Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This pause has put nothing but egg on the face of warmersScience put our entire creditability on the line for this and our case with the American people is being harmed. This is what makes me sad as this effects more then just this issue.
This pause has put nothing but egg on the face of warmers
You're being ridiculous.
Dumping a bunch of abstracts with a handful of actual articles is bad edict. But assuming I could browse the internet and find the full articles on other sites or download them is not something an untrained person could do. You think I'm stupid a dirt SSDD so why would you expect me to have the ability to peruse your articles (could I say red herrings since they distract more than offer support?)
Well, I took about 10 seconds of effort and gleaned this:
Found in the first sentence in the first link.It is not well understood whether coastal upwelling is a net CO2 source to the atmosphere or a net CO2 sink to the ocean...
Maybe its opposite day but that looks to support the idea that the oceans are not the source of our recent increase of CO2 in the last 2 centuries. Granted its coast Cali which doesn't represent the whole ocean but heed your own words SSDD: I AM STUPID. So you gotta present this shit in a way I can understand. It also helps if it actually supports your conclusions but hey, I'm not SSDD so I won't hold you to such harsh standards. I'd especially like to see support for your idea that oceans and land (not MAN) account for our latest surge in CO2 (and is predicted to climb to 450ppm within a 2-3 decades--and to think it took 2 centuries for CO2 to climb 100ppm, now it will take half that time @ current pace--hmmmm seems to correspond to MAN's capacity to expel CO2 with pop. growth).
Though I appreciate your efforts to cite sources, you failed to present a digestible response, let me offer the real scoop so we can keep our discussion rolling:
I encourage you to read more here under "Sources of carbon dioxide"Wikipedia said:Most sources of CO2 emissions are natural, and are balanced to various degrees by natural CO2 sinks. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands and the action of forest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year, while new growth entirely counteracts this effect, absorbing 450 gigatonnes per year.[19] Although the initial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the young Earth was produced by volcanic activity, modern volcanic activity releases only 130 to 230 megatonnes of carbon dioxide each year,[20] which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities (at approximately 29 gigatonnes).[21] These natural sources are nearly balanced by natural sinks, physical and biological processes which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The biosphere operates in harmony, it has and will continue to manage itself irrespective of humanity. Industry arrived and an imbalance (of relatively low portions) began. Even though anthropogenic pollution seems insignificant in size compared to the land and ocean sources--and it is--we have introduced an imbalance, a variable that was hitherto not extant.
To keep denying industry has nothing to do with this disrupted balance is to deny the air and water you breathe and drink. Either pony-up and realize the best explanation fits the data: human activity has largely been responsible for 400ppm. Increases to 450ppm are predicted in 2-3 decades and directly correspond to human activity and our increased capacity to expel CO2. Indeed, nothing much has changed in 2 centuries except for what men and beautiful women have done. Change rarely happens on global scales in such short epochs except during high Volcanic activity.
We are not connecting CO2 to GHG and I don't want to hear any reply mention those 2 dirty words (*wispers* "climate change"). I am merely offering the best explanation for how we shot up 100ppm since 1750. Nothing more, nothing less.
Probably mankind played a role.. So what?
Probably mankind played a role.. So what?
There is the heart and soul of the educated denier position.
"So...what?"
"So-o-o-o WHAT?"
"SO WHAT?"
Are you all that thoughtful and considerate?
FLC, I am not looking to explain temperature changes. We simply haven't got to that point yet. I am merely looking to explain why the last couple centuries have seen CO2 increases. The only non-anthropogenic explanation that could fit our relatively quick carbon dioxide increases are Volcanoes and we know that Volcanoes are not responsible. The only valid explanation is human activity--it corresponds directly to our capacity to raze Land and pollute the Air--the more we are capable of, the greater the CO2 output and this corresponds to all our measurements.
I think you're comment reluctantly agrees but dismisses the fact it has any validity or meaning.
"So what?" Indeed, so what if one of your beliefs is "technically inaccurate?" I sure as hell don't care if you're are trying to save face by dismissing the meaning of being inaccurate. I'm not here to rub it in your face for the sake of appearing superior. This is stupid and completely unhelpful. Your pals don't think so though, this is their basic tactic: appear superior at all costs.
