Human Caused Global Warming

[Billy_Bob]

Billy_Bob,
I saw your bitch to mustang. I don't remember if it was you or flacaltenn I said this to. But you can't wait to do something until the science is settled down to the finest, most minute detail. Oh, all the times I have seen the status quo take that approach on various things.

Doing something for the sake of doing something is a fools errand.

 

[cultsmasher]

Have you read it?

Yes. One of my lib professors a while back made it mandatory. I passed his class with an A and after I left his class i tor it up in a book review. since then we have talked many times about his views and mine. No one will win that debate, at least not in his or my mind..

Billy_Bob,
Excuse me for butting into the thing between you and mustang. But I get the jist of the book mustang mentioned. Even though I haven't read it. So I can't say if it mentioned the real debate. Which has been going on since the beginning of recorded history. That being, who is right. Those with the wealth and power, or those without. At least in modern times, there is more education of the plebeian class. Which helps some. But unfortunately, that often comes at the cost of the chickens being taught by the foxes. And becoming intreanched in the status quo system. So the debate rages on.

 

[cultsmasher]

Now this plot is only a 1,000 year plot and much of the cycles can be seen.

This is where things get dicey. I disagree with the spike of CO2 as it is taken from Manaloa readings and the majority of the graph is from Antarctic ice cores which are generally 120ppm lower. They tacked the Manaloa readings on the end of this graph much like Mann did his proxy reconstructs. Bad sciences is bad science..

Billy_Bob,
Somebody was saying that we are in no danger of a runaway global temperature rise. If you didn't say it, you probably agree with it. But you can't be so sure. Especially when the evidence points to just the opposite. For example, I remember hearing of something from far in my past. If I remember right, back in the 70's, there were two trains heading across Siberia. They were going in opposite directions on separate tracks. There was quite a bit of methane being released from the ground in the area. I can't say for sure, but it was probably the kind of methane released from global warming. When these two trains passed each other, it caused some sort of static spark that set off the methane. Both trains got blasted. From what I remember, well over a hundred people were killed.

As to the graph you show here, it shows that temperatures are mostly above CO2. But these days, it is CO2 that is leading the way. This would seem to show that whatever is going to happen, it will be something that the earth has never experienced before. We are certainly playing a dangerous game. But the stakes of some games are too high to make them worth playing.

 

[cultsmasher]

Billy_Bob,
I saw your bitch to mustang. I don't remember if it was you or flacaltenn I said this to. But you can't wait to do something until the science is settled down to the finest, most minute detail. Oh, all the times I have seen the status quo take that approach on various things.

Doing something for the sake of doing something is a fools errand.

Bill_Bob,
From the things you say, I would have to assume that you are somehow involved in the whole fossil fuel thing. Or you are a paid denier by such companies. But doing something about human caused global warming isn't a fools errand.

 

[jc456]

Billy_Bob,
I saw your bitch to mustang. I don't remember if it was you or flacaltenn I said this to. But you can't wait to do something until the science is settled down to the finest, most minute detail. Oh, all the times I have seen the status quo take that approach on various things.

Doing something for the sake of doing something is a fools errand.

Bill_Bob,
From the things you say, I would have to assume that you are somehow involved in the whole fossil fuel thing. Or you are a paid denier by such companies. But doing something about human caused global warming isn't a fools errand.

There is human caused global warming? where? Let's see that evidence that supports that statement mr.

 

[cultsmasher]

Billy_Bob,
I saw your bitch to mustang. I don't remember if it was you or flacaltenn I said this to. But you can't wait to do something until the science is settled down to the finest, most minute detail. Oh, all the times I have seen the status quo take that approach on various things.

Doing something for the sake of doing something is a fools errand.

Bill_Bob,
From the things you say, I would have to assume that you are somehow involved in the whole fossil fuel thing. Or you are a paid denier by such companies. But doing something about human caused global warming isn't a fools errand.

There is human caused global warming? where? Let's see that evidence that supports that statement mr.

jc456,
The proof is that all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year. Each year, humans are responsible for 26.8 billion tons.

 

[flacaltenn]

Billy_Bob,
I saw your bitch to mustang. I don't remember if it was you or flacaltenn I said this to. But you can't wait to do something until the science is settled down to the finest, most minute detail. Oh, all the times I have seen the status quo take that approach on various things.

Doing something for the sake of doing something is a fools errand.

Bill_Bob,
From the things you say, I would have to assume that you are somehow involved in the whole fossil fuel thing. Or you are a paid denier by such companies. But doing something about human caused global warming isn't a fools errand.

