Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.
JO
All the elitist leftwing pieces of shit believe the majority of humanity needs to die.he does want us all to die.
Adios, and good riddance.For one thing, if you knew anything about me, you would know I am NO FUCKING LEFTIST. There hasn't been a president that has been conservative enough for me in my lifetime. Second, Just because you can cram 50 human beings into an oil drum doesn't mean it will support their life. Geeez, what a moron thing to say. I didn't put any words in your mouth. Fuck off you self agrandizing piece of shit.That is the most ignorant thing that I have read on this board. You fail to take into account oceans, deserts and arctic areas that are not conducive to human habitation or cultivation. Your simplistic "theory" is nonsense.Critical mass your ass.
Every human alive on the planet today could theoretically be placed into a cube one mile on side.
Proof:
5,280 feet cubed is 127 billion cubic feet.
This provides about 18 cubic feet for every person on the planet.
If all the environmentalist wackos would practice what they preach, that would be swell. Wouldn't change anything but......
1. The geography of earth is immaterial to the total volume of all humans alive today.
If you do not understand that, ask someone to explain it to you.
2. I made no mention of habitation or cultivation. Those are YOUR words. YOU put YOUR words in my mouth and then condemn me for your misrepresentations. Typical of a Leftist.
One of my websites describes Leftists such as you:
Democrat Insanity - Trump Derangement Syndrome
DemocratInsanity.blogspot.com
"50 human beings" is your phrase, not mine.
"into an oil drum" is your fabrication. I pointed out the total volume of all humans alive today, NOT "50 human beings" and NOT "an oil drum."
Yes indeed you continue to spew moron things, as Leftists do. Oh but you're not one of them. You only sound and act like one. Listen up, boy. I crap bigger than you.
You're so ignorant you can't even spell self-aggrandizing.
Your foul mouth and hatefulness should put you on many more Ignore Lists besides mine.
ciao brutto
I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.
JO
Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.
The real question is, if man was responsible for the CO2 increase and warming, why are temperatures so inconsistent from one place to another?Hmmm?I think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.
JO
Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.
From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer
Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.
First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...
Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.
Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...
Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.
Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.
Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.
Have you ever flown over the earth? Have you ever seen just how much land there is that is completely uninhabited? There is still plenty of space for more people, and birth rates in a lot of the developed world are dropping to a point where even the chi-coms went from a "one child" policy to "three child" policy.are areas of the world like the Gobi, Sahara, Mojave, Sonoran deserts that hold many people but do not provide enough water for them. For these people, I believe desalination is the answer. It is being done in the middle east but in this country, these desert areas are stealing the water from other water sheds i.e. the Snake R, Columbia R and Sierra Nevada range to name a few. I don't advocate for all of the cockamamie green bullshit, but to bury your head in the sand and pretend that increased human population has no effect is pure naivete.
www.smithsonianmag.com
Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factorI think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.
JO
Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.
From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer
Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.
First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...
Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.
Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...
Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.
Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.
Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.
Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factorI think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.
JO
Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.
From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer
Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.
First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...
Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.
Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...
Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.
Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.
Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.
It makes more sense.....
Have you ever flown over the earth? Have you ever seen just how much land there is that is completely uninhabited? There is still plenty of space for more people, and birth rates in a lot of the developed world are dropping to a point where even the chi-coms went from a "one child" policy to "three child" policy.are areas of the world like the Gobi, Sahara, Mojave, Sonoran deserts that hold many people but do not provide enough water for them. For these people, I believe desalination is the answer. It is being done in the middle east but in this country, these desert areas are stealing the water from other water sheds i.e. the Snake R, Columbia R and Sierra Nevada range to name a few. I don't advocate for all of the cockamamie green bullshit, but to bury your head in the sand and pretend that increased human population has no effect is pure naivete.
Three-child policy - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I reject the idea that the population will ever get to the point where the available resources can't support it. Here is why...
How 1960s Mouse Utopias Led to Grim Predictions for Future of Humanity
John Calhoun studied behavior during overcrowding in mice and rats
We are already witnessing the serious decline of society because inner cities are packed with over-fed social rejects, deviants and psychopaths. Safety standards keep imbeciles from wandering into machines, police protect oxygen thieves from themselves, and morality stops the people traveling through from shooting these asswipes so that they can continue to travel unimpeded.