Your position should be separate from YOU, who you ARE. You can't change being [insert name], but you CAN change mere beliefs with some effort that can in turn change behavior (even if those changes only manifest by not typing falsities on message boards). The deeper beliefs lie at the core of a worldview, the harder they are to change and the less likely you are willing to admit it to yourself (let alone to opponents or publicly).
But I trust your intellectual capacity that you are capable of choosing accurate beliefs over inaccurate ones. This is what you call me on every chance you get. And is this particular belief near the core of your understanding? I hope not but we know it is. The point you are unwilling to admit is man is responsible for man's own actions. This demonstrates you apply standards of accuracy and responsibility keenly against opponents but ignore these standard for your own beliefs. I think this is a textbook double standard. Now I understand why I'm always wrong and you're always right.
But FLC, I don't care if you're wrong or right or if I'm wrong or right--the point isn't our intellectual righteousness. It's what we are doing to the biosphere. Since it's so large we tend to ignore our tiny part, but each tiny part makes up the whole. Without addressing anthropogenic CO2, it is only going to rise. Avoiding simple rectification of faulty beliefs defers the problem to another generation--that isn't you. Oh so convenient, eh? It means you can continue doing what you do day to day without having to make any changes. Indeed, Americans are lazy fucks when it comes to improving/removing bad habits. I guess you are no different.
Fact: recent CO2 imbalances' have come from mostly human activity. It's the best explanation and a majority of experts have concluded similarly. If you continue to reject this quite simple conclusion (i.e. industry rises>CO2 rises>>industry rises>>>CO2 rises etc.) its based in personal procrastination not scientific data. Both are valid to an individual, however, personal laziness is not a valid approach to policy or international relations.
I respect you FLC but your positions are to be respected based on rigor, not a long-standing affair you've had with the belief. It's kinda like the fallacy of appealing to tradition, just cuz you held the belief for such a long time doesn't make it true.
...ramble ramble ramble for nothing. I know I just wasted my time typing this.
FLC, I am not looking to explain temperature changes. We simply haven't got to that point yet. I am merely looking to explain why the last couple centuries have seen CO2 increases. The only non-anthropogenic explanation that could fit our relatively quick carbon dioxide increases are Volcanoes and we know that Volcanoes are not responsible. The only valid explanation is human activity--it corresponds directly to our capacity to raze Land and pollute the Air--the more we are capable of, the greater the CO2 output and this corresponds to all our measurements.
I think you're comment reluctantly agrees but dismisses the fact it has any validity or meaning.
"So what?" Indeed, so what if one of your beliefs is "technically inaccurate?" I sure as hell don't care if you're are trying to save face by dismissing the meaning of being inaccurate. I'm not here to rub it in your face for the sake of appearing superior. This is stupid and completely unhelpful. Your pals don't think so though, this is their basic tactic: appear superior at all costs.
Your position should be separate from YOU, who you ARE. You can't change being [insert name], but you CAN change mere beliefs with some effort that can in turn change behavior (even if those changes only manifest by not typing falsities on message boards). The deeper beliefs lie at the core of a worldview, the harder they are to change and the less likely you are willing to admit it to yourself (let alone to opponents or publicly).
But I trust your intellectual capacity that you are capable of choosing accurate beliefs over inaccurate ones. This is what you call me on every chance you get. And is this particular belief near the core of your understanding? I hope not but we know it is. The point you are unwilling to admit is man is responsible for man's own actions. This demonstrates you apply standards of accuracy and responsibility keenly against opponents but ignore these standard for your own beliefs. I think this is a textbook double standard. Now I understand why I'm always wrong and you're always right.
But FLC, I don't care if you're wrong or right or if I'm wrong or right--the point isn't our intellectual righteousness. It's what we are doing to the biosphere. Since it's so large we tend to ignore our tiny part, but each tiny part makes up the whole. Without addressing anthropogenic CO2, it is only going to rise. Avoiding simple rectification of faulty beliefs defers the problem to another generation--that isn't you. Oh so convenient, eh? It means you can continue doing what you do day to day without having to make any changes. Indeed, Americans are lazy fucks when it comes to improving/removing bad habits. I guess you are no different.
