouse Effect is real, how can you say that man - who has irrefutably pumped billions and billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, has raised the CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to in excess of 400 ppm - has had no effect?

Because man is not responsible for that increase. Man's contribution to the global CO2 budget is a paltry 5%. That means that of that 120 point increase, man is responsible for 6 of it. That's all. The rest is nature baby.

Retarded drivel - the walleyedretard's speciality.

Natural CO2 emissions get balanced by natural CO2 sequestration. Mankind's artificial "contributions" are on top of that natural balance. Both through analysis of the amount of fossil fuels being burned every year and through isotopic analysis of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, scientists have shown that mankind is responsible for the 43% increase in CO2 levels that has happened since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Not only anti-science but anti-everything that has to do with science. Believe me we have the tools on mars to measure that mars atmosphere is 100 times thinner.

In such a atmosphere molecules can't hit each other to warm up the surface temperature....Still near the equator temperatures do get above freezing. The reports of temperatures up to 60f in rare cases...

 

[RollingThunder]

If that 6 caused a chain reaction that caused nature to move 110ppm of co2 from the carbon sinks to the atmosphere. Does it really make that much of a difference?

Fanciful speculation, completely devoid of any scientific merit.

Brainless denial of reality, completely devoid of any intelligence or understanding of science. Very typical of ol' SwineExlax.