Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[frigidweirdo]

Predictions are just that. No one can predict the future with 100% accuracy, unless they're as vague as possible.

My prediction is that unless we do something about this problem, in 50 years time it'll be a lot warmer.

wow, way to step out there bubba. Hahahahahahahahahaha you probably won't be here in 50. What value is that to anyone here? I know I won't unless I live to be 110. so predict something outside your lifetime and call it accurate. hahahahaahahahahahahahahaha.

Fine, let's do it your way. I predict in 3 months it'll be hotter than now.

That's global warming dude......

hahahaahahahahaahahaha, no that would be summer. wow, and I thought you thought you knew something.

You really aren't with it, are you?

so you are saying that summer isn't coming? Ok willard. Holy fk. So what season is coming then? It isn't climate season, it will be summer and wouldn't you fking know it, the temperature will go up. holy fk!!

You all crack the living shit out of me. so now we're not having seasons. wow.

No, it's not what I'm saying.

What I was saying first was that a prediction over a 50 year period would be what I said. You got annoyed that you wouldn't be around to see such a prediction, so I made a prediction that would have been easier for someone like you to accept. A very short term one.

The point being that you'll believe what the hell you want to believe, and dismiss what the hell you want to dismiss, so I made something you couldn't dismiss, in the only way possible.

 

[jc456]

wow, way to step out there bubba. Hahahahahahahahahaha you probably won't be here in 50. What value is that to anyone here? I know I won't unless I live to be 110. so predict something outside your lifetime and call it accurate. hahahahaahahahahahahahahaha.

Fine, let's do it your way. I predict in 3 months it'll be hotter than now.

That's global warming dude......

You don't know it but you have really just described what passes for climate science.

No, I haven't. What I've just done is described what you want climate science to pass as.

Rule number one, if you can't attack the facts, then attack the people who make the facts.

You have no facts....I have been asking for facts for decades and have yet to see them....show me one shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that man is altering the global climate.

So what you're saying is you'll only accept 100% fact, and any fact I present you'll basically say it isn't fact.

You do realize we're not dealing with 100%s here. We can't say something for certain because there's always going to be interpretation of the facts.

So what you're demanding is something that you'll always be able to put doubt on, and therefore always reject.

Fine, you can do that. You can be closed minded and try and ignore what is happening around us.

This is what we believe has happened with temperatures in the last 400,000 years. Every 100,000 years, more or less, we see a massive spike in temperatures. It starts from somewhere quite cold and then rises quickly and then drops equally quickly. Then after the drop temperatures rise again, but not as high as they did before.

You can either go with this, saying it's the best evidence we have, or you can just reject it because you want to believe what you want to believe.

What should be happening? Well according to this data we should be getting colder.

So any increase in temperatures is man made.

Can I PROVE this? No I can't. You can't PROVE this in any way, shape or form. This isn't about proof. This is about looking at the evidence and trying to understand what should be happening.

Are we seeing natural global cooling? Quite possibly, and along side that we have man made global warming, and then you get a slight rise in temperatures. Not a massive rise in temperatures.

What I can prove, however, is that the seas are changing.

We know that the CO2 in the sea is rising

Ocean Acidification -- Pristine Seas -- National Geographic

"Scientists now know that about half of this anthropogenic, or man-made, CO2 has been absorbed over time by the oceans."

"But relatively new research is finding that the introduction of massive amounts of CO2 into the seas is altering water chemistry and affecting the life cycles of many marine organisms, particularly those at the lower end of the food chain."

So, basically many of the predictions of man made climate change may have been wrong because people didn't really understand where the CO2 was going. Half of it goes to the seas. Thereby reducing the impact of man made global warming by half.

What does this mean? It means we could see the end of much sea life, and this could happen very soon. Coral reefs are dying.

"Projections based on these numbers show that by the end of this century, continued emissions could reduce ocean pH by another 0.5 units. Shell-forming animals including corals, oysters, shrimp, lobster, many planktonic organisms, and even some fish species could be gravely affected."

The really important thing here is this:

"Equally worrisome is the fact that as the oceans continue to absorb more CO2, their capacity as a carbon storehouse could diminish. That means more of the carbon dioxide we emit will remain in the atmosphere, further aggravating global climate change."

We're pumping into the air, a lot goes into the seas, what happens if the seas can no longer take in the CO2, either because a lot of life has died, or because the sea is simply "full"? Well, then all we pump will come out as airborne CO2 and then we'll really see the effects of this.

This is the problem, the main problem. Stopping something once it has gone past the point of no return. We know we're fucking the planet up, and yet we're not doing anything to stop it going over the edge.

so out of all that, the short summary is, you don't have the facts. You have conclusions built off of hypothesis that have never ever been tested to support claims of doom and gloom. Your side chooses words very carefully, but in the end they know no more than me. no more. For you to come on a message board and tell me I'm wrong, well is wrong. You don't know if I am or not. For now I know I'm right cause you can't prove me wrong.

Fact, the number of reporting stations don't cover the globe. Just a flat out fact.

Fact-satellites are not showing the warm up that warmers say is happening-fact

Fact- ocean levels are within one foot of the level of one hundred years ago-fact

Fact- extreme weather events are down-fact

Fact- number of hurricanes are down not up- fact

fact- the earth has always had extreme weather events, always-fact

Finally, fact- you can't produce one piece of evidence to support man can change climate. FACT

 

[jc456]

You don't know it but you have really just described what passes for climate science.

No, I haven't. What I've just done is described what you want climate science to pass as.

Rule number one, if you can't attack the facts, then attack the people who make the facts.

you first have to have facts. So post up some facts. We've been waiting. You all keep posting up that comment and fail to ever produce.

Then you post facts and then it turns into an exercise of ignoring the facts and saying all the facts are wrong. And around in a circle we go because you'll not accept ANYTHING that doesn't support your position.

well you need to understand what you consider to be a fact and ones that really are. I can't help you there. But the fact is you have no observed data that you can post up that supports any claim made by the warmers in here. Zero, and I'm not the only one here making that statement to you or your warmer friends in here.

Fact is something that is, not something predicted. Please learn the difference and you'll be that much smarter in your life.

"observed data" being what? I sense some trickery in this term already and I don't even know what you mean by it.

So you're basically telling me you'll accept no evidence that goes against your "belief"?

Well I guess from people who have been justifying their made up religious crap for 2,000 years, applying it to something that's fairly recent wouldn't be too hard.

do you know what the word means? Just asking cause you seem to be having an issue with it.

And by the way, what is it I've made up? The only make up is the doom and gloom danger of CO2. And that buddy boy is a warmer invention. And one still unproven.

 

[jc456]

wow, way to step out there bubba. Hahahahahahahahahaha you probably won't be here in 50. What value is that to anyone here? I know I won't unless I live to be 110. so predict something outside your lifetime and call it accurate. hahahahaahahahahahahahahaha.

Fine, let's do it your way. I predict in 3 months it'll be hotter than now.

That's global warming dude......

hahahaahahahahaahahaha, no that would be summer. wow, and I thought you thought you knew something.

You really aren't with it, are you?

so you are saying that summer isn't coming? Ok willard. Holy fk. So what season is coming then? It isn't climate season, it will be summer and wouldn't you fking know it, the temperature will go up. holy fk!!

You all crack the living shit out of me. so now we're not having seasons. wow.

No, it's not what I'm saying.

What I was saying first was that a prediction over a 50 year period would be what I said. You got annoyed that you wouldn't be around to see such a prediction, so I made a prediction that would have been easier for someone like you to accept. A very short term one.

The point being that you'll believe what the hell you want to believe, and dismiss what the hell you want to dismiss, so I made something you couldn't dismiss, in the only way possible.

wow, now that is a rant and a half.

What I'll believe, well it is very simple, show me how evil CO2 is made by man. I've been waiting and there has been zero posts with any observed man made CO2. None. I'm sorry, but that isn't a belief, that is just fact.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fine, let's do it your way. I predict in 3 months it'll be hotter than now.

