Human Caused Global Warming

[westwall]

Well, since I'm not a climatologist or any other sort of natural sciences researcher, I'm more than willing to accept the explanations from the overwhelming majority of scientists that do know about these things.
I'm sure that you know the explanations as well as I do and I'm prepared to believe them.

It makes absolutely no sense that 97% of the scientific community would be bought off.
I could accept that 3% might be.

Describe anything that is happening in the climate today or during the entire industrial period that is outside of the bounds of natural variability. If man is altering the climate, it would certainly be unnatural so then it should be outside the boundaries of natural variability and easily identified.. Where is our fingerprint on the climate?

Individual events don't count...that's called weather.
Trends matter...that's called climate.

The experts say that the climate is changing.
Didn't you read what I wrote?

The experts claim it, yet can't show any empirical data to support their statement. And in fact have had to resort to outright falsification to support their claims. A thinking person would be asking questions. They rely on your inability, or unwillingness to think for yourself.

I've been reading your posts, and all I can say is that you're one hell of an ignorant person.

Saying that experts can't show an empirical data flies in the face of the fact that climatologists submit their work for peer review and MUST show evidence to support their claim. So, that's an ignorant statemnt.

Claiming that were in an interglacial period but it's still an ice age? That's just plain stupid. After all, just because there may be snow on the ground in late April or that you might even get a snow storm in May doesn't mean it's still winter.

Why don't you read a damn BOOK written by people who actually KNOW what they're talking about!

As for me, here's my take on what I think is going to happen after reading 7 books about climate change that have run the gamut from scientific evidence to anecdotal evidence, to the political process and economic interests including the different views of gov'ts around the world who have conflicting views on how to proceed because of their competing interests:

Unless some new miraculous technology presents itself within the next five years or so that could and would allow us to use power while engaging in carbon capture at the source or produce energy without adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and unless human beings are willing to change their freewheeling consumptive habits, even capping CO2 emissions at current per capita levels will seal our collective doom by destroying our currently highly livable and habitable environment with a growing population that industrialization (and by extension, cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels) has made possible. After all, not long after the advent of the steam engine in the late 18th century, the world population hit 1 Billion for the first time around 1804. As of about 2011, we passed 7 Billion with a projection of 8 Billion by 2024, 9 Billion by 2040, and 10 Billion by 2062.

There's another reason I don't think we're going to pull out of this mess. It's because the human race thrives on conflict. Squabbling seems to be a part of our DNA. The wars, and the crime, and the domestic abuse is only the most outwardly visible example since it makes the news. But people just LOVE to dispute something. Hell, we've still got people who dispute the Holocaust. And I'm not sure that the tobacco industry has EVER acknowledged the dangers of their product. The fact that there are people with serious economic and political interests who would dispute climate change shouldn't surprise anyone.

So, what the hell. Why not just go in the other direction instead. I mean, personally I think that the planet is going to be a completely different place in a couple of hundred years (assuming we don't descend into collective anarchy by then) with fights for water, arable farmland (if it can be found), and other necessary resources. So, why put off the inevitable? Why not just test the conservative premise that humans can't change (and aren't changing) the environment. Let's set up some stations to intentionally produce CO2 and other greenhouse gases and pump it into the air with abandon. I mean, it's gonna happen anyway once that permafrost has melted and all the CO2 and CH4 (methane) is released. Let's GO FOR IT NOW. We can either prove conservatives right or wrong. We'll let you guys run the machinery too just to make you happy. You've heard of that old saying about pumping up the jam, when it comes to music, haven't you? Well let's pump up the greenhouse gases and jam to the results. Party on, Garth!

But I must admit that mine is a minority view. See, I also think that people are going to start getting royally pissed off at all the BS surrounding the issue, and a new form of eco-terrorism could be just around the corner as people finally decide to strike at the heart of the men and the economic and political interests who stand in the way of progress on this issue. But I think the effort is going to be too little and too late to save us from ourselves. But it'll be a good show. Better to go out with a bang as opposed to winding down with a whimper.

No, the ignorant ones are you and your ilk. Every claim that is made by the climatologists is based on computer models. Do you even understand what that means? Do you? Can you is probably the better question.

I'll make it easy for you...computer models are fiction. They are not real. The goal is to take empirical data (look up the meaning if you don't know what it means) and compare real data to computer models.

The real data is opposite of what the computer models predict. The models are so simplistic and poorly written that you can punch ANY number in to them and they will always predict warming. A thinking person would wonder why that is.

Your problem is you are so ignorant of basic science that you can't even begin to understand the basics.

Come back when you have educated yourself a little more.

 

[westwall]

Describe anything that is happening in the climate today or during the entire industrial period that is outside of the bounds of natural variability. If man is altering the climate, it would certainly be unnatural so then it should be outside the boundaries of natural variability and easily identified.. Where is our fingerprint on the climate?

Individual events don't count...that's called weather.
Trends matter...that's called climate.

The experts say that the climate is changing.
Didn't you read what I wrote?

The experts claim it, yet can't show any empirical data to support their statement. And in fact have had to resort to outright falsification to support their claims. A thinking person would be asking questions. They rely on your inability, or unwillingness to think for yourself.

I've been reading your posts, and all I can say is that you're one hell of an ignorant person.

Saying that experts can't show an empirical data flies in the face of the fact that climatologists submit their work for peer review and MUST show evidence to support their claim. So, that's an ignorant statemnt.

Claiming that were in an interglacial period but it's still an ice age? That's just plain stupid. After all, just because there may be snow on the ground in late April or that you might even get a snow storm in May doesn't mean it's still winter.

Why don't you read a damn BOOK written by people who actually KNOW what they're talking about!

As for me, here's my take on what I think is going to happen after reading 7 books about climate change that have run the gamut from scientific evidence to anecdotal evidence, to the political process and economic interests including the different views of gov'ts around the world who have conflicting views on how to proceed because of their competing interests:

Unless some new miraculous technology presents itself within the next five years or so that could and would allow us to use power while engaging in carbon capture at the source or produce energy without adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and unless human beings are willing to change their freewheeling consumptive habits, even capping CO2 emissions at current per capita levels will seal our collective doom by destroying our currently highly livable and habitable environment with a growing population that industrialization (and by extension, cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels) has made possible. After all, not long after the advent of the steam engine in the late 18th century, the world population hit 1 Billion for the first time around 1804. As of about 2011, we passed 7 Billion with a projection of 8 Billion by 2024, 9 Billion by 2040, and 10 Billion by 2062.