There is human caused global warming? where? Let's see that evidence that supports that statement mr.

jc456,
The proof is that all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year. Each year, humans are responsible for 26.8 billion tons.

..... and NATURE "pollutes" the atmos with 700GTons of CO2 every year as I told you before. Why didn't that sink in? You must just be on rant..

 

[cultsmasher]

Billy_Bob,
I saw your bitch to mustang. I don't remember if it was you or flacaltenn I said this to. But you can't wait to do something until the science is settled down to the finest, most minute detail. Oh, all the times I have seen the status quo take that approach on various things.

Doing something for the sake of doing something is a fools errand.

Bill_Bob,
From the things you say, I would have to assume that you are somehow involved in the whole fossil fuel thing. Or you are a paid denier by such companies. But doing something about human caused global warming isn't a fools errand.

There is human caused global warming? where? Let's see that evidence that supports that statement mr.

jc456,
The proof is that all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year. Each year, humans are responsible for 26.8 billion tons.

..... and NATURE "pollutes" the atmos with 700GTons of CO2 every year as I told you before. Why didn't that sink in? You must just be on rant..

flacaltenn,
Where did I come up with the figures of all the volcanoes on earth putting out about 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year while the amount from human causes is about 26.8 billion tons. Well the first place I heard about it was from a documentary called, "Greedy Lying Bastards." For the producers of it, I would imagine that they did some fact checking. I also found these numbers at a USGS website. If you want to ask me who I believe is telling the truth, I afraid it isn't you.

Maybe they aren't taking into account things like how much methane termites produce. Or how much CO2 plants turn into oxygen. But none of that matters. It sounds like the kind of crap human caused global warming deniers would spout to confuse the issue. But what isn't confusing the issue is the increase of the human population. Or how wasteful our capitalist economic system is. Or that China has a new coal fired power plant come on line each week. etc. etc. etc. Call this a "rant" if you want to.

 

[jc456]

Billy_Bob,
I saw your bitch to mustang. I don't remember if it was you or flacaltenn I said this to. But you can't wait to do something until the science is settled down to the finest, most minute detail. Oh, all the times I have seen the status quo take that approach on various things.

Doing something for the sake of doing something is a fools errand.

Bill_Bob,
From the things you say, I would have to assume that you are somehow involved in the whole fossil fuel thing. Or you are a paid denier by such companies. But doing something about human caused global warming isn't a fools errand.

There is human caused global warming? where? Let's see that evidence that supports that statement mr.

jc456,
The proof is that all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year. Each year, humans are responsible for 26.8 billion tons.

Are you sure?

 

[jc456]

Doing something for the sake of doing something is a fools errand.

Bill_Bob,
From the things you say, I would have to assume that you are somehow involved in the whole fossil fuel thing. Or you are a paid denier by such companies. But doing something about human caused global warming isn't a fools errand.

There is human caused global warming? where? Let's see that evidence that supports that statement mr.

jc456,
The proof is that all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year. Each year, humans are responsible for 26.8 billion tons.

..... and NATURE "pollutes" the atmos with 700GTons of CO2 every year as I told you before. Why didn't that sink in? You must just be on rant..

flacaltenn,
Where did I come up with the figures of all the volcanoes on earth putting out about 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year while the amount from human causes is about 26.8 billion tons. Well the first place I heard about it was from a documentary called, "Greedy Lying Bastards." For the producers of it, I would imagine that they did some fact checking. I also found these numbers at a USGS website. If you want to ask me who I believe is telling the truth, I afraid it isn't you.

Maybe they aren't taking into account things like how much methane termites produce. Or how much CO2 plants turn into oxygen. But none of that matters. It sounds like the kind of crap human caused global warming deniers would spout to confuse the issue. But what isn't confusing the issue is the increase of the human population. Or how wasteful our capitalist economic system is. Or that China has a new coal fired power plant come on line each week. etc. etc. etc. Call this a "rant" if you want to.

Ain't that sweet? hahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahahaha...........

 

[mudwhistle]

Both of these points are factually incorrect. The rate of CO2 increase is far less than seen in Phanerozoic era. That Era saw a truly massive and rapid increase as a result of the earth warming and foliage growth.

The Phanerozoic is the current era, running from 549 MYA up to the present. I have been told by half a dozen deniers that the chronological resolution of proxy data of just 11,700 years of the Holocene Epoch was inadequate to support the contention that the rate of current CO2 and temperature increases were unprecedented. Yet now you claim to be able to identify higher rates in events hundreds of millions of years ago. Neat trick.