That's global warming dude......

You don't know it but you have really just described what passes for climate science.

No, I haven't. What I've just done is described what you want climate science to pass as.

Rule number one, if you can't attack the facts, then attack the people who make the facts.

You have no facts....I have been asking for facts for decades and have yet to see them....show me one shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that man is altering the global climate.

So what you're saying is you'll only accept 100% fact, and any fact I present you'll basically say it isn't fact.

You do realize we're not dealing with 100%s here. We can't say something for certain because there's always going to be interpretation of the facts.

So what you're demanding is something that you'll always be able to put doubt on, and therefore always reject.

Fine, you can do that. You can be closed minded and try and ignore what is happening around us.

This is what we believe has happened with temperatures in the last 400,000 years. Every 100,000 years, more or less, we see a massive spike in temperatures. It starts from somewhere quite cold and then rises quickly and then drops equally quickly. Then after the drop temperatures rise again, but not as high as they did before.

You can either go with this, saying it's the best evidence we have, or you can just reject it because you want to believe what you want to believe.

What should be happening? Well according to this data we should be getting colder.

So any increase in temperatures is man made.

Can I PROVE this? No I can't. You can't PROVE this in any way, shape or form. This isn't about proof. This is about looking at the evidence and trying to understand what should be happening.

Are we seeing natural global cooling? Quite possibly, and along side that we have man made global warming, and then you get a slight rise in temperatures. Not a massive rise in temperatures.

What I can prove, however, is that the seas are changing.

We know that the CO2 in the sea is rising

Ocean Acidification -- Pristine Seas -- National Geographic

"Scientists now know that about half of this anthropogenic, or man-made, CO2 has been absorbed over time by the oceans."

"But relatively new research is finding that the introduction of massive amounts of CO2 into the seas is altering water chemistry and affecting the life cycles of many marine organisms, particularly those at the lower end of the food chain."

So, basically many of the predictions of man made climate change may have been wrong because people didn't really understand where the CO2 was going. Half of it goes to the seas. Thereby reducing the impact of man made global warming by half.

What does this mean? It means we could see the end of much sea life, and this could happen very soon. Coral reefs are dying.

"Projections based on these numbers show that by the end of this century, continued emissions could reduce ocean pH by another 0.5 units. Shell-forming animals including corals, oysters, shrimp, lobster, many planktonic organisms, and even some fish species could be gravely affected."

The really important thing here is this:

"Equally worrisome is the fact that as the oceans continue to absorb more CO2, their capacity as a carbon storehouse could diminish. That means more of the carbon dioxide we emit will remain in the atmosphere, further aggravating global climate change."

We're pumping into the air, a lot goes into the seas, what happens if the seas can no longer take in the CO2, either because a lot of life has died, or because the sea is simply "full"? Well, then all we pump will come out as airborne CO2 and then we'll really see the effects of this.

This is the problem, the main problem. Stopping something once it has gone past the point of no return. We know we're fucking the planet up, and yet we're not doing anything to stop it going over the edge.

so out of all that, the short summary is, you don't have the facts. You have conclusions built off of hypothesis that have never ever been tested to support claims of doom and gloom. Your side chooses words very carefully, but in the end they know no more than me. no more. For you to come on a message board and tell me I'm wrong, well is wrong. You don't know if I am or not. For now I know I'm right cause you can't prove me wrong.

Fact, the number of reporting stations don't cover the globe. Just a flat out fact.

Fact-satellites are not showing the warm up that warmers say is happening-fact

Fact- ocean levels are within one foot of the level of one hundred years ago-fact

Fact- extreme weather events are down-fact

Fact- number of hurricanes are down not up- fact

fact- the earth has always had extreme weather events, always-fact

Finally, fact- you can't produce one piece of evidence to support man can change climate. FACT

No, the short summary is that you won't accept any facts, therefore debate is worthless.

Fact, it doesn't matter if reporting stations don't cover the globe.

Fact, it doesn't matter if satellites aren't showing the warming up that some people say is happening. I'm not those people, you're debating with me, not them right now.

Fact, it doesn't matter if ocean levels are within one foot of 100 years ago, one foot is still quite a rise.

Fact, we don't understand extreme weather patterns and the impact climate change has on them.

Fact, I've not brought extreme weather into this debate.

The short summary is, you're not debating with me. You're debating with who you think I am. You're debating with what you feel comfortable with. And you're willing to ignore what I say, then fight me on what I didn't say, then sit proudly saying that climate change isn't happening because you've somehow proved me wrong, when the reality is, you're fighting someone else.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, I haven't. What I've just done is described what you want climate science to pass as.

Rule number one, if you can't attack the facts, then attack the people who make the facts.

you first have to have facts. So post up some facts. We've been waiting. You all keep posting up that comment and fail to ever produce.

Then you post facts and then it turns into an exercise of ignoring the facts and saying all the facts are wrong. And around in a circle we go because you'll not accept ANYTHING that doesn't support your position.

well you need to understand what you consider to be a fact and ones that really are. I can't help you there. But the fact is you have no observed data that you can post up that supports any claim made by the warmers in here. Zero, and I'm not the only one here making that statement to you or your warmer friends in here.

Fact is something that is, not something predicted. Please learn the difference and you'll be that much smarter in your life.

"observed data" being what? I sense some trickery in this term already and I don't even know what you mean by it.

So you're basically telling me you'll accept no evidence that goes against your "belief"?

Well I guess from people who have been justifying their made up religious crap for 2,000 years, applying it to something that's fairly recent wouldn't be too hard.

do you know what the word means? Just asking cause you seem to be having an issue with it.

And by the way, what is it I've made up? The only make up is the doom and gloom danger of CO2. And that buddy boy is a warmer invention. And one still unproven.

Oh, I know what it means. I know what lots of words and phrases mean. That doesn't mean the person I'm talking to has the same idea in their head when they're using such a word. Do you understand this concept? I've dealt with enough far right groups to know that when they say something, they don't mean what most people would interpret it to mean. And in this case I've a feeling you might not be using the same meaning as I'm thinking, because you seem to like trickery.

The doom and gloom of CO2?

There is doom and gloom, and it's not made up.

The PH levels of the seas are dropping. Half of all CO2 is taken up by the seas, and they're suffering for it. Coral is dying because of the change in CO2 levels, species are struggling and getting towards the point of extinction because the seas are changing so much.

Now, the question I have is this. What happens if the seas die, and their ability to absorb CO2 goes from 50% of CO2 in the atmosphere to 0% of CO2 in the atmosphere?

It's possible. It hasn't happened yet. It might never happen. However if it does happen, we go past the point of no return. Then what? What happens if we push the world past this point? Basically the answer is: we're fucked.

 

[jc456]

You don't know it but you have really just described what passes for climate science.

No, I haven't. What I've just done is described what you want climate science to pass as.

Rule number one, if you can't attack the facts, then attack the people who make the facts.

You have no facts....I have been asking for facts for decades and have yet to see them....show me one shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that man is altering the global climate.

So what you're saying is you'll only accept 100% fact, and any fact I present you'll basically say it isn't fact.

You do realize we're not dealing with 100%s here. We can't say something for certain because there's always going to be interpretation of the facts.

So what you're demanding is something that you'll always be able to put doubt on, and therefore always reject.

Fine, you can do that. You can be closed minded and try and ignore what is happening around us.

This is what we believe has happened with temperatures in the last 400,000 years. Every 100,000 years, more or less, we see a massive spike in temperatures. It starts from somewhere quite cold and then rises quickly and then drops equally quickly. Then after the drop temperatures rise again, but not as high as they did before.

You can either go with this, saying it's the best evidence we have, or you can just reject it because you want to believe what you want to believe.

What should be happening? Well according to this data we should be getting colder.

So any increase in temperatures is man made.