There's another reason I don't think we're going to pull out of this mess. It's because the human race thrives on conflict. Squabbling seems to be a part of our DNA. The wars, and the crime, and the domestic abuse is only the most outwardly visible example since it makes the news. But people just LOVE to dispute something. Hell, we've still got people who dispute the Holocaust. And I'm not sure that the tobacco industry has EVER acknowledged the dangers of their product. The fact that there are people with serious economic and political interests who would dispute climate change shouldn't surprise anyone.

So, what the hell. Why not just go in the other direction instead. I mean, personally I think that the planet is going to be a completely different place in a couple of hundred years (assuming we don't descend into collective anarchy by then) with fights for water, arable farmland (if it can be found), and other necessary resources. So, why put off the inevitable? Why not just test the conservative premise that humans can't change (and aren't changing) the environment. Let's set up some stations to intentionally produce CO2 and other greenhouse gases and pump it into the air with abandon. I mean, it's gonna happen anyway once that permafrost has melted and all the CO2 and CH4 (methane) is released. Let's GO FOR IT NOW. We can either prove conservatives right or wrong. We'll let you guys run the machinery too just to make you happy. You've heard of that old saying about pumping up the jam, when it comes to music, haven't you? Well let's pump up the greenhouse gases and jam to the results. Party on, Garth!

But I must admit that mine is a minority view. See, I also think that people are going to start getting royally pissed off at all the BS surrounding the issue, and a new form of eco-terrorism could be just around the corner as people finally decide to strike at the heart of the men and the economic and political interests who stand in the way of progress on this issue. But I think the effort is going to be too little and too late to save us from ourselves. But it'll be a good show. Better to go out with a bang as opposed to winding down with a whimper.

you all are so so lost. We don't care about the peer reviewers, they are all part of the falsify good ole boys club. And as normal you have resorted to insults. Such a debate technique. There is no evidence, zip nada and dude, you're like number five now on the liar side. There is no need for us skeptics to rehash with you all previous discussion points, go read the threads!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you even know what peer review is?

Yes, we do. Which is why we care that the climatologists have corrupted it to serve their meme. Once again a thinking person would wonder what they had to hide.

 

[cultsmasher]

In my thread "Will You Vote Republican," somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing. But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.

Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2. Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans. Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year. Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.

This past summer, temperatures were fairly cool around where I live. But from what I have seen, if there are cooler temperatures in one area, it means that temperatures are hotter in another area of the earth.

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier. She points that in the far distant past, atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. Which is true. Around one hundred million years ago or so, they were much higher. Apparently because of the breakup of the continents, things have been cooling down over a long time. Causing many ice ages. But as far as I have seen, this isn't something that happened a very long time ago. When global CO2 levels were much higher. We are in uncharted territory. No doubt there is much more methane in places like frozen tundra or shallow seas than there was in the far past. And methane is 20 times better at causing global warming than CO2. Just how much warming will it take for that to start getting released in ever greater quantity. It's hard to say. But there is one thing I know for sure. Most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else.

Oh great, another idiot trying to convince others that "global warming" is real and that humans are to blame.
What a load of bullshit!

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier.

Good for her. At least she wasn't gullible like you are who bought into the bullshit lies and misinformation of global warming.

There is No Scientific Evidence That Humans are Causing Global Warming Lubbock Online Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

Wildcard,
It is interesting how people like you can deny the truth. Maybe it's through de-evoloution or brainwashing. Or maybe you are making a living through pollution. Though it could be that you are being paid by polluting companies to be a denier. Or maybe your skull is so thick, you need to hear things more than once. In that case, I will say it again.

Read this very slowly and try to understand. Each year, all the volcanos on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2 into the biosphere. Each year, humans are responsible for putting out 26.8 BILLION tons!!!! Can you really think that doesn't make a difference? Really? You know, there is a reason why the vast majority of scientists agree that human caused global warming is a reality. Though unfortunately, it is the rich polluters who have the most access to your mind. On most program that I see, the TV god calls it (to be said with a really wimpy voice) climate change. But as I said, what it really should be called is (to be said with a firm, manly voice) human caused global warming.

It's interesting how people like you can buy into the lies and misinformation of global warming without question and call it the truth, hoping to convince others of your brain-washed beliefs.

Wildcard,
The truth speaks for itself. If you don't want to believe it, that's up to you.

 

[westwall]

I don't understand why the 97% of scientists that accept AGW are labelled as 'shills' while the other 3% are apparently the only honest brokers.

idb,
I take it that is a rhetorical question. Because you know the answer as well as I. Just follow the money.

No, it's a genuine question.
Simple logic kicks against the 'shill' label attached to 97% of the scientific community.

If I were going to pay for shills I'd rather be forking out for 3% of the scientists - not 97%.

idb,
As I said before, follow the money. Where do scientists and governments get their money. From the companies that pollute. So if most scientists agree that there is human caused global warming, it stands to reason that money has nothing to do with their views.

Yes. Funny how you think that oil companies are so bad for making billions of dollars for providing a commodity that is critical to the function of the world.

Here's the report from the UN. Tell me silly boy, what is bigger...billions or trillions?
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

Follow the money indeed... And it is you cultists who want every dime the world has.

 

[westwall]

In my thread "Will You Vote Republican," somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing. But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.

Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2. Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans. Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year. Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.

This past summer, temperatures were fairly cool around where I live. But from what I have seen, if there are cooler temperatures in one area, it means that temperatures are hotter in another area of the earth.

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier. She points that in the far distant past, atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. Which is true. Around one hundred million years ago or so, they were much higher. Apparently because of the breakup of the continents, things have been cooling down over a long time. Causing many ice ages. But as far as I have seen, this isn't something that happened a very long time ago. When global CO2 levels were much higher. We are in uncharted territory. No doubt there is much more methane in places like frozen tundra or shallow seas than there was in the far past. And methane is 20 times better at causing global warming than CO2. Just how much warming will it take for that to start getting released in ever greater quantity. It's hard to say. But there is one thing I know for sure. Most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else.

Oh great, another idiot trying to convince others that "global warming" is real and that humans are to blame.
What a load of bullshit!

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier.

Good for her. At least she wasn't gullible like you are who bought into the bullshit lies and misinformation of global warming.