Within the last 65 million years, the most dramatic CO2 event was the Azolla event. This was a rapid reduction of CO2 which is given credit for the appearance of the Earth's iced poles. The event produced an 80% reduction in CO2 (3500 to 650 ppm) over a period of 800,000 years. The current event has produced a 43% increase (280 to 400 ppm) in 150 years.

Let's do the math: 3500 - 650 = 2850 ppm
2850 ppm / 800,000 = 0.00356 ppm / year

vs

120 ppm / 150 years = 0.8 ppm / year

So the current rate of change is 224 TIMES as fast as the fastest prior event in the last 65 million years

If it's not the Jurassic period it ain't shit.

Dinosaurs rule!!!!!!!

 

[cultsmasher]

Bill_Bob,
From the things you say, I would have to assume that you are somehow involved in the whole fossil fuel thing. Or you are a paid denier by such companies. But doing something about human caused global warming isn't a fools errand.

There is human caused global warming? where? Let's see that evidence that supports that statement mr.

jc456,
The proof is that all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year. Each year, humans are responsible for 26.8 billion tons.

..... and NATURE "pollutes" the atmos with 700GTons of CO2 every year as I told you before. Why didn't that sink in? You must just be on rant..

flacaltenn,
Where did I come up with the figures of all the volcanoes on earth putting out about 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year while the amount from human causes is about 26.8 billion tons. Well the first place I heard about it was from a documentary called, "Greedy Lying Bastards." For the producers of it, I would imagine that they did some fact checking. I also found these numbers at a USGS website. If you want to ask me who I believe is telling the truth, I afraid it isn't you.

Maybe they aren't taking into account things like how much methane termites produce. Or how much CO2 plants turn into oxygen. But none of that matters. It sounds like the kind of crap human caused global warming deniers would spout to confuse the issue. But what isn't confusing the issue is the increase of the human population. Or how wasteful our capitalist economic system is. Or that China has a new coal fired power plant come on line each week. etc. etc. etc. Call this a "rant" if you want to.

Ain't that sweet? hahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahahaha...........

jc456,
If you're going to be flippant on the whole human caused global warming thing, why get involved at all.

 

[jc456]

There is human caused global warming? where? Let's see that evidence that supports that statement mr.

jc456,
The proof is that all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year. Each year, humans are responsible for 26.8 billion tons.

..... and NATURE "pollutes" the atmos with 700GTons of CO2 every year as I told you before. Why didn't that sink in? You must just be on rant..

flacaltenn,
Where did I come up with the figures of all the volcanoes on earth putting out about 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year while the amount from human causes is about 26.8 billion tons. Well the first place I heard about it was from a documentary called, "Greedy Lying Bastards." For the producers of it, I would imagine that they did some fact checking. I also found these numbers at a USGS website. If you want to ask me who I believe is telling the truth, I afraid it isn't you.

Maybe they aren't taking into account things like how much methane termites produce. Or how much CO2 plants turn into oxygen. But none of that matters. It sounds like the kind of crap human caused global warming deniers would spout to confuse the issue. But what isn't confusing the issue is the increase of the human population. Or how wasteful our capitalist economic system is. Or that China has a new coal fired power plant come on line each week. etc. etc. etc. Call this a "rant" if you want to.

Ain't that sweet? hahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahahaha...........

jc456,
If you're going to be flippant on the whole human caused global warming thing, why get involved at all.

Because I dislike when lies affect me and my family like you're intending sir. That's why. What is your answer? I know that you've been asked and have avoided the question. Do you sir, personally know that man is causing any issue with the planet other than pollution? You don't even bother doing any research, you just flat out believe because it's your party of choice right? Why not jump off a cliff if they told you to, or drink the koolaide, and on and on. I think for myself and I expect my family to do likewise.

 

[Mustang]

I have a solution to the so-called climate change controversy.

I propose it because I think that the scientific debate on climate change is pretty much settled that it's actually happening and that it's caused by human activity even though many details still aren't settled about speed and what the effects will be.

At any rate, here's my solution:

Any scientist who wants to take a stand on climate change and whether it's caused by human activity has to sign on to voluntarily permit their work to go through a peer review process (Note: climatologists are already doing this). We have to establish a date upon which a determination by the entire scientific community will be made as to the merits of all the research. To be able to vote, a scientists needs to have a background in a relevant discipline. The losers must forfeit their entire net worth (no hiding assets).