Can I PROVE this? No I can't. You can't PROVE this in any way, shape or form. This isn't about proof. This is about looking at the evidence and trying to understand what should be happening.

Are we seeing natural global cooling? Quite possibly, and along side that we have man made global warming, and then you get a slight rise in temperatures. Not a massive rise in temperatures.

What I can prove, however, is that the seas are changing.

We know that the CO2 in the sea is rising

Ocean Acidification -- Pristine Seas -- National Geographic

"Scientists now know that about half of this anthropogenic, or man-made, CO2 has been absorbed over time by the oceans."

"But relatively new research is finding that the introduction of massive amounts of CO2 into the seas is altering water chemistry and affecting the life cycles of many marine organisms, particularly those at the lower end of the food chain."

So, basically many of the predictions of man made climate change may have been wrong because people didn't really understand where the CO2 was going. Half of it goes to the seas. Thereby reducing the impact of man made global warming by half.

What does this mean? It means we could see the end of much sea life, and this could happen very soon. Coral reefs are dying.

"Projections based on these numbers show that by the end of this century, continued emissions could reduce ocean pH by another 0.5 units. Shell-forming animals including corals, oysters, shrimp, lobster, many planktonic organisms, and even some fish species could be gravely affected."

The really important thing here is this:

"Equally worrisome is the fact that as the oceans continue to absorb more CO2, their capacity as a carbon storehouse could diminish. That means more of the carbon dioxide we emit will remain in the atmosphere, further aggravating global climate change."

We're pumping into the air, a lot goes into the seas, what happens if the seas can no longer take in the CO2, either because a lot of life has died, or because the sea is simply "full"? Well, then all we pump will come out as airborne CO2 and then we'll really see the effects of this.

This is the problem, the main problem. Stopping something once it has gone past the point of no return. We know we're fucking the planet up, and yet we're not doing anything to stop it going over the edge.

so out of all that, the short summary is, you don't have the facts. You have conclusions built off of hypothesis that have never ever been tested to support claims of doom and gloom. Your side chooses words very carefully, but in the end they know no more than me. no more. For you to come on a message board and tell me I'm wrong, well is wrong. You don't know if I am or not. For now I know I'm right cause you can't prove me wrong.

Fact, the number of reporting stations don't cover the globe. Just a flat out fact.

Fact-satellites are not showing the warm up that warmers say is happening-fact

Fact- ocean levels are within one foot of the level of one hundred years ago-fact

Fact- extreme weather events are down-fact

Fact- number of hurricanes are down not up- fact

fact- the earth has always had extreme weather events, always-fact

Finally, fact- you can't produce one piece of evidence to support man can change climate. FACT

No, the short summary is that you won't accept any facts, therefore debate is worthless.

Fact, it doesn't matter if reporting stations don't cover the globe.

Fact, it doesn't matter if satellites aren't showing the warming up that some people say is happening. I'm not those people, you're debating with me, not them right now.

Fact, it doesn't matter if ocean levels are within one foot of 100 years ago, one foot is still quite a rise.

Fact, we don't understand extreme weather patterns and the impact climate change has on them.

Fact, I've not brought extreme weather into this debate.

The short summary is, you're not debating with me. You're debating with who you think I am. You're debating with what you feel comfortable with. And you're willing to ignore what I say, then fight me on what I didn't say, then sit proudly saying that climate change isn't happening because you've somehow proved me wrong, when the reality is, you're fighting someone else.

The debate has been about climate facts.

That is everything to do with climate bubba. Or don't you even know that? Wow dude, what is your purpose here then?

fact- you've not brought in any facts for me to agree with.

Can you explain why one foot is evil in the ocean rise in 100 years?

And that the one foot rise is not across the globe. Oops.

What is it that you do know? You have attempted to share your ideas on what you think are facts and have failed. Sorry about that bubba, not my fault.

I presented facts and you for the most part agree with them. So again, predictions are just made up ideas. Anyone can predict anything. Big fking deal. Predicting past your lifetime does zip for anyone in here. Predicting summer is hardly a bold move. Face it, you have nothing to post that supports climate doom and gloom or change.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fine, let's do it your way. I predict in 3 months it'll be hotter than now.

That's global warming dude......

hahahaahahahahaahahaha, no that would be summer. wow, and I thought you thought you knew something.

You really aren't with it, are you?

so you are saying that summer isn't coming? Ok willard. Holy fk. So what season is coming then? It isn't climate season, it will be summer and wouldn't you fking know it, the temperature will go up. holy fk!!

You all crack the living shit out of me. so now we're not having seasons. wow.

No, it's not what I'm saying.

What I was saying first was that a prediction over a 50 year period would be what I said. You got annoyed that you wouldn't be around to see such a prediction, so I made a prediction that would have been easier for someone like you to accept. A very short term one.

The point being that you'll believe what the hell you want to believe, and dismiss what the hell you want to dismiss, so I made something you couldn't dismiss, in the only way possible.

wow, now that is a rant and a half.

What I'll believe, well it is very simple, show me how evil CO2 is made by man. I've been waiting and there has been zero posts with any observed man made CO2. None. I'm sorry, but that isn't a belief, that is just fact.

How is CO2 made by man?

Do you know what happens when you burn coal?

How much carbon dioxide is produced when different fuels are burned? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels:

Coal (anthracite) 228.6
Coal (bituminous) 205.7
Coal (lignite) 215.4
Coal (subbituminous) 214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3
Gasoline 157.2
Propane 139.0
Natural gas 117.0

So, there are some ways of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Go to China, see the impact of coal.

Beijing Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

Here you can see a map of pollution is China, you can compare this with say, Japan, which is generally green, try and find a green place in China, I can find deep red which is severely polluted, most Chinese cities are badly polluted ALL THE TIME.

Why is this? Because pollution is being pumped into the air, ALL THE TIME. It impacts people, the number of people with breathing problems is much higher than other countries in the west, for example. And there are countries which are worse than this.

 

[jc456]

you first have to have facts. So post up some facts. We've been waiting. You all keep posting up that comment and fail to ever produce.

Then you post facts and then it turns into an exercise of ignoring the facts and saying all the facts are wrong. And around in a circle we go because you'll not accept ANYTHING that doesn't support your position.

well you need to understand what you consider to be a fact and ones that really are. I can't help you there. But the fact is you have no observed data that you can post up that supports any claim made by the warmers in here. Zero, and I'm not the only one here making that statement to you or your warmer friends in here.

Fact is something that is, not something predicted. Please learn the difference and you'll be that much smarter in your life.

"observed data" being what? I sense some trickery in this term already and I don't even know what you mean by it.

So you're basically telling me you'll accept no evidence that goes against your "belief"?

Well I guess from people who have been justifying their made up religious crap for 2,000 years, applying it to something that's fairly recent wouldn't be too hard.

do you know what the word means? Just asking cause you seem to be having an issue with it.

And by the way, what is it I've made up? The only make up is the doom and gloom danger of CO2. And that buddy boy is a warmer invention. And one still unproven.

Oh, I know what it means. I know what lots of words and phrases mean. That doesn't mean the person I'm talking to has the same idea in their head when they're using such a word. Do you understand this concept? I've dealt with enough far right groups to know that when they say something, they don't mean what most people would interpret it to mean. And in this case I've a feeling you might not be using the same meaning as I'm thinking, because you seem to like trickery.

The doom and gloom of CO2?

There is doom and gloom, and it's not made up.

The PH levels of the seas are dropping. Half of all CO2 is taken up by the seas, and they're suffering for it. Coral is dying because of the change in CO2 levels, species are struggling and getting towards the point of extinction because the seas are changing so much.

Now, the question I have is this. What happens if the seas die, and their ability to absorb CO2 goes from 50% of CO2 in the atmosphere to 0% of CO2 in the atmosphere?