There is No Scientific Evidence That Humans are Causing Global Warming Lubbock Online Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

Wildcard,
It is interesting how people like you can deny the truth. Maybe it's through de-evoloution or brainwashing. Or maybe you are making a living through pollution. Though it could be that you are being paid by polluting companies to be a denier. Or maybe your skull is so thick, you need to hear things more than once. In that case, I will say it again.

Read this very slowly and try to understand. Each year, all the volcanos on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2 into the biosphere. Each year, humans are responsible for putting out 26.8 BILLION tons!!!! Can you really think that doesn't make a difference? Really? You know, there is a reason why the vast majority of scientists agree that human caused global warming is a reality. Though unfortunately, it is the rich polluters who have the most access to your mind. On most program that I see, the TV god calls it (to be said with a really wimpy voice) climate change. But as I said, what it really should be called is (to be said with a firm, manly voice) human caused global warming.

It's interesting how people like you can buy into the lies and misinformation of global warming without question and call it the truth, hoping to convince others of your brain-washed beliefs.

Wildcard,
The truth speaks for itself. If you don't want to believe it, that's up to you.

Indeed it does. Why do you lie?

 

[westwall]

Oh brother...not another global warming thread...

Everyone knows AGW is nothing but a political ploy by the elites...well except foolish leftists.

Its not science...its politics.

gipper,
Human caused global warming is real.

And yet you can't point to a single shred of evidence to support it. You are a full fledged cultist my boy.

 

[Mustang]

Well, since I'm not a climatologist or any other sort of natural sciences researcher, I'm more than willing to accept the explanations from the overwhelming majority of scientists that do know about these things.
I'm sure that you know the explanations as well as I do and I'm prepared to believe them.

It makes absolutely no sense that 97% of the scientific community would be bought off.
I could accept that 3% might be.

Describe anything that is happening in the climate today or during the entire industrial period that is outside of the bounds of natural variability. If man is altering the climate, it would certainly be unnatural so then it should be outside the boundaries of natural variability and easily identified.. Where is our fingerprint on the climate?

Individual events don't count...that's called weather.
Trends matter...that's called climate.

The experts say that the climate is changing.
Didn't you read what I wrote?

The experts claim it, yet can't show any empirical data to support their statement. And in fact have had to resort to outright falsification to support their claims. A thinking person would be asking questions. They rely on your inability, or unwillingness to think for yourself.

I've been reading your posts, and all I can say is that you're one hell of an ignorant person.

Saying that experts can't show an empirical data flies in the face of the fact that climatologists submit their work for peer review and MUST show evidence to support their claim. So, that's an ignorant statemnt.

Claiming that were in an interglacial period but it's still an ice age? That's just plain stupid. After all, just because there may be snow on the ground in late April or that you might even get a snow storm in May doesn't mean it's still winter.

Why don't you read a damn BOOK written by people who actually KNOW what they're talking about!

As for me, here's my take on what I think is going to happen after reading 7 books about climate change that have run the gamut from scientific evidence to anecdotal evidence, to the political process and economic interests including the different views of gov'ts around the world who have conflicting views on how to proceed because of their competing interests:

Unless some new miraculous technology presents itself within the next five years or so that could and would allow us to use power while engaging in carbon capture at the source or produce energy without adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and unless human beings are willing to change their freewheeling consumptive habits, even capping CO2 emissions at current per capita levels will seal our collective doom by destroying our currently highly livable and habitable environment with a growing population that industrialization (and by extension, cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels) has made possible. After all, not long after the advent of the steam engine in the late 18th century, the world population hit 1 Billion for the first time around 1804. As of about 2011, we passed 7 Billion with a projection of 8 Billion by 2024, 9 Billion by 2040, and 10 Billion by 2062.

There's another reason I don't think we're going to pull out of this mess. It's because the human race thrives on conflict. Squabbling seems to be a part of our DNA. The wars, and the crime, and the domestic abuse is only the most outwardly visible example since it makes the news. But people just LOVE to dispute something. Hell, we've still got people who dispute the Holocaust. And I'm not sure that the tobacco industry has EVER acknowledged the dangers of their product. The fact that there are people with serious economic and political interests who would dispute climate change shouldn't surprise anyone.

So, what the hell. Why not just go in the other direction instead. I mean, personally I think that the planet is going to be a completely different place in a couple of hundred years (assuming we don't descend into collective anarchy by then) with fights for water, arable farmland (if it can be found), and other necessary resources. So, why put off the inevitable? Why not just test the conservative premise that humans can't change (and aren't changing) the environment. Let's set up some stations to intentionally produce CO2 and other greenhouse gases and pump it into the air with abandon. I mean, it's gonna happen anyway once that permafrost has melted and all the CO2 and CH4 (methane) is released. Let's GO FOR IT NOW. We can either prove conservatives right or wrong. We'll let you guys run the machinery too just to make you happy. You've heard of that old saying about pumping up the jam, when it comes to music, haven't you? Well let's pump up the greenhouse gases and jam to the results. Party on, Garth!

But I must admit that mine is a minority view. See, I also think that people are going to start getting royally pissed off at all the BS surrounding the issue, and a new form of eco-terrorism could be just around the corner as people finally decide to strike at the heart of the men and the economic and political interests who stand in the way of progress on this issue. But I think the effort is going to be too little and too late to save us from ourselves. But it'll be a good show. Better to go out with a bang as opposed to winding down with a whimper.

No, the ignorant ones are you and your ilk. Every claim that is made by the climatologists is based on computer models. Do you even understand what that means? Do you? Can you is probably the better question.

I'll make it easy for you...computer models are fiction. They are not real. The goal is to take empirical data (look up the meaning if you don't know what it means) and compare real data to computer models.

The real data is opposite of what the computer models predict. The models are so simplistic and poorly written that you can punch ANY number in to them and they will always predict warming. A thinking person would wonder why that is.

Your problem is you are so ignorant of basic science that you can't even begin to understand the basics.

Come back when you have educated yourself a little more.

You're a fool. We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As the planet warms, it causes feedbacks which actually magnifies the effect. So, for example, when sea ice, which usually reflects light, melts, and it's replaced by open ocean which absorbs light and heat, then the effect of climate change is magnified. Of course computer models are going to represent scientific principles when the numbers are punched in because it's a sophisticated calculator which performs millions of calculations.

 

[Mustang]

I don't understand why the 97% of scientists that accept AGW are labelled as 'shills' while the other 3% are apparently the only honest brokers.

idb,
I take it that is a rhetorical question. Because you know the answer as well as I. Just follow the money.