For the talking heads on radio and TV who want to participate in the debate (journalists, commentators, and general loud-mouthed know-it-alls), I propose that the losers be permanently banished from the airwaves. Let's see how many deniers would be willing to sign on to that.

 

[cultsmasher]

jc456,
The proof is that all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year. Each year, humans are responsible for 26.8 billion tons.

..... and NATURE "pollutes" the atmos with 700GTons of CO2 every year as I told you before. Why didn't that sink in? You must just be on rant..

flacaltenn,
Where did I come up with the figures of all the volcanoes on earth putting out about 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere each year while the amount from human causes is about 26.8 billion tons. Well the first place I heard about it was from a documentary called, "Greedy Lying Bastards." For the producers of it, I would imagine that they did some fact checking. I also found these numbers at a USGS website. If you want to ask me who I believe is telling the truth, I afraid it isn't you.

Maybe they aren't taking into account things like how much methane termites produce. Or how much CO2 plants turn into oxygen. But none of that matters. It sounds like the kind of crap human caused global warming deniers would spout to confuse the issue. But what isn't confusing the issue is the increase of the human population. Or how wasteful our capitalist economic system is. Or that China has a new coal fired power plant come on line each week. etc. etc. etc. Call this a "rant" if you want to.

Ain't that sweet? hahahahaahahahahahahahahaahahahaha...........

jc456,
If you're going to be flippant on the whole human caused global warming thing, why get involved at all.

Because I dislike when lies affect me and my family like you're intending sir. That's why. What is your answer? I know that you've been asked and have avoided the question. Do you sir, personally know that man is causing any issue with the planet other than pollution? You don't even bother doing any research, you just flat out believe because it's your party of choice right? Why not jump off a cliff if they told you to, or drink the koolaide, and on and on. I think for myself and I expect my family to do likewise.

jc456,
If you're asking me if I personally did the measurements that showed that all the volcanoes on earth put out an estimated 200 million tons of CO2 into the biosphere while mankind is responsible for an estimated 26.8 BILLION tons, no. I didn't personally do it. Or if I personally saw that last year the entire icesheet of Greenland experienced melting for the first time ever. No, I didn't personally view it. Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

You know what the real problem is? That famly you speak of, they're fucking dead! They're deader than dead. The only question is how much hell they are going to go through before it happens. You are also feeling guilty because you're contributing to it. But trying to prevent it is too difficult. Somebody once basically said that it's nearly impossible to get somebody to understand the truth. Especially when their livelihood depends on them not understanding. Einstein also basically said that the solution to a problem can't be found by the same mind that created that problem.

I'm sorry if I was a little rough. But trying to deny the reality of human caused global warming isn't going to solve any problems. This brings up something I said to someone else. What if I am wrong. What's the worst that can happen. Our whole economy gets restructured to a more sustainable and ecologically compatable form for very little benefit. Other than what I stated. But what's the worst that can happen if people like you are arong. WOW! Just the thought of it is horrible.

 

[westwall]

Both of these points are factually incorrect. The rate of CO2 increase is far less than seen in Phanerozoic era. That Era saw a truly massive and rapid increase as a result of the earth warming and foliage growth.

The Phanerozoic is the current era, running from 549 MYA up to the present. I have been told by half a dozen deniers that the chronological resolution of proxy data of just 11,700 years of the Holocene Epoch was inadequate to support the contention that the rate of current CO2 and temperature increases were unprecedented. Yet now you claim to be able to identify higher rates in events hundreds of millions of years ago. Neat trick.

Within the last 65 million years, the most dramatic CO2 event was the Azolla event. This was a rapid reduction of CO2 which is given credit for the appearance of the Earth's iced poles. The event produced an 80% reduction in CO2 (3500 to 650 ppm) over a period of 800,000 years. The current event has produced a 43% increase (280 to 400 ppm) in 150 years.

Let's do the math: 3500 - 650 = 2850 ppm
2850 ppm / 800,000 = 0.00356 ppm / year

vs

120 ppm / 150 years = 0.8 ppm / year

So the current rate of change is 224 TIMES as fast as the fastest prior event in the last 65 million years

Lets do history. History says every claim you have made that increased temperatures will cause...didn't. Game, set, match.

 

[cultsmasher]

I have a solution to the so-called climate change controversy.

I propose it because I think that the scientific debate on climate change is pretty much settled that it's actually happening and that it's caused by human activity even though many details still aren't settled about speed and what the effects will be.