It's possible. It hasn't happened yet. It might never happen. However if it does happen, we go past the point of no return. Then what? What happens if we push the world past this point? Basically the answer is: we're fucked.

See there it is 'we're fucked'.

And until I'm dead, I'll ask folks like you to explain it. Explain how man made CO2 is dangerous. YOU CAN'T. It's not your fault, we all already know you can't. The tests and observations don't support it.

It is what the debate is about f00l.

again, post up some observational data that shows the doom and gloom. Hell, just show the observed man made CO2.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, I haven't. What I've just done is described what you want climate science to pass as.

Rule number one, if you can't attack the facts, then attack the people who make the facts.

You have no facts....I have been asking for facts for decades and have yet to see them....show me one shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that man is altering the global climate.

So what you're saying is you'll only accept 100% fact, and any fact I present you'll basically say it isn't fact.

You do realize we're not dealing with 100%s here. We can't say something for certain because there's always going to be interpretation of the facts.

So what you're demanding is something that you'll always be able to put doubt on, and therefore always reject.

Fine, you can do that. You can be closed minded and try and ignore what is happening around us.

This is what we believe has happened with temperatures in the last 400,000 years. Every 100,000 years, more or less, we see a massive spike in temperatures. It starts from somewhere quite cold and then rises quickly and then drops equally quickly. Then after the drop temperatures rise again, but not as high as they did before.

You can either go with this, saying it's the best evidence we have, or you can just reject it because you want to believe what you want to believe.

What should be happening? Well according to this data we should be getting colder.

So any increase in temperatures is man made.

Can I PROVE this? No I can't. You can't PROVE this in any way, shape or form. This isn't about proof. This is about looking at the evidence and trying to understand what should be happening.

Are we seeing natural global cooling? Quite possibly, and along side that we have man made global warming, and then you get a slight rise in temperatures. Not a massive rise in temperatures.

What I can prove, however, is that the seas are changing.

We know that the CO2 in the sea is rising

Ocean Acidification -- Pristine Seas -- National Geographic

"Scientists now know that about half of this anthropogenic, or man-made, CO2 has been absorbed over time by the oceans."

"But relatively new research is finding that the introduction of massive amounts of CO2 into the seas is altering water chemistry and affecting the life cycles of many marine organisms, particularly those at the lower end of the food chain."

So, basically many of the predictions of man made climate change may have been wrong because people didn't really understand where the CO2 was going. Half of it goes to the seas. Thereby reducing the impact of man made global warming by half.

What does this mean? It means we could see the end of much sea life, and this could happen very soon. Coral reefs are dying.

"Projections based on these numbers show that by the end of this century, continued emissions could reduce ocean pH by another 0.5 units. Shell-forming animals including corals, oysters, shrimp, lobster, many planktonic organisms, and even some fish species could be gravely affected."

The really important thing here is this:

"Equally worrisome is the fact that as the oceans continue to absorb more CO2, their capacity as a carbon storehouse could diminish. That means more of the carbon dioxide we emit will remain in the atmosphere, further aggravating global climate change."

We're pumping into the air, a lot goes into the seas, what happens if the seas can no longer take in the CO2, either because a lot of life has died, or because the sea is simply "full"? Well, then all we pump will come out as airborne CO2 and then we'll really see the effects of this.

This is the problem, the main problem. Stopping something once it has gone past the point of no return. We know we're fucking the planet up, and yet we're not doing anything to stop it going over the edge.

so out of all that, the short summary is, you don't have the facts. You have conclusions built off of hypothesis that have never ever been tested to support claims of doom and gloom. Your side chooses words very carefully, but in the end they know no more than me. no more. For you to come on a message board and tell me I'm wrong, well is wrong. You don't know if I am or not. For now I know I'm right cause you can't prove me wrong.

Fact, the number of reporting stations don't cover the globe. Just a flat out fact.

Fact-satellites are not showing the warm up that warmers say is happening-fact

Fact- ocean levels are within one foot of the level of one hundred years ago-fact

Fact- extreme weather events are down-fact

Fact- number of hurricanes are down not up- fact

fact- the earth has always had extreme weather events, always-fact

Finally, fact- you can't produce one piece of evidence to support man can change climate. FACT

No, the short summary is that you won't accept any facts, therefore debate is worthless.

Fact, it doesn't matter if reporting stations don't cover the globe.

Fact, it doesn't matter if satellites aren't showing the warming up that some people say is happening. I'm not those people, you're debating with me, not them right now.

Fact, it doesn't matter if ocean levels are within one foot of 100 years ago, one foot is still quite a rise.

Fact, we don't understand extreme weather patterns and the impact climate change has on them.

Fact, I've not brought extreme weather into this debate.

The short summary is, you're not debating with me. You're debating with who you think I am. You're debating with what you feel comfortable with. And you're willing to ignore what I say, then fight me on what I didn't say, then sit proudly saying that climate change isn't happening because you've somehow proved me wrong, when the reality is, you're fighting someone else.

The debate has been about climate facts.

That is everything to do with climate bubba. Or don't you even know that? Wow dude, what is your purpose here then?

fact- you've not brought in any facts for me to agree with.

Can you explain why one foot is evil in the ocean rise in 100 years?

And that the one foot rise is not across the globe. Oops.

What is it that you do know? You have attempted to share your ideas on what you think are facts and have failed. Sorry about that bubba, not my fault.

I presented facts and you for the most part agree with them. So again, predictions are just made up ideas. Anyone can predict anything. Big fking deal. Predicting past your lifetime does zip for anyone in here. Predicting summer is hardly a bold move. Face it, you have nothing to post that supports climate doom and gloom or change.

Again, you're fighting what you're comfortable with.

No, I haven't brought in many facts. Mainly because every time I do, I get ignored. I posted about CO2 in the oceans and I didn't get a single reply. I backed up everything I said, I got not a single reply. People will reply to the short crap messages, but not the long detailed ones, then complain that no one has posted anything.

But then again I posted in the next post details. So I'll see how you reply to that one.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then you post facts and then it turns into an exercise of ignoring the facts and saying all the facts are wrong. And around in a circle we go because you'll not accept ANYTHING that doesn't support your position.

well you need to understand what you consider to be a fact and ones that really are. I can't help you there. But the fact is you have no observed data that you can post up that supports any claim made by the warmers in here. Zero, and I'm not the only one here making that statement to you or your warmer friends in here.

Fact is something that is, not something predicted. Please learn the difference and you'll be that much smarter in your life.

"observed data" being what? I sense some trickery in this term already and I don't even know what you mean by it.

So you're basically telling me you'll accept no evidence that goes against your "belief"?

Well I guess from people who have been justifying their made up religious crap for 2,000 years, applying it to something that's fairly recent wouldn't be too hard.

do you know what the word means? Just asking cause you seem to be having an issue with it.

And by the way, what is it I've made up? The only make up is the doom and gloom danger of CO2. And that buddy boy is a warmer invention. And one still unproven.

Oh, I know what it means. I know what lots of words and phrases mean. That doesn't mean the person I'm talking to has the same idea in their head when they're using such a word. Do you understand this concept? I've dealt with enough far right groups to know that when they say something, they don't mean what most people would interpret it to mean. And in this case I've a feeling you might not be using the same meaning as I'm thinking, because you seem to like trickery.

The doom and gloom of CO2?

There is doom and gloom, and it's not made up.

The PH levels of the seas are dropping. Half of all CO2 is taken up by the seas, and they're suffering for it. Coral is dying because of the change in CO2 levels, species are struggling and getting towards the point of extinction because the seas are changing so much.

Now, the question I have is this. What happens if the seas die, and their ability to absorb CO2 goes from 50% of CO2 in the atmosphere to 0% of CO2 in the atmosphere?

It's possible. It hasn't happened yet. It might never happen. However if it does happen, we go past the point of no return. Then what? What happens if we push the world past this point? Basically the answer is: we're fucked.

See there it is 'we're fucked'.