No, it's a genuine question.
Simple logic kicks against the 'shill' label attached to 97% of the scientific community.

If I were going to pay for shills I'd rather be forking out for 3% of the scientists - not 97%.

idb,
As I said before, follow the money. Where do scientists and governments get their money. From the companies that pollute. So if most scientists agree that there is human caused global warming, it stands to reason that money has nothing to do with their views.

Yes. Funny how you think that oil companies are so bad for making billions of dollars for providing a commodity that is critical to the function of the world.

Here's the report from the UN. Tell me silly boy, what is bigger...billions or trillions?
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

Follow the money indeed... And it is you cultists who want every dime the world has.

Oil isn't necessary for the functioning of the world. The world functions just fine without oil. It's humans that need and want oil.

 

[mamooth]

No, the ignorant ones are you and your ilk. Every claim that is made by the climatologists is based on computer models.

So, according to westwall here, if scientists claim "Sea level is currently rising at 3.2 mm / year" ... it's a model.

Back in the real world, global warming is well proven without any models at all. Models are just icing on the cake. If someone can't fathom such a basic concept, they have no business annoying the grownups.

We've also pointed out to westwall many times how his cult has snookered him big time with their deliberately fudged data concerning the models, models which are very good. It has no effect on him. His religion instructs him that the models are all wrong, and no silly facts and data are going to sway him from the TrueFaith.

Do you even understand what that means? Do you? Can you is probably the better question.

I'll make it easy for you...computer models are fiction. They are not real. The goal is to take empirical data (look up the meaning if you don't know what it means) and compare real data to computer models.

The real data is opposite of what the computer models predict. The models are so simplistic and poorly written that you can punch ANY number in to them and they will always predict warming. A thinking person would wonder why that is.

Your problem is you are so ignorant of basic science that you can't even begin to understand the basics.

Come back when you have educated yourself a little more.

 

[flacaltenn]

You're a fool. We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As the planet warms, it causes feedbacks which actually magnifies the effect. So, for example, when sea ice, which usually reflects light, melts, and it's replaced by open ocean which absorbs light and heat, then the effect of climate change is magnified. Of course computer models are going to represent scientific principles when the numbers are punched in because it's a sophisticated calculator which performs millions of calculations.

1) We are pumping about 5% of what CO2 NATURE puts into the atmos. every year.. And that assessment by man has some bad accounting in it.. When NATURE eats all that CO2 every year, it eats almost all of it except for about 3% --- Doesn't taste the diff between MAN'S CO2 and her own... We don't actually know that the 3% wouldn't still be the imbalance if man cut back their paltry amount. Because that excess is probably driven by TEMPERATURE --- not the other way around..

2) The concept of "positive feedbacks" is the weakest portion of GW theory.. Since the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS over the past 100 years or so match the CO2 only warming power that everyone agrees on. No MAGIC ever measured. The "accelerated" warming assumes this is a junker of planet with a death wish. And that a couple degrees can force it to destroy itself.. Not in evidence AT all from the numbers..

3) MOST of the positive feedback that the MAGICAL part of GW depends on is water vapor and clouds. The PRIMARY ghouse gas.
No general agreement on the Magical happenings that should be occuring with increased water vapor.

Ice free oceans may also be MORE LIKELY to absorb surface heat to lower ocean layers and take that heat OUT OF THE GREENHOUSE. In fact, the phoney assertion that this is the reason for the temp. pause DEPENDS on taking that heat to a place (Davey Jone's locker) where it's never likely to return.
That my bro -- represents a MIGHTY LARGE NEGATIVE feedback that was never realized by these clowns until the past few years..

 

[Mustang]

You're a fool. We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As the planet warms, it causes feedbacks which actually magnifies the effect. So, for example, when sea ice, which usually reflects light, melts, and it's replaced by open ocean which absorbs light and heat, then the effect of climate change is magnified. Of course computer models are going to represent scientific principles when the numbers are punched in because it's a sophisticated calculator which performs millions of calculations.

1) We are pumping about 5% of what CO2 NATURE puts into the atmos. every year.. And that assessment by man has some bad accounting in it.. When NATURE eats all that CO2 every year, it eats almost all of it except for about 3% --- Doesn't taste the diff between MAN'S CO2 and her own...

2) The concept of "positive feedbacks" is the weakest portion of GW theory.. Since the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS over the past 100 years or so match the CO2 only warming power that everyone agrees on. The "accelerated" warming assumes this is a junker of planet with a death wish. And that a couple degrees can force it to destroy itself.. Not in evidence AT all from the numbers..

3) MOST of the positive feedback that the MAGICAL part of GW depends on is water vapor and clouds. The PRIMARY ghouse gas.
No general agreement on the Magical happenings that should be occuring with increased water vapor.

Ice free oceans may also be MORE LIKELY to absorb surface heat to lower ocean layers and take that heat OUT OF THE GREENHOUSE. In fact, the phoney assertion that this is the reason for the temp. pause DEPENDS on taking that heat to a place (Davey Jone's locker) where it's never likely to return.
That my bro -- represents a MIGHTY LARGE NEGATIVE feedback that was never realized by these clowns until the past few years..

The ignorance of the climate change deniers is stunning.

Ultimately, the ocean IS the repository of heating the planet. But guess what? It's the oceans, and NOT the atmosphere, that DRIVES the climate of the planet. We're also making the oceans more acidic in the process.

 

[westwall]

Describe anything that is happening in the climate today or during the entire industrial period that is outside of the bounds of natural variability. If man is altering the climate, it would certainly be unnatural so then it should be outside the boundaries of natural variability and easily identified.. Where is our fingerprint on the climate?

Individual events don't count...that's called weather.
Trends matter...that's called climate.

The experts say that the climate is changing.
Didn't you read what I wrote?

The experts claim it, yet can't show any empirical data to support their statement. And in fact have had to resort to outright falsification to support their claims. A thinking person would be asking questions. They rely on your inability, or unwillingness to think for yourself.

I've been reading your posts, and all I can say is that you're one hell of an ignorant person.

Saying that experts can't show an empirical data flies in the face of the fact that climatologists submit their work for peer review and MUST show evidence to support their claim. So, that's an ignorant statemnt.

Claiming that were in an interglacial period but it's still an ice age? That's just plain stupid. After all, just because there may be snow on the ground in late April or that you might even get a snow storm in May doesn't mean it's still winter.

Why don't you read a damn BOOK written by people who actually KNOW what they're talking about!