I don't believe we're over populated at all, it's just that we've created a circumstance that thwarts natural selection. When people in a society or nation tolerate a creature like this vacuous piece of shit stealing oxygen...
View attachment 508305
It's over... Pack your shit kids.... and get the fuck out of the cities unless you're a bed wetting liberal. In which case you're urged to stay put. Your ghetto rat pets are going to cannibalize you.
.
The climate is always changing and has been changing since the birth of the Earth. Claiming that humans can do anything about it is stupid and dangerous because the thrust is in the wrong direction. We need to prepare for NATURAL climate changes because we can't change it. Pretending we can do anything about it is complete insanity.I for one believe that it is. I've believed this for a long time, but I found that a documentary called "An Inconvenient Truth", which features for Vice President Al Gore prominently, was very persuasive. I know there are those who believe that the Climate isn't changing as well, including some people like James Corbett, who I respect immensely for his work on other subjects, but we simply don't agree when it comes to climate. Recently, a poster in another thread of mine expressed his belief that the climate isn't changing so I thought it might be good to create this thread and see where it goes. I ask that people support any assertions that haven't already been made by another poster with at least one link.
Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factorI think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.
JO
Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.
From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer
Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.
First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...
Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.
Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...
Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.
Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.
Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.
It makes more sense.....
Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....
[De-emphasis mine]
It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...
The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...
What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...
Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factorI think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.
JO
Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.
From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer
Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.
First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...
Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.
Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...
Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.
Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.
Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.
It makes more sense.....
Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....
[De-emphasis mine]
It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...
The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...
What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...
This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.
Jo Nova
The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed
REFERENCES
- Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
- Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
- Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
- Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
- Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
- NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:
So, what do you think is causing this rapid change?Then you should make an OP that matches your intent.If someone says the climate isnt changing, they are idiots.
The climate has been changing for billions of years.
Please TN, this is the Clean Debate Zone, we're supposed to avoid insults here. In any case, I agree that the climate has been changing since time began. The topic I'd like to address in this thread is the rate of change these days and what's causing it.
The rate of change is a great argument. The rate we are going through now hasnt happened in a long time. To debate what causes it, usually ends up in disingenuous outbursts that arent worth reading.
People want to scream about science and then ignore it. Its fascinating to watch.
Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factorI think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.
JO
Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.
From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer
Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.
First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...
Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.
Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...
Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.
Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.
Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.
It makes more sense.....
Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....
[De-emphasis mine]
It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...
The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...
What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...
This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.
Jo Nova
The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed
REFERENCES
- Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
- Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
- Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
- Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
- Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
- NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:
Interesting ... but you'll have to point to Miss Joanne's graphs where ... exactly ... CO2 follows temperature ...
Or don't bother ... neither Miss Joanne nor Mudelsee (2001) even attempt to explain why ... which was my question: "What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay?" ...
We can find a far better corrolation between Earth's temperature and the distinct wobble in the third Marian epicycle ... that has a profound gravitational impact on the Sun's motion which in turn changes Earth's temperature ... clear and obvious ... unfortunately, this does nothing to explain the physics of a geocentric solar system ... it's just a mathematical construct, doesn't prove anything ...
C'mon man ... per Miss Joanne's graphs ... the most recent CO2 trough was fully 1,000 years before the temperature trough ... why do you think this is 800 years after (± 1,000 years)? ...
=====
WOW ... Wikipedia is just scathing in their opinion of Miss Joanne ... yeesh ... too much hate for an underpaid and overworked host of children's television programming IMEIO ...
So, what do you think is causing this rapid change?Then you should make an OP that matches your intent.If someone says the climate isnt changing, they are idiots.
The climate has been changing for billions of years.
Please TN, this is the Clean Debate Zone, we're supposed to avoid insults here. In any case, I agree that the climate has been changing since time began. The topic I'd like to address in this thread is the rate of change these days and what's causing it.
The rate of change is a great argument. The rate we are going through now hasnt happened in a long time. To debate what causes it, usually ends up in disingenuous outbursts that arent worth reading.
People want to scream about science and then ignore it. Its fascinating to watch.
And try to use science.