And until I'm dead, I'll ask folks like you to explain it. Explain how man made CO2 is dangerous. YOU CAN'T. It's not your fault, we all already know you can't. The tests and observations don't support it.

It is what the debate is about f00l.

again, post up some observational data that shows the doom and gloom. Hell, just show the observed man made CO2.

Did you read what I wrote?

CO2 is causing the seas to die.

The seas take 50% of CO2.

If the seas stop taking CO2, then the greenhouse effect will be multiplied by two. The greenhouse effect is part of the reason why we can live on this planet, but it's like central heating, you don't want the heating on when it's 90 degrees outside.

Man made CO2 isn't any more dangerous than natural CO2. However there is so much natural CO2 in the atmosphere and there always has been. At times there's been more (when Humans weren't around) and at times less.
The problem is humans can survive within a certain climate level comfortably. Too hot and too cold and we begin to suffer, we can't live life as we'd like. Evidence would probably be Eskimos, they live, but they didn't become that advanced. Too hot, how many sea level countries close to the equator developed as fast as countries who were in reasonable climates? The deep south isn't as developed in most parts as the north of the US.

But then again humans have managed to develop heating and air conditioning. But what of the animals outside? What of the wildlife, the flora and fauna?

But again. The point I made before and the point you choose to ignore (and then demand answers), what happens if we go over the point of no return?

As for the data you want, I posted this, you ignored it.

Shanghai Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

You can see the PM2.5 and the PM 10 levels. Currently 190 in Shanghai. You can see 400, sometimes you can see 2,000. Over 50 is bad.


http://aqicn.org/city/usa/washington/seattle/10th-and-weller/

This is for some place in Seattle. Just chose a random place in the US. PM2.5 levels at 49, Not a single place in the US appears to be at Shanghai levels. Why not? What is in the air? Where does this come from? It's man made. It's made made pollution that is being pumped out.

A map of Europe, look at the places which are sparely inhabited. They're green, very little man made effects, very little pollution at all. Very few particles which are basically poisonous to humans.

 

[jc456]

hahahaahahahahaahahaha, no that would be summer. wow, and I thought you thought you knew something.

You really aren't with it, are you?

so you are saying that summer isn't coming? Ok willard. Holy fk. So what season is coming then? It isn't climate season, it will be summer and wouldn't you fking know it, the temperature will go up. holy fk!!

You all crack the living shit out of me. so now we're not having seasons. wow.

No, it's not what I'm saying.

What I was saying first was that a prediction over a 50 year period would be what I said. You got annoyed that you wouldn't be around to see such a prediction, so I made a prediction that would have been easier for someone like you to accept. A very short term one.

The point being that you'll believe what the hell you want to believe, and dismiss what the hell you want to dismiss, so I made something you couldn't dismiss, in the only way possible.

wow, now that is a rant and a half.

What I'll believe, well it is very simple, show me how evil CO2 is made by man. I've been waiting and there has been zero posts with any observed man made CO2. None. I'm sorry, but that isn't a belief, that is just fact.

How is CO2 made by man?

Do you know what happens when you burn coal?

How much carbon dioxide is produced when different fuels are burned? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels:

Coal (anthracite) 228.6
Coal (bituminous) 205.7
Coal (lignite) 215.4
Coal (subbituminous) 214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3
Gasoline 157.2
Propane 139.0
Natural gas 117.0

So, there are some ways of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Go to China, see the impact of coal.

Beijing Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

Here you can see a map of pollution is China, you can compare this with say, Japan, which is generally green, try and find a green place in China, I can find deep red which is severely polluted, most Chinese cities are badly polluted ALL THE TIME.

Why is this? Because pollution is being pumped into the air, ALL THE TIME. It impacts people, the number of people with breathing problems is much higher than other countries in the west, for example. And there are countries which are worse than this.

dude, that is called pollution and not climate. See the information you provide is off kilter to the argument. Pollution in China isn't the debate.

Climate is the debate. AGW is the debate.

And yes I know we, humans, add CO2 to the atmosphere. Always, since we've been around. It isn't unusual, and yet you're trying to make it unusual. I've merely asked to prove how our CO2 is more evil than natural CO2. That is the argument.

I've also asked for what the normal amount of CO2 is expected in the atmosphere, and that can't be proven. And dude, you can post up all the fking info on that you want and there is no such thing. It's made up. There is also no such thing as normal temperatures. Made up again. if you choose to debate that, then just post your reason and supporting evidence.

Ice melts every year in the poles. Every year. It has since the ice formed. it's seasonal. Please feel free to prove me wrong. You can't.

do you reject that there are forests under glaciers?

You do know that Greenland loses glaciers every year and always has right?

Dude, I'm merely asking for facts that support that things happening are not normal and have been occurring longer than you and I have been on earth.

CO2 use to be in the thousands. FACT!!!!

 

[frigidweirdo]

You really aren't with it, are you?

so you are saying that summer isn't coming? Ok willard. Holy fk. So what season is coming then? It isn't climate season, it will be summer and wouldn't you fking know it, the temperature will go up. holy fk!!

You all crack the living shit out of me. so now we're not having seasons. wow.

No, it's not what I'm saying.

What I was saying first was that a prediction over a 50 year period would be what I said. You got annoyed that you wouldn't be around to see such a prediction, so I made a prediction that would have been easier for someone like you to accept. A very short term one.

The point being that you'll believe what the hell you want to believe, and dismiss what the hell you want to dismiss, so I made something you couldn't dismiss, in the only way possible.

wow, now that is a rant and a half.

What I'll believe, well it is very simple, show me how evil CO2 is made by man. I've been waiting and there has been zero posts with any observed man made CO2. None. I'm sorry, but that isn't a belief, that is just fact.

How is CO2 made by man?

Do you know what happens when you burn coal?

How much carbon dioxide is produced when different fuels are burned? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels:

Coal (anthracite) 228.6
Coal (bituminous) 205.7
Coal (lignite) 215.4
Coal (subbituminous) 214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3
Gasoline 157.2
Propane 139.0
Natural gas 117.0

So, there are some ways of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Go to China, see the impact of coal.

Beijing Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

Here you can see a map of pollution is China, you can compare this with say, Japan, which is generally green, try and find a green place in China, I can find deep red which is severely polluted, most Chinese cities are badly polluted ALL THE TIME.

Why is this? Because pollution is being pumped into the air, ALL THE TIME. It impacts people, the number of people with breathing problems is much higher than other countries in the west, for example. And there are countries which are worse than this.

dude, that is called pollution and not climate. See the information you provide is off kilter to the argument. Pollution in China isn't the debate.

Climate is the debate. AGW is the debate.

And yes I know we, humans, add CO2 to the atmosphere. Always, since we've been around. It isn't unusual, and yet you're trying to make it unusual. I've merely asked to prove how our CO2 is more evil than natural CO2. That is the argument.

I've also asked for what the normal amount of CO2 is expected in the atmosphere, and that can't be proven. And dude, you can post up all the fking info on that you want and there is no such thing. It's made up. There is also no such thing as normal temperatures. Made up again. if you choose to debate that, then just post your reason and supporting evidence.

Ice melts every year in the poles. Every year. It has since the ice formed. it's seasonal. Please feel free to prove me wrong. You can't.

do you reject that there are forests under glaciers?

You do know that Greenland loses glaciers every year and always has right?

Dude, I'm merely asking for facts that support that things happening are not normal and have been occurring longer than you and I have been on earth.

CO2 use to be in the thousands. FACT!!!!

This is ridiculous.

You demand an answer. Someone tries to explain something complex to you, then you shout that this has nothing to do with it.

I'm done. Unless you're going to actually debate instead of spend your whole time playing silly tricks, I'm going to stay done.

You can go tell everyone that no one in the last 20 years has ever proven anything, but you won't tell them it's because you're just fucking around the whole time and won't listen to those people.