As for me, here's my take on what I think is going to happen after reading 7 books about climate change that have run the gamut from scientific evidence to anecdotal evidence, to the political process and economic interests including the different views of gov'ts around the world who have conflicting views on how to proceed because of their competing interests:

Unless some new miraculous technology presents itself within the next five years or so that could and would allow us to use power while engaging in carbon capture at the source or produce energy without adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and unless human beings are willing to change their freewheeling consumptive habits, even capping CO2 emissions at current per capita levels will seal our collective doom by destroying our currently highly livable and habitable environment with a growing population that industrialization (and by extension, cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels) has made possible. After all, not long after the advent of the steam engine in the late 18th century, the world population hit 1 Billion for the first time around 1804. As of about 2011, we passed 7 Billion with a projection of 8 Billion by 2024, 9 Billion by 2040, and 10 Billion by 2062.

There's another reason I don't think we're going to pull out of this mess. It's because the human race thrives on conflict. Squabbling seems to be a part of our DNA. The wars, and the crime, and the domestic abuse is only the most outwardly visible example since it makes the news. But people just LOVE to dispute something. Hell, we've still got people who dispute the Holocaust. And I'm not sure that the tobacco industry has EVER acknowledged the dangers of their product. The fact that there are people with serious economic and political interests who would dispute climate change shouldn't surprise anyone.

So, what the hell. Why not just go in the other direction instead. I mean, personally I think that the planet is going to be a completely different place in a couple of hundred years (assuming we don't descend into collective anarchy by then) with fights for water, arable farmland (if it can be found), and other necessary resources. So, why put off the inevitable? Why not just test the conservative premise that humans can't change (and aren't changing) the environment. Let's set up some stations to intentionally produce CO2 and other greenhouse gases and pump it into the air with abandon. I mean, it's gonna happen anyway once that permafrost has melted and all the CO2 and CH4 (methane) is released. Let's GO FOR IT NOW. We can either prove conservatives right or wrong. We'll let you guys run the machinery too just to make you happy. You've heard of that old saying about pumping up the jam, when it comes to music, haven't you? Well let's pump up the greenhouse gases and jam to the results. Party on, Garth!

But I must admit that mine is a minority view. See, I also think that people are going to start getting royally pissed off at all the BS surrounding the issue, and a new form of eco-terrorism could be just around the corner as people finally decide to strike at the heart of the men and the economic and political interests who stand in the way of progress on this issue. But I think the effort is going to be too little and too late to save us from ourselves. But it'll be a good show. Better to go out with a bang as opposed to winding down with a whimper.

No, the ignorant ones are you and your ilk. Every claim that is made by the climatologists is based on computer models. Do you even understand what that means? Do you? Can you is probably the better question.

I'll make it easy for you...computer models are fiction. They are not real. The goal is to take empirical data (look up the meaning if you don't know what it means) and compare real data to computer models.

The real data is opposite of what the computer models predict. The models are so simplistic and poorly written that you can punch ANY number in to them and they will always predict warming. A thinking person would wonder why that is.

Your problem is you are so ignorant of basic science that you can't even begin to understand the basics.

Come back when you have educated yourself a little more.

You're a fool. We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As the planet warms, it causes feedbacks which actually magnifies the effect. So, for example, when sea ice, which usually reflects light, melts, and it's replaced by open ocean which absorbs light and heat, then the effect of climate change is magnified. Of course computer models are going to represent scientific principles when the numbers are punched in because it's a sophisticated calculator which performs millions of calculations.

Big fucking deal. The atmosphere weighs QUADRILLIONS of tons. The amount of CO2 that we insert into the atmosphere is less than 5% of the total global CO2 budget. So our contribution to a trace gas is a trace. You can spew all these cute little words like "feedback loops" and any other horse crap you wish but this is real science I'm going to tell you here. You can look it up anywhere.

The globe warms because the Sun warms the oceans. The primary frequency of that warming is UV which can penetrate a few meters deep into the ocean. Long wave IR (which you guys are all worried about) can penetrate MICRONS deep into the water. In other words the very thing that you are worried about cannot happen. It is physically impossible.

 

[westwall]

I don't understand why the 97% of scientists that accept AGW are labelled as 'shills' while the other 3% are apparently the only honest brokers.

idb,
I take it that is a rhetorical question. Because you know the answer as well as I. Just follow the money.

No, it's a genuine question.
Simple logic kicks against the 'shill' label attached to 97% of the scientific community.

If I were going to pay for shills I'd rather be forking out for 3% of the scientists - not 97%.

idb,
As I said before, follow the money. Where do scientists and governments get their money. From the companies that pollute. So if most scientists agree that there is human caused global warming, it stands to reason that money has nothing to do with their views.

Yes. Funny how you think that oil companies are so bad for making billions of dollars for providing a commodity that is critical to the function of the world.

Here's the report from the UN. Tell me silly boy, what is bigger...billions or trillions?
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

Follow the money indeed... And it is you cultists who want every dime the world has.

Oil isn't necessary for the functioning of the world. The world functions just fine without oil. It's humans that need and want oil.

That is absolutely true. The first factual thing you have said.

 

[Mustang]

Individual events don't count...that's called weather.
Trends matter...that's called climate.

The experts say that the climate is changing.
Didn't you read what I wrote?

The experts claim it, yet can't show any empirical data to support their statement. And in fact have had to resort to outright falsification to support their claims. A thinking person would be asking questions. They rely on your inability, or unwillingness to think for yourself.

I've been reading your posts, and all I can say is that you're one hell of an ignorant person.

Saying that experts can't show an empirical data flies in the face of the fact that climatologists submit their work for peer review and MUST show evidence to support their claim. So, that's an ignorant statemnt.

Claiming that were in an interglacial period but it's still an ice age? That's just plain stupid. After all, just because there may be snow on the ground in late April or that you might even get a snow storm in May doesn't mean it's still winter.

Why don't you read a damn BOOK written by people who actually KNOW what they're talking about!

As for me, here's my take on what I think is going to happen after reading 7 books about climate change that have run the gamut from scientific evidence to anecdotal evidence, to the political process and economic interests including the different views of gov'ts around the world who have conflicting views on how to proceed because of their competing interests:

Unless some new miraculous technology presents itself within the next five years or so that could and would allow us to use power while engaging in carbon capture at the source or produce energy without adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and unless human beings are willing to change their freewheeling consumptive habits, even capping CO2 emissions at current per capita levels will seal our collective doom by destroying our currently highly livable and habitable environment with a growing population that industrialization (and by extension, cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels) has made possible. After all, not long after the advent of the steam engine in the late 18th century, the world population hit 1 Billion for the first time around 1804. As of about 2011, we passed 7 Billion with a projection of 8 Billion by 2024, 9 Billion by 2040, and 10 Billion by 2062.