Fact: recent CO2 imbalances' have come from mostly human activity. It's the best explanation and a majority of experts have concluded similarly. If you continue to reject this quite simple conclusion (i.e. industry rises>CO2 rises>>industry rises>>>CO2 rises etc.) its based in personal procrastination not scientific data. Both are valid to an individual, however, personal laziness is not a valid approach to policy or international relations.
I respect you FLC but your positions are to be respected based on rigor, not a long-standing affair you've had with the belief. It's kinda like the fallacy of appealing to tradition, just cuz you held the belief for such a long time doesn't make it true.
...ramble ramble ramble for nothing. I know I just wasted my time typing this.
Untrue. The Vostock ice core data shows a 400 to 800 year lag for increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere after the onset of warming. The MWP occurred 800 years ago so the empirical data we have, shows that the current rise in CO2 is likely attributable to the MWP.
FLC, I am not looking to explain temperature changes. We simply haven't got to that point yet. I am merely looking to explain why the last couple centuries have seen CO2 increases. The only non-anthropogenic explanation that could fit our relatively quick carbon dioxide increases are Volcanoes and we know that Volcanoes are not responsible. The only valid explanation is human activity--it corresponds directly to our capacity to raze Land and pollute the Air--the more we are capable of, the greater the CO2 output and this corresponds to all our measurements.
I think you're comment reluctantly agrees but dismisses the fact it has any validity or meaning.
"So what?" Indeed, so what if one of your beliefs is "technically inaccurate?" I sure as hell don't care if you're are trying to save face by dismissing the meaning of being inaccurate. I'm not here to rub it in your face for the sake of appearing superior. This is stupid and completely unhelpful. Your pals don't think so though, this is their basic tactic: appear superior at all costs.
Your position should be separate from YOU, who you ARE. You can't change being [insert name], but you CAN change mere beliefs with some effort that can in turn change behavior (even if those changes only manifest by not typing falsities on message boards). The deeper beliefs lie at the core of a worldview, the harder they are to change and the less likely you are willing to admit it to yourself (let alone to opponents or publicly).
But I trust your intellectual capacity that you are capable of choosing accurate beliefs over inaccurate ones. This is what you call me on every chance you get. And is this particular belief near the core of your understanding? I hope not but we know it is. The point you are unwilling to admit is man is responsible for man's own actions. This demonstrates you apply standards of accuracy and responsibility keenly against opponents but ignore these standard for your own beliefs. I think this is a textbook double standard. Now I understand why I'm always wrong and you're always right.
But FLC, I don't care if you're wrong or right or if I'm wrong or right--the point isn't our intellectual righteousness. It's what we are doing to the biosphere. Since it's so large we tend to ignore our tiny part, but each tiny part makes up the whole. Without addressing anthropogenic CO2, it is only going to rise. Avoiding simple rectification of faulty beliefs defers the problem to another generation--that isn't you. Oh so convenient, eh? It means you can continue doing what you do day to day without having to make any changes. Indeed, Americans are lazy fucks when it comes to improving/removing bad habits. I guess you are no different.
Fact: recent CO2 imbalances' have come from mostly human activity. It's the best explanation and a majority of experts have concluded similarly. If you continue to reject this quite simple conclusion (i.e. industry rises>CO2 rises>>industry rises>>>CO2 rises etc.) its based in personal procrastination not scientific data. Both are valid to an individual, however, personal laziness is not a valid approach to policy or international relations.
I respect you FLC but your positions are to be respected based on rigor, not a long-standing affair you've had with the belief. It's kinda like the fallacy of appealing to tradition, just cuz you held the belief for such a long time doesn't make it true.
...ramble ramble ramble for nothing. I know I just wasted my time typing this.
Untrue. The Vostock ice core data shows a 400 to 800 year lag for increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere after the onset of warming. The MWP occurred 800 years ago so the empirical data we have, shows that the current rise in CO2 is likely attributable to the MWP.
Not just the Vostok cores....all cores show a lag indicating that rising CO2 is the result of rising temps, not the cause
Untrue. The Vostock ice core data shows a 400 to 800 year lag for increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere after the onset of warming. The MWP occurred 800 years ago so the empirical data we have, shows that the current rise in CO2 is likely attributable to the MWP.
Not just the Vostok cores....all cores show a lag indicating that rising CO2 is the result of rising temps, not the cause
Skooks,
So you hate the sun?
Then I'm heading for Abe's place!!!