 

[jc456]

You have no facts....I have been asking for facts for decades and have yet to see them....show me one shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that man is altering the global climate.

So what you're saying is you'll only accept 100% fact, and any fact I present you'll basically say it isn't fact.

You do realize we're not dealing with 100%s here. We can't say something for certain because there's always going to be interpretation of the facts.

So what you're demanding is something that you'll always be able to put doubt on, and therefore always reject.

Fine, you can do that. You can be closed minded and try and ignore what is happening around us.

This is what we believe has happened with temperatures in the last 400,000 years. Every 100,000 years, more or less, we see a massive spike in temperatures. It starts from somewhere quite cold and then rises quickly and then drops equally quickly. Then after the drop temperatures rise again, but not as high as they did before.

You can either go with this, saying it's the best evidence we have, or you can just reject it because you want to believe what you want to believe.

What should be happening? Well according to this data we should be getting colder.

So any increase in temperatures is man made.

Can I PROVE this? No I can't. You can't PROVE this in any way, shape or form. This isn't about proof. This is about looking at the evidence and trying to understand what should be happening.

Are we seeing natural global cooling? Quite possibly, and along side that we have man made global warming, and then you get a slight rise in temperatures. Not a massive rise in temperatures.

What I can prove, however, is that the seas are changing.

We know that the CO2 in the sea is rising

Ocean Acidification -- Pristine Seas -- National Geographic

"Scientists now know that about half of this anthropogenic, or man-made, CO2 has been absorbed over time by the oceans."

"But relatively new research is finding that the introduction of massive amounts of CO2 into the seas is altering water chemistry and affecting the life cycles of many marine organisms, particularly those at the lower end of the food chain."

So, basically many of the predictions of man made climate change may have been wrong because people didn't really understand where the CO2 was going. Half of it goes to the seas. Thereby reducing the impact of man made global warming by half.

What does this mean? It means we could see the end of much sea life, and this could happen very soon. Coral reefs are dying.

"Projections based on these numbers show that by the end of this century, continued emissions could reduce ocean pH by another 0.5 units. Shell-forming animals including corals, oysters, shrimp, lobster, many planktonic organisms, and even some fish species could be gravely affected."

The really important thing here is this:

"Equally worrisome is the fact that as the oceans continue to absorb more CO2, their capacity as a carbon storehouse could diminish. That means more of the carbon dioxide we emit will remain in the atmosphere, further aggravating global climate change."

We're pumping into the air, a lot goes into the seas, what happens if the seas can no longer take in the CO2, either because a lot of life has died, or because the sea is simply "full"? Well, then all we pump will come out as airborne CO2 and then we'll really see the effects of this.

This is the problem, the main problem. Stopping something once it has gone past the point of no return. We know we're fucking the planet up, and yet we're not doing anything to stop it going over the edge.

so out of all that, the short summary is, you don't have the facts. You have conclusions built off of hypothesis that have never ever been tested to support claims of doom and gloom. Your side chooses words very carefully, but in the end they know no more than me. no more. For you to come on a message board and tell me I'm wrong, well is wrong. You don't know if I am or not. For now I know I'm right cause you can't prove me wrong.

Fact, the number of reporting stations don't cover the globe. Just a flat out fact.

Fact-satellites are not showing the warm up that warmers say is happening-fact

Fact- ocean levels are within one foot of the level of one hundred years ago-fact

Fact- extreme weather events are down-fact

Fact- number of hurricanes are down not up- fact

fact- the earth has always had extreme weather events, always-fact

Finally, fact- you can't produce one piece of evidence to support man can change climate. FACT

No, the short summary is that you won't accept any facts, therefore debate is worthless.

Fact, it doesn't matter if reporting stations don't cover the globe.

Fact, it doesn't matter if satellites aren't showing the warming up that some people say is happening. I'm not those people, you're debating with me, not them right now.

Fact, it doesn't matter if ocean levels are within one foot of 100 years ago, one foot is still quite a rise.

Fact, we don't understand extreme weather patterns and the impact climate change has on them.

Fact, I've not brought extreme weather into this debate.

The short summary is, you're not debating with me. You're debating with who you think I am. You're debating with what you feel comfortable with. And you're willing to ignore what I say, then fight me on what I didn't say, then sit proudly saying that climate change isn't happening because you've somehow proved me wrong, when the reality is, you're fighting someone else.

The debate has been about climate facts.

That is everything to do with climate bubba. Or don't you even know that? Wow dude, what is your purpose here then?

fact- you've not brought in any facts for me to agree with.

Can you explain why one foot is evil in the ocean rise in 100 years?

And that the one foot rise is not across the globe. Oops.

What is it that you do know? You have attempted to share your ideas on what you think are facts and have failed. Sorry about that bubba, not my fault.

I presented facts and you for the most part agree with them. So again, predictions are just made up ideas. Anyone can predict anything. Big fking deal. Predicting past your lifetime does zip for anyone in here. Predicting summer is hardly a bold move. Face it, you have nothing to post that supports climate doom and gloom or change.

Again, you're fighting what you're comfortable with.

No, I haven't brought in many facts. Mainly because every time I do, I get ignored. I posted about CO2 in the oceans and I didn't get a single reply. I backed up everything I said, I got not a single reply. People will reply to the short crap messages, but not the long detailed ones, then complain that no one has posted anything.

But then again I posted in the next post details. So I'll see how you reply to that one.

yes, CO2 does go into the oceans, I don't argue that at all. CO2 is heavier than the air. It's natural to be absorbed in the ocean.When is it released from the oceans, when it is cold or warm? You do know it is released right?

 

[jc456]

so you are saying that summer isn't coming? Ok willard. Holy fk. So what season is coming then? It isn't climate season, it will be summer and wouldn't you fking know it, the temperature will go up. holy fk!!

You all crack the living shit out of me. so now we're not having seasons. wow.

No, it's not what I'm saying.

What I was saying first was that a prediction over a 50 year period would be what I said. You got annoyed that you wouldn't be around to see such a prediction, so I made a prediction that would have been easier for someone like you to accept. A very short term one.

The point being that you'll believe what the hell you want to believe, and dismiss what the hell you want to dismiss, so I made something you couldn't dismiss, in the only way possible.

wow, now that is a rant and a half.

What I'll believe, well it is very simple, show me how evil CO2 is made by man. I've been waiting and there has been zero posts with any observed man made CO2. None. I'm sorry, but that isn't a belief, that is just fact.

How is CO2 made by man?

Do you know what happens when you burn coal?

How much carbon dioxide is produced when different fuels are burned? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels:

Coal (anthracite) 228.6
Coal (bituminous) 205.7
Coal (lignite) 215.4
Coal (subbituminous) 214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3
Gasoline 157.2
Propane 139.0
Natural gas 117.0

So, there are some ways of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Go to China, see the impact of coal.

Beijing Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

Here you can see a map of pollution is China, you can compare this with say, Japan, which is generally green, try and find a green place in China, I can find deep red which is severely polluted, most Chinese cities are badly polluted ALL THE TIME.

Why is this? Because pollution is being pumped into the air, ALL THE TIME. It impacts people, the number of people with breathing problems is much higher than other countries in the west, for example. And there are countries which are worse than this.

dude, that is called pollution and not climate. See the information you provide is off kilter to the argument. Pollution in China isn't the debate.

Climate is the debate. AGW is the debate.

And yes I know we, humans, add CO2 to the atmosphere. Always, since we've been around. It isn't unusual, and yet you're trying to make it unusual. I've merely asked to prove how our CO2 is more evil than natural CO2. That is the argument.

I've also asked for what the normal amount of CO2 is expected in the atmosphere, and that can't be proven. And dude, you can post up all the fking info on that you want and there is no such thing. It's made up. There is also no such thing as normal temperatures. Made up again. if you choose to debate that, then just post your reason and supporting evidence.