There's another reason I don't think we're going to pull out of this mess. It's because the human race thrives on conflict. Squabbling seems to be a part of our DNA. The wars, and the crime, and the domestic abuse is only the most outwardly visible example since it makes the news. But people just LOVE to dispute something. Hell, we've still got people who dispute the Holocaust. And I'm not sure that the tobacco industry has EVER acknowledged the dangers of their product. The fact that there are people with serious economic and political interests who would dispute climate change shouldn't surprise anyone.

So, what the hell. Why not just go in the other direction instead. I mean, personally I think that the planet is going to be a completely different place in a couple of hundred years (assuming we don't descend into collective anarchy by then) with fights for water, arable farmland (if it can be found), and other necessary resources. So, why put off the inevitable? Why not just test the conservative premise that humans can't change (and aren't changing) the environment. Let's set up some stations to intentionally produce CO2 and other greenhouse gases and pump it into the air with abandon. I mean, it's gonna happen anyway once that permafrost has melted and all the CO2 and CH4 (methane) is released. Let's GO FOR IT NOW. We can either prove conservatives right or wrong. We'll let you guys run the machinery too just to make you happy. You've heard of that old saying about pumping up the jam, when it comes to music, haven't you? Well let's pump up the greenhouse gases and jam to the results. Party on, Garth!

But I must admit that mine is a minority view. See, I also think that people are going to start getting royally pissed off at all the BS surrounding the issue, and a new form of eco-terrorism could be just around the corner as people finally decide to strike at the heart of the men and the economic and political interests who stand in the way of progress on this issue. But I think the effort is going to be too little and too late to save us from ourselves. But it'll be a good show. Better to go out with a bang as opposed to winding down with a whimper.

No, the ignorant ones are you and your ilk. Every claim that is made by the climatologists is based on computer models. Do you even understand what that means? Do you? Can you is probably the better question.

I'll make it easy for you...computer models are fiction. They are not real. The goal is to take empirical data (look up the meaning if you don't know what it means) and compare real data to computer models.

The real data is opposite of what the computer models predict. The models are so simplistic and poorly written that you can punch ANY number in to them and they will always predict warming. A thinking person would wonder why that is.

Your problem is you are so ignorant of basic science that you can't even begin to understand the basics.

Come back when you have educated yourself a little more.

You're a fool. We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As the planet warms, it causes feedbacks which actually magnifies the effect. So, for example, when sea ice, which usually reflects light, melts, and it's replaced by open ocean which absorbs light and heat, then the effect of climate change is magnified. Of course computer models are going to represent scientific principles when the numbers are punched in because it's a sophisticated calculator which performs millions of calculations.

Big fucking deal. The atmosphere weighs QUADRILLIONS of tons. The amount of CO2 that we insert into the atmosphere is less than 5% of the total global CO2 budget. So our contribution to a trace gas is a trace. You can spew all these cute little words like "feedback loops" and any other horse crap you wish but this is real science I'm going to tell you here. You can look it up anywhere.

The globe warms because the Sun warms the oceans. The primary frequency of that warming is UV which can penetrate a few meters deep into the ocean. Long wave IR (which you guys are all worried about) can penetrate MICRONS deep into the water. In other words the very thing that you are worried about cannot happen. It is physically impossible.

You obviously know very little about the topic.

 

[westwall]

You're a fool. We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As the planet warms, it causes feedbacks which actually magnifies the effect. So, for example, when sea ice, which usually reflects light, melts, and it's replaced by open ocean which absorbs light and heat, then the effect of climate change is magnified. Of course computer models are going to represent scientific principles when the numbers are punched in because it's a sophisticated calculator which performs millions of calculations.

1) We are pumping about 5% of what CO2 NATURE puts into the atmos. every year.. And that assessment by man has some bad accounting in it.. When NATURE eats all that CO2 every year, it eats almost all of it except for about 3% --- Doesn't taste the diff between MAN'S CO2 and her own...

2) The concept of "positive feedbacks" is the weakest portion of GW theory.. Since the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS over the past 100 years or so match the CO2 only warming power that everyone agrees on. The "accelerated" warming assumes this is a junker of planet with a death wish. And that a couple degrees can force it to destroy itself.. Not in evidence AT all from the numbers..

3) MOST of the positive feedback that the MAGICAL part of GW depends on is water vapor and clouds. The PRIMARY ghouse gas.
No general agreement on the Magical happenings that should be occuring with increased water vapor.

Ice free oceans may also be MORE LIKELY to absorb surface heat to lower ocean layers and take that heat OUT OF THE GREENHOUSE. In fact, the phoney assertion that this is the reason for the temp. pause DEPENDS on taking that heat to a place (Davey Jone's locker) where it's never likely to return.
That my bro -- represents a MIGHTY LARGE NEGATIVE feedback that was never realized by these clowns until the past few years..

The ignorance of the climate change deniers is stunning.

Ultimately, the ocean IS the repository of heating the planet. But guess what? It's the oceans, and NOT the atmosphere, that DRIVES the climate of the planet. We're also making the oceans more acidic in the process.

Another fact. Congrats! Now read the fact that IR can only penetrate microns deep into the ocean. Your long wave IR simply can't do what you claim. Period.

 

[westwall]

The experts claim it, yet can't show any empirical data to support their statement. And in fact have had to resort to outright falsification to support their claims. A thinking person would be asking questions. They rely on your inability, or unwillingness to think for yourself.

I've been reading your posts, and all I can say is that you're one hell of an ignorant person.

Saying that experts can't show an empirical data flies in the face of the fact that climatologists submit their work for peer review and MUST show evidence to support their claim. So, that's an ignorant statemnt.

Claiming that were in an interglacial period but it's still an ice age? That's just plain stupid. After all, just because there may be snow on the ground in late April or that you might even get a snow storm in May doesn't mean it's still winter.

Why don't you read a damn BOOK written by people who actually KNOW what they're talking about!