At any rate, here's my solution:

Any scientist who wants to take a stand on climate change and whether it's caused by human activity has to sign on to voluntarily permit their work to go through a peer review process (Note: climatologists are already doing this). We have to establish a date upon which a determination by the entire scientific community will be made as to the merits of all the research. To be able to vote, a scientists needs to have a background in a relevant discipline. The losers must forfeit their entire net worth (no hiding assets).

For the talking heads on radio and TV who want to participate in the debate (journalists, commentators, and general loud-mouthed know-it-alls), I propose that the losers be permanently banished from the airwaves. Let's see how many deniers would be willing to sign on to that.

Mustang,
You have a bit of an idea there about scientific loosers forfeting their savings. But if I were to guess, I would say that those interested in keeping things the way they are would reimburse human caused global warmind denying scientists for at least trying. Also, it's unlikely that those who own broadcasting mediums would fire people for saying what those owners want said.

You know what one of the main problems is can be found throughout history to the present. Which is how much shit the well to do are willing to put the lower classes through. From what I have seen, that is a pretty fearsome ammount of shit. Though I don't watch them, those shows about doomsday preppers disgust me. How do they afford to build their doomsday shelters? By contributing to the things that are likely to bring doom about.

On one occasion, I did see something on one of those types of shows. They had a submarine in one doomsday shelter factorie that they were building for a group of rich clients. But if things get as bad as they could, something like that would only delay their end. Though apparently even that slim hope is better than doing something to keep such doom from happening. Because that would likely mean them losing their position in society. And being the self centered chimps that most people are, it would be better if the earth was destroyed rather than have that happen.

 

[cultsmasher]

Both of these points are factually incorrect. The rate of CO2 increase is far less than seen in Phanerozoic era. That Era saw a truly massive and rapid increase as a result of the earth warming and foliage growth.

The Phanerozoic is the current era, running from 549 MYA up to the present. I have been told by half a dozen deniers that the chronological resolution of proxy data of just 11,700 years of the Holocene Epoch was inadequate to support the contention that the rate of current CO2 and temperature increases were unprecedented. Yet now you claim to be able to identify higher rates in events hundreds of millions of years ago. Neat trick.

Within the last 65 million years, the most dramatic CO2 event was the Azolla event. This was a rapid reduction of CO2 which is given credit for the appearance of the Earth's iced poles. The event produced an 80% reduction in CO2 (3500 to 650 ppm) over a period of 800,000 years. The current event has produced a 43% increase (280 to 400 ppm) in 150 years.

Let's do the math: 3500 - 650 = 2850 ppm
2850 ppm / 800,000 = 0.00356 ppm / year

vs

120 ppm / 150 years = 0.8 ppm / year

So the current rate of change is 224 TIMES as fast as the fastest prior event in the last 65 million years

Lets do history. History says every claim you have made that increased temperatures will cause...didn't. Game, set, match.

 

[cultsmasher]

Both of these points are factually incorrect. The rate of CO2 increase is far less than seen in Phanerozoic era. That Era saw a truly massive and rapid increase as a result of the earth warming and foliage growth.

The Phanerozoic is the current era, running from 549 MYA up to the present. I have been told by half a dozen deniers that the chronological resolution of proxy data of just 11,700 years of the Holocene Epoch was inadequate to support the contention that the rate of current CO2 and temperature increases were unprecedented. Yet now you claim to be able to identify higher rates in events hundreds of millions of years ago. Neat trick.

Within the last 65 million years, the most dramatic CO2 event was the Azolla event. This was a rapid reduction of CO2 which is given credit for the appearance of the Earth's iced poles. The event produced an 80% reduction in CO2 (3500 to 650 ppm) over a period of 800,000 years. The current event has produced a 43% increase (280 to 400 ppm) in 150 years.

Let's do the math: 3500 - 650 = 2850 ppm
2850 ppm / 800,000 = 0.00356 ppm / year

vs

120 ppm / 150 years = 0.8 ppm / year

So the current rate of change is 224 TIMES as fast as the fastest prior event in the last 65 million years

Lets do history. History says every claim you have made that increased temperatures will cause...didn't. Game, set, match.

westwall,
The debate between Crick and Billy_Bob aside, I have to say again that we could possibly be facing changes that have never happened before. Is it really worth the risk? Also, there are graphs that say all types of things. But Billy_Bob showed one that charted both temperatures and CO2 levels. Across the whole chart, temperatures led the way. But these days, CO2 is leading the way. That's something different. On another chart I was looking at it showed that methane release was also going up. Which as you probably know is an even worse greenhouse gas. I don't think we can yet call this dangerous game.

 

[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