Ice melts every year in the poles. Every year. It has since the ice formed. it's seasonal. Please feel free to prove me wrong. You can't.

do you reject that there are forests under glaciers?

You do know that Greenland loses glaciers every year and always has right?

Dude, I'm merely asking for facts that support that things happening are not normal and have been occurring longer than you and I have been on earth.

CO2 use to be in the thousands. FACT!!!!

This is ridiculous.

You demand an answer. Someone tries to explain something complex to you, then you shout that this has nothing to do with it.

I'm done. Unless you're going to actually debate instead of spend your whole time playing silly tricks, I'm going to stay done.

You can go tell everyone that no one in the last 20 years has ever proven anything, but you won't tell them it's because you're just fucking around the whole time and won't listen to those people.

well in fact that is correct, in the last 20 years no one has been able to prove that man made CO2 is bad. there you go, you got one right!!!

 

[jc456]

well you need to understand what you consider to be a fact and ones that really are. I can't help you there. But the fact is you have no observed data that you can post up that supports any claim made by the warmers in here. Zero, and I'm not the only one here making that statement to you or your warmer friends in here.

Fact is something that is, not something predicted. Please learn the difference and you'll be that much smarter in your life.

"observed data" being what? I sense some trickery in this term already and I don't even know what you mean by it.

So you're basically telling me you'll accept no evidence that goes against your "belief"?

Well I guess from people who have been justifying their made up religious crap for 2,000 years, applying it to something that's fairly recent wouldn't be too hard.

do you know what the word means? Just asking cause you seem to be having an issue with it.

And by the way, what is it I've made up? The only make up is the doom and gloom danger of CO2. And that buddy boy is a warmer invention. And one still unproven.

Oh, I know what it means. I know what lots of words and phrases mean. That doesn't mean the person I'm talking to has the same idea in their head when they're using such a word. Do you understand this concept? I've dealt with enough far right groups to know that when they say something, they don't mean what most people would interpret it to mean. And in this case I've a feeling you might not be using the same meaning as I'm thinking, because you seem to like trickery.

The doom and gloom of CO2?

There is doom and gloom, and it's not made up.

The PH levels of the seas are dropping. Half of all CO2 is taken up by the seas, and they're suffering for it. Coral is dying because of the change in CO2 levels, species are struggling and getting towards the point of extinction because the seas are changing so much.

Now, the question I have is this. What happens if the seas die, and their ability to absorb CO2 goes from 50% of CO2 in the atmosphere to 0% of CO2 in the atmosphere?

It's possible. It hasn't happened yet. It might never happen. However if it does happen, we go past the point of no return. Then what? What happens if we push the world past this point? Basically the answer is: we're fucked.

See there it is 'we're fucked'.

And until I'm dead, I'll ask folks like you to explain it. Explain how man made CO2 is dangerous. YOU CAN'T. It's not your fault, we all already know you can't. The tests and observations don't support it.

It is what the debate is about f00l.

again, post up some observational data that shows the doom and gloom. Hell, just show the observed man made CO2.

Did you read what I wrote?

CO2 is causing the seas to die.

The seas take 50% of CO2.

If the seas stop taking CO2, then the greenhouse effect will be multiplied by two. The greenhouse effect is part of the reason why we can live on this planet, but it's like central heating, you don't want the heating on when it's 90 degrees outside.

Man made CO2 isn't any more dangerous than natural CO2. However there is so much natural CO2 in the atmosphere and there always has been. At times there's been more (when Humans weren't around) and at times less.
The problem is humans can survive within a certain climate level comfortably. Too hot and too cold and we begin to suffer, we can't live life as we'd like. Evidence would probably be Eskimos, they live, but they didn't become that advanced. Too hot, how many sea level countries close to the equator developed as fast as countries who were in reasonable climates? The deep south isn't as developed in most parts as the north of the US.

But then again humans have managed to develop heating and air conditioning. But what of the animals outside? What of the wildlife, the flora and fauna?

But again. The point I made before and the point you choose to ignore (and then demand answers), what happens if we go over the point of no return?

As for the data you want, I posted this, you ignored it.

Shanghai Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

You can see the PM2.5 and the PM 10 levels. Currently 190 in Shanghai. You can see 400, sometimes you can see 2,000. Over 50 is bad.


10th and Weller, Seattle, Washington, USA Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

This is for some place in Seattle. Just chose a random place in the US. PM2.5 levels at 49, Not a single place in the US appears to be at Shanghai levels. Why not? What is in the air? Where does this come from? It's man made. It's made made pollution that is being pumped out.

A map of Europe, look at the places which are sparely inhabited. They're green, very little man made effects, very little pollution at all. Very few particles which are basically poisonous to humans.

Well, again, pollution isn't the argument. Your link says POLLUTION in it. It's about climate and CO2 affects to weather. Doom and gloom of hurricanes and tornadoes cause we drive cars and eat on barbeque grills. hell heat our homes when it is FKING Below Zero.

Is there pollution, you bet your ass there is. I don't argue that all. In fact, in an effort to reduce pollution, the geniuses of the planet invented what is called the catalytic convertor to reduce pollution. however, these fking geniuses didn't know that it would add more CO2 to the air. Did you know that? Just wonder what it is you do know. So, summary is, in the attempt to cut pollution, we ended up adding more CO2 to the air. You might say what the fk? Me too. Is that like a wow moment for ya?

And again, there is no evidence showing CO2 is causing seas to die. It is just a scare tactic. That's it. When I ask for evidence, you won't find any. It doesn't exist, and yet you'll post it's killing the sea. But you have no way to prove that statement. That's all. Why can't you accept that. you can't prove the sea is dying. you just can't. Why do you try and argue that when you know you can't?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So what you're saying is you'll only accept 100% fact, and any fact I present you'll basically say it isn't fact.

You do realize we're not dealing with 100%s here. We can't say something for certain because there's always going to be interpretation of the facts.

So what you're demanding is something that you'll always be able to put doubt on, and therefore always reject.

Fine, you can do that. You can be closed minded and try and ignore what is happening around us.

This is what we believe has happened with temperatures in the last 400,000 years. Every 100,000 years, more or less, we see a massive spike in temperatures. It starts from somewhere quite cold and then rises quickly and then drops equally quickly. Then after the drop temperatures rise again, but not as high as they did before.

You can either go with this, saying it's the best evidence we have, or you can just reject it because you want to believe what you want to believe.

What should be happening? Well according to this data we should be getting colder.

So any increase in temperatures is man made.

Can I PROVE this? No I can't. You can't PROVE this in any way, shape or form. This isn't about proof. This is about looking at the evidence and trying to understand what should be happening.

Are we seeing natural global cooling? Quite possibly, and along side that we have man made global warming, and then you get a slight rise in temperatures. Not a massive rise in temperatures.

What I can prove, however, is that the seas are changing.

We know that the CO2 in the sea is rising

Ocean Acidification -- Pristine Seas -- National Geographic

"Scientists now know that about half of this anthropogenic, or man-made, CO2 has been absorbed over time by the oceans."

"But relatively new research is finding that the introduction of massive amounts of CO2 into the seas is altering water chemistry and affecting the life cycles of many marine organisms, particularly those at the lower end of the food chain."

So, basically many of the predictions of man made climate change may have been wrong because people didn't really understand where the CO2 was going. Half of it goes to the seas. Thereby reducing the impact of man made global warming by half.

What does this mean? It means we could see the end of much sea life, and this could happen very soon. Coral reefs are dying.

"Projections based on these numbers show that by the end of this century, continued emissions could reduce ocean pH by another 0.5 units. Shell-forming animals including corals, oysters, shrimp, lobster, many planktonic organisms, and even some fish species could be gravely affected."

The really important thing here is this:

"Equally worrisome is the fact that as the oceans continue to absorb more CO2, their capacity as a carbon storehouse could diminish. That means more of the carbon dioxide we emit will remain in the atmosphere, further aggravating global climate change."