As for me, here's my take on what I think is going to happen after reading 7 books about climate change that have run the gamut from scientific evidence to anecdotal evidence, to the political process and economic interests including the different views of gov'ts around the world who have conflicting views on how to proceed because of their competing interests:

Unless some new miraculous technology presents itself within the next five years or so that could and would allow us to use power while engaging in carbon capture at the source or produce energy without adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and unless human beings are willing to change their freewheeling consumptive habits, even capping CO2 emissions at current per capita levels will seal our collective doom by destroying our currently highly livable and habitable environment with a growing population that industrialization (and by extension, cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels) has made possible. After all, not long after the advent of the steam engine in the late 18th century, the world population hit 1 Billion for the first time around 1804. As of about 2011, we passed 7 Billion with a projection of 8 Billion by 2024, 9 Billion by 2040, and 10 Billion by 2062.

There's another reason I don't think we're going to pull out of this mess. It's because the human race thrives on conflict. Squabbling seems to be a part of our DNA. The wars, and the crime, and the domestic abuse is only the most outwardly visible example since it makes the news. But people just LOVE to dispute something. Hell, we've still got people who dispute the Holocaust. And I'm not sure that the tobacco industry has EVER acknowledged the dangers of their product. The fact that there are people with serious economic and political interests who would dispute climate change shouldn't surprise anyone.

So, what the hell. Why not just go in the other direction instead. I mean, personally I think that the planet is going to be a completely different place in a couple of hundred years (assuming we don't descend into collective anarchy by then) with fights for water, arable farmland (if it can be found), and other necessary resources. So, why put off the inevitable? Why not just test the conservative premise that humans can't change (and aren't changing) the environment. Let's set up some stations to intentionally produce CO2 and other greenhouse gases and pump it into the air with abandon. I mean, it's gonna happen anyway once that permafrost has melted and all the CO2 and CH4 (methane) is released. Let's GO FOR IT NOW. We can either prove conservatives right or wrong. We'll let you guys run the machinery too just to make you happy. You've heard of that old saying about pumping up the jam, when it comes to music, haven't you? Well let's pump up the greenhouse gases and jam to the results. Party on, Garth!

But I must admit that mine is a minority view. See, I also think that people are going to start getting royally pissed off at all the BS surrounding the issue, and a new form of eco-terrorism could be just around the corner as people finally decide to strike at the heart of the men and the economic and political interests who stand in the way of progress on this issue. But I think the effort is going to be too little and too late to save us from ourselves. But it'll be a good show. Better to go out with a bang as opposed to winding down with a whimper.

No, the ignorant ones are you and your ilk. Every claim that is made by the climatologists is based on computer models. Do you even understand what that means? Do you? Can you is probably the better question.

I'll make it easy for you...computer models are fiction. They are not real. The goal is to take empirical data (look up the meaning if you don't know what it means) and compare real data to computer models.

The real data is opposite of what the computer models predict. The models are so simplistic and poorly written that you can punch ANY number in to them and they will always predict warming. A thinking person would wonder why that is.

Your problem is you are so ignorant of basic science that you can't even begin to understand the basics.

Come back when you have educated yourself a little more.

You're a fool. We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As the planet warms, it causes feedbacks which actually magnifies the effect. So, for example, when sea ice, which usually reflects light, melts, and it's replaced by open ocean which absorbs light and heat, then the effect of climate change is magnified. Of course computer models are going to represent scientific principles when the numbers are punched in because it's a sophisticated calculator which performs millions of calculations.

Big fucking deal. The atmosphere weighs QUADRILLIONS of tons. The amount of CO2 that we insert into the atmosphere is less than 5% of the total global CO2 budget. So our contribution to a trace gas is a trace. You can spew all these cute little words like "feedback loops" and any other horse crap you wish but this is real science I'm going to tell you here. You can look it up anywhere.

The globe warms because the Sun warms the oceans. The primary frequency of that warming is UV which can penetrate a few meters deep into the ocean. Long wave IR (which you guys are all worried about) can penetrate MICRONS deep into the water. In other words the very thing that you are worried about cannot happen. It is physically impossible.

You obviously know very little about the topic.

I know more about the subject than you ever will.

 

[westwall]

No, the ignorant ones are you and your ilk. Every claim that is made by the climatologists is based on computer models.

So, according to westwall here, if scientists claim "Sea level is currently rising at 3.2 mm / year" ... it's a model.

Back in the real world, global warming is well proven without any models at all. Models are just icing on the cake. If someone can't fathom such a basic concept, they have no business annoying the grownups.

We've also pointed out to westwall many times how his cult has snookered him big time with their deliberately fudged data concerning the models, models which are very good. It has no effect on him. His religion instructs him that the models are all wrong, and no silly facts and data are going to sway him from the TrueFaith.

Do you even understand what that means? Do you? Can you is probably the better question.

I'll make it easy for you...computer models are fiction. They are not real. The goal is to take empirical data (look up the meaning if you don't know what it means) and compare real data to computer models.

The real data is opposite of what the computer models predict. The models are so simplistic and poorly written that you can punch ANY number in to them and they will always predict warming. A thinking person would wonder why that is.

Your problem is you are so ignorant of basic science that you can't even begin to understand the basics.

Come back when you have educated yourself a little more.

Global stationary temps are well "proven". You clowns haven't been able to show any warming in 17 years no matter how many records you alter.

 

[Wyld Kard]

In my thread "Will You Vote Republican," somebody who goes by Vigilante sent me a reply that seems to refute the whole human caused global warming thing. But I thought my reply is something that you would all like to weigh in on.

Each year, all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2. Though some of this of course goes directly into the oceans. Humans on the other hand are responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons per year. Also, anybody who wishes to can look up a graph of the ammount of CO2 humans have put out since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Lately, human generated CO2 appears to be going up at a rate that is beyond exponential. There is a good chance that temperatures will follow suit.

This past summer, temperatures were fairly cool around where I live. But from what I have seen, if there are cooler temperatures in one area, it means that temperatures are hotter in another area of the earth.

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier. She points that in the far distant past, atmospheric CO2 levels were much higher than they are now. Which is true. Around one hundred million years ago or so, they were much higher. Apparently because of the breakup of the continents, things have been cooling down over a long time. Causing many ice ages. But as far as I have seen, this isn't something that happened a very long time ago. When global CO2 levels were much higher. We are in uncharted territory. No doubt there is much more methane in places like frozen tundra or shallow seas than there was in the far past. And methane is 20 times better at causing global warming than CO2. Just how much warming will it take for that to start getting released in ever greater quantity. It's hard to say. But there is one thing I know for sure. Most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else.