Actually there is no way to decide which follows which because the relationship is not perfectly linear. It is clear that they are related but not clear which is causal. Not interested in the published papers .... they all know that it is possible for the CO2 to be causal. They also know of times in the past where the CO2 levels were much higher than they are now while the temperature was not. Despite this they have made an unscientific decision to favor one over the other with no real reason to do so from a pragmatic point of viewSixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factorI think it's very likely that heat is leading the CO2 concentrations and not the other way around.
JO
Indeed that is the case as shown by precise graphs. CO2 increases with a lag time of a few hundred years of temperature increases based on plant growth, decomposition, and degassification of the ocean.
From my notes on Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years by S. Fred Singer
Page 9-10 ... the claim that they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming...was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC's 1996 report for political, not scientific reasons. The author of the IPCC science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible "back room" changes. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so.
First, CO2 changes do not account for the highly variable climate...
Second, the Greenhouse Theory does not explain recent temperature changes.
Third, ... the early and supposedly most powerful increases in atmospheric CO2 have not produced the frightening planetary overheating...
Fourth, .. we must discount the "official" temperature record to reflect the increased size and intensity of today's urban heat islands, where most of the official thermometers are located.
Fifth, ... theory says that CO2 will warm the lower atmosphere first... and then the surface. This is not happening.
Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor.
It makes more sense.....
Sixth, CO2 for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator (about 800 years) of global warming, not a causal factor
It makes more sense.....
[De-emphasis mine]
It does? ... perhaps you could explain it to me then ... because, quite frankly, almost all the climatologists who are interviewed on NPR say "we don't know yet, research continues" ... I can't think of a bigger tofu-puking hippy/liberal/commie McGovernik media outlet ... can you? ...
The obvious question is ... if the current temperatures increases will cause an increase in carbon dioxide 800 years from now ... how are we demonstrating the temperature run up 800 years ago that is causing the current carbon dioxide increase ... for bonus points, why is the additional carbon dioxide today strictly the carbon-12 isotope? ...
What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay? ...
This will help and the papers listed ALL show there is a significant CO2 lag following temperature changes.
Jo Nova
The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed
REFERENCES
- Petit et all 1999 — analysed 420,000 years of Vostok, and found that as the world cools into an ice age, the delay before carbon falls is several thousand years.
- Fischer et al 1999 — described a lag of 600 plus or minus 400 years as the world warms up from an ice age.
- Monnin et al 2001 – looked at Dome Concordia (also in Antarctica) – and found a delay on the recent rise out of the last major ice age to be 800 ± 600
- Mudelsee (2001) – Over the full 420,000 year Vostok history Co2 variations lag temperature by 1,300 years ± 1000.
- Caillon et al 2003 analysed the Vostok data and found a lag (where CO2 rises after temperature) of 800 ± 200 years.
- NOAA data on Antarctic Ice Cores:
Interesting ... but you'll have to point to Miss Joanne's graphs where ... exactly ... CO2 follows temperature ...
Or don't bother ... neither Miss Joanne nor Mudelsee (2001) even attempt to explain why ... which was my question: "What physical mechanism causes this 800 year delay?" ...
We can find a far better corrolation between Earth's temperature and the distinct wobble in the third Marian epicycle ... that has a profound gravitational impact on the Sun's motion which in turn changes Earth's temperature ... clear and obvious ... unfortunately, this does nothing to explain the physics of a geocentric solar system ... it's just a mathematical construct, doesn't prove anything ...
C'mon man ... per Miss Joanne's graphs ... the most recent CO2 trough was fully 1,000 years before the temperature trough ... why do you think this is 800 years after (± 1,000 years)? ...
=====
WOW ... Wikipedia is just scathing in their opinion of Miss Joanne ... yeesh ... too much hate for an underpaid and overworked host of children's television programming IMEIO ...
You really have trouble seeing obvious sections of CO2 following Temperature changes?
Very obvious examples,
View attachment 508699
View attachment 508700
I posted the reference papers that show over and over by various proxies and Ice cores that CO2 is a clear follower to temperature change.
Go read the published papers!
Probably the best post in this threadPeople confuse weather with climate, I cant understand half of it. Do believe that we should do what ever is possible to keep our air water & land clean.
Not interested in the published papers .... they all know that it is possible for the CO2 to be causal and they have made an unscientific decision to favor one over the other with no real reason to do so from a pragmatic point of view.