Oh great, another idiot trying to convince others that "global warming" is real and that humans are to blame.
What a load of bullshit!

I have a sister who is a human caused global warming denier.

Good for her. At least she wasn't gullible like you are who bought into the bullshit lies and misinformation of global warming.

There is No Scientific Evidence That Humans are Causing Global Warming Lubbock Online Lubbock Avalanche-Journal

Wildcard,
It is interesting how people like you can deny the truth. Maybe it's through de-evoloution or brainwashing. Or maybe you are making a living through pollution. Though it could be that you are being paid by polluting companies to be a denier. Or maybe your skull is so thick, you need to hear things more than once. In that case, I will say it again.

Read this very slowly and try to understand. Each year, all the volcanos on earth put out an estimated 200 MILLION tons of CO2 into the biosphere. Each year, humans are responsible for putting out 26.8 BILLION tons!!!! Can you really think that doesn't make a difference? Really? You know, there is a reason why the vast majority of scientists agree that human caused global warming is a reality. Though unfortunately, it is the rich polluters who have the most access to your mind. On most program that I see, the TV god calls it (to be said with a really wimpy voice) climate change. But as I said, what it really should be called is (to be said with a firm, manly voice) human caused global warming.

It's interesting how people like you can buy into the lies and misinformation of global warming without question and call it the truth, hoping to convince others of your brain-washed beliefs.

Wildcard,
The truth speaks for itself. If you don't want to believe it, that's up to you.

"The truth speaks for itself".

Oh, you mean the bullshit lies and misinformation of global warming that is based on fraudulent science then repackaged as being the truth that brain-washed morons like yourself fully believe and accept and then are trying to convince others of.

That so-called "truth"?

 

[flacaltenn]

You're a fool. We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As the planet warms, it causes feedbacks which actually magnifies the effect. So, for example, when sea ice, which usually reflects light, melts, and it's replaced by open ocean which absorbs light and heat, then the effect of climate change is magnified. Of course computer models are going to represent scientific principles when the numbers are punched in because it's a sophisticated calculator which performs millions of calculations.

1) We are pumping about 5% of what CO2 NATURE puts into the atmos. every year.. And that assessment by man has some bad accounting in it.. When NATURE eats all that CO2 every year, it eats almost all of it except for about 3% --- Doesn't taste the diff between MAN'S CO2 and her own...

2) The concept of "positive feedbacks" is the weakest portion of GW theory.. Since the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS over the past 100 years or so match the CO2 only warming power that everyone agrees on. The "accelerated" warming assumes this is a junker of planet with a death wish. And that a couple degrees can force it to destroy itself.. Not in evidence AT all from the numbers..

3) MOST of the positive feedback that the MAGICAL part of GW depends on is water vapor and clouds. The PRIMARY ghouse gas.
No general agreement on the Magical happenings that should be occuring with increased water vapor.

Ice free oceans may also be MORE LIKELY to absorb surface heat to lower ocean layers and take that heat OUT OF THE GREENHOUSE. In fact, the phoney assertion that this is the reason for the temp. pause DEPENDS on taking that heat to a place (Davey Jone's locker) where it's never likely to return.
That my bro -- represents a MIGHTY LARGE NEGATIVE feedback that was never realized by these clowns until the past few years..

The ignorance of the climate change deniers is stunning.

Ultimately, the ocean IS the repository of heating the planet. But guess what? It's the oceans, and NOT the atmosphere, that DRIVES the climate of the planet. We're also making the oceans more acidic in the process.

Warm ocean surfaces absorb and retain LESS CO2.. Fact that again points to stabilizing negative NEGATIVE feedback -- not positive. And Ocean Acidification is largely a surface effect. Because at DEPTH, those cold waters hold MORE CO2 than man alone could possibly pump into the few 100 feet of the surface. More acidification of the surface from UPWELLING of colder waters, than what is coming from the Atmos.

As to the "oceans eating the warming" excuse --- that heat showing up at depth could only accurately be measured globally for the past 50 years or so. And every study in the period shows no change in the rate of absorption. However, proxy studies of mid ocean sediments indicate that the Oceans have been warmer in the past 1000 yrs even before the industrial revolution.. Heat at depth is NEVER likely to re-enter the greenhouse. Unless we actually discover specific conveyor currents that can move it back to the surface. Returning on it's own would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics..

 

[flacaltenn]

You're a fool. We are pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As the planet warms, it causes feedbacks which actually magnifies the effect. So, for example, when sea ice, which usually reflects light, melts, and it's replaced by open ocean which absorbs light and heat, then the effect of climate change is magnified. Of course computer models are going to represent scientific principles when the numbers are punched in because it's a sophisticated calculator which performs millions of calculations.

1) We are pumping about 5% of what CO2 NATURE puts into the atmos. every year.. And that assessment by man has some bad accounting in it.. When NATURE eats all that CO2 every year, it eats almost all of it except for about 3% --- Doesn't taste the diff between MAN'S CO2 and her own...

2) The concept of "positive feedbacks" is the weakest portion of GW theory.. Since the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS over the past 100 years or so match the CO2 only warming power that everyone agrees on. The "accelerated" warming assumes this is a junker of planet with a death wish. And that a couple degrees can force it to destroy itself.. Not in evidence AT all from the numbers..

3) MOST of the positive feedback that the MAGICAL part of GW depends on is water vapor and clouds. The PRIMARY ghouse gas.
No general agreement on the Magical happenings that should be occuring with increased water vapor.

Ice free oceans may also be MORE LIKELY to absorb surface heat to lower ocean layers and take that heat OUT OF THE GREENHOUSE. In fact, the phoney assertion that this is the reason for the temp. pause DEPENDS on taking that heat to a place (Davey Jone's locker) where it's never likely to return.
That my bro -- represents a MIGHTY LARGE NEGATIVE feedback that was never realized by these clowns until the past few years..

The ignorance of the climate change deniers is stunning.

Ultimately, the ocean IS the repository of heating the planet. But guess what? It's the oceans, and NOT the atmosphere, that DRIVES the climate of the planet. We're also making the oceans more acidic in the process.

Another fact. Congrats! Now read the fact that IR can only penetrate microns deep into the ocean. Your long wave IR simply can't do what you claim. Period.

And by the converse, heat held at depth cant' warm atmospheric CO2 because it would never propagate IR to the surface..