We're pumping into the air, a lot goes into the seas, what happens if the seas can no longer take in the CO2, either because a lot of life has died, or because the sea is simply "full"? Well, then all we pump will come out as airborne CO2 and then we'll really see the effects of this.

This is the problem, the main problem. Stopping something once it has gone past the point of no return. We know we're fucking the planet up, and yet we're not doing anything to stop it going over the edge.

so out of all that, the short summary is, you don't have the facts. You have conclusions built off of hypothesis that have never ever been tested to support claims of doom and gloom. Your side chooses words very carefully, but in the end they know no more than me. no more. For you to come on a message board and tell me I'm wrong, well is wrong. You don't know if I am or not. For now I know I'm right cause you can't prove me wrong.

Fact, the number of reporting stations don't cover the globe. Just a flat out fact.

Fact-satellites are not showing the warm up that warmers say is happening-fact

Fact- ocean levels are within one foot of the level of one hundred years ago-fact

Fact- extreme weather events are down-fact

Fact- number of hurricanes are down not up- fact

fact- the earth has always had extreme weather events, always-fact

Finally, fact- you can't produce one piece of evidence to support man can change climate. FACT

No, the short summary is that you won't accept any facts, therefore debate is worthless.

Fact, it doesn't matter if reporting stations don't cover the globe.

Fact, it doesn't matter if satellites aren't showing the warming up that some people say is happening. I'm not those people, you're debating with me, not them right now.

Fact, it doesn't matter if ocean levels are within one foot of 100 years ago, one foot is still quite a rise.

Fact, we don't understand extreme weather patterns and the impact climate change has on them.

Fact, I've not brought extreme weather into this debate.

The short summary is, you're not debating with me. You're debating with who you think I am. You're debating with what you feel comfortable with. And you're willing to ignore what I say, then fight me on what I didn't say, then sit proudly saying that climate change isn't happening because you've somehow proved me wrong, when the reality is, you're fighting someone else.

The debate has been about climate facts.

That is everything to do with climate bubba. Or don't you even know that? Wow dude, what is your purpose here then?

fact- you've not brought in any facts for me to agree with.

Can you explain why one foot is evil in the ocean rise in 100 years?

And that the one foot rise is not across the globe. Oops.

What is it that you do know? You have attempted to share your ideas on what you think are facts and have failed. Sorry about that bubba, not my fault.

I presented facts and you for the most part agree with them. So again, predictions are just made up ideas. Anyone can predict anything. Big fking deal. Predicting past your lifetime does zip for anyone in here. Predicting summer is hardly a bold move. Face it, you have nothing to post that supports climate doom and gloom or change.

Again, you're fighting what you're comfortable with.

No, I haven't brought in many facts. Mainly because every time I do, I get ignored. I posted about CO2 in the oceans and I didn't get a single reply. I backed up everything I said, I got not a single reply. People will reply to the short crap messages, but not the long detailed ones, then complain that no one has posted anything.

But then again I posted in the next post details. So I'll see how you reply to that one.

yes, CO2 does go into the oceans, I don't argue that at all. CO2 is heavier than the air. It's natural to be absorbed in the ocean.When is it released from the oceans, when it is cold or warm? You do know it is released right?

You missed the point. The CO2 going into the oceans is increasing massively and is killing the oceans.

There is only so much CO2 the atmosphere and oceans can handle. Once it's gone past this point then the greenhouse effect is going to kick in massively.

You know CO2 causes the greenhouse effect right? This effect can be positive, it helps sustain life on Earth. However too much of anything is a bad thing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, it's not what I'm saying.

What I was saying first was that a prediction over a 50 year period would be what I said. You got annoyed that you wouldn't be around to see such a prediction, so I made a prediction that would have been easier for someone like you to accept. A very short term one.

The point being that you'll believe what the hell you want to believe, and dismiss what the hell you want to dismiss, so I made something you couldn't dismiss, in the only way possible.

wow, now that is a rant and a half.

What I'll believe, well it is very simple, show me how evil CO2 is made by man. I've been waiting and there has been zero posts with any observed man made CO2. None. I'm sorry, but that isn't a belief, that is just fact.

How is CO2 made by man?

Do you know what happens when you burn coal?

How much carbon dioxide is produced when different fuels are burned? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels:

Coal (anthracite) 228.6
Coal (bituminous) 205.7
Coal (lignite) 215.4
Coal (subbituminous) 214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3
Gasoline 157.2
Propane 139.0
Natural gas 117.0

So, there are some ways of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Go to China, see the impact of coal.

Beijing Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

Here you can see a map of pollution is China, you can compare this with say, Japan, which is generally green, try and find a green place in China, I can find deep red which is severely polluted, most Chinese cities are badly polluted ALL THE TIME.

Why is this? Because pollution is being pumped into the air, ALL THE TIME. It impacts people, the number of people with breathing problems is much higher than other countries in the west, for example. And there are countries which are worse than this.

dude, that is called pollution and not climate. See the information you provide is off kilter to the argument. Pollution in China isn't the debate.

Climate is the debate. AGW is the debate.

And yes I know we, humans, add CO2 to the atmosphere. Always, since we've been around. It isn't unusual, and yet you're trying to make it unusual. I've merely asked to prove how our CO2 is more evil than natural CO2. That is the argument.

I've also asked for what the normal amount of CO2 is expected in the atmosphere, and that can't be proven. And dude, you can post up all the fking info on that you want and there is no such thing. It's made up. There is also no such thing as normal temperatures. Made up again. if you choose to debate that, then just post your reason and supporting evidence.

Ice melts every year in the poles. Every year. It has since the ice formed. it's seasonal. Please feel free to prove me wrong. You can't.

do you reject that there are forests under glaciers?

You do know that Greenland loses glaciers every year and always has right?

Dude, I'm merely asking for facts that support that things happening are not normal and have been occurring longer than you and I have been on earth.

CO2 use to be in the thousands. FACT!!!!

This is ridiculous.

You demand an answer. Someone tries to explain something complex to you, then you shout that this has nothing to do with it.

I'm done. Unless you're going to actually debate instead of spend your whole time playing silly tricks, I'm going to stay done.

You can go tell everyone that no one in the last 20 years has ever proven anything, but you won't tell them it's because you're just fucking around the whole time and won't listen to those people.

well in fact that is correct, in the last 20 years no one has been able to prove that man made CO2 is bad. there you go, you got one right!!!

Because you don't listen, perhaps.

You know CO2 is a greenhouse gas right? You know that the more you pump into the atmosphere, along with other greenhouse gases, the more of a greenhouse effect you have, right?

Do you understand the greenhouse effect?

 

[frigidweirdo]

"observed data" being what? I sense some trickery in this term already and I don't even know what you mean by it.

So you're basically telling me you'll accept no evidence that goes against your "belief"?

Well I guess from people who have been justifying their made up religious crap for 2,000 years, applying it to something that's fairly recent wouldn't be too hard.

do you know what the word means? Just asking cause you seem to be having an issue with it.

And by the way, what is it I've made up? The only make up is the doom and gloom danger of CO2. And that buddy boy is a warmer invention. And one still unproven.

Oh, I know what it means. I know what lots of words and phrases mean. That doesn't mean the person I'm talking to has the same idea in their head when they're using such a word. Do you understand this concept? I've dealt with enough far right groups to know that when they say something, they don't mean what most people would interpret it to mean. And in this case I've a feeling you might not be using the same meaning as I'm thinking, because you seem to like trickery.

The doom and gloom of CO2?

There is doom and gloom, and it's not made up.

The PH levels of the seas are dropping. Half of all CO2 is taken up by the seas, and they're suffering for it. Coral is dying because of the change in CO2 levels, species are struggling and getting towards the point of extinction because the seas are changing so much.

Now, the question I have is this. What happens if the seas die, and their ability to absorb CO2 goes from 50% of CO2 in the atmosphere to 0% of CO2 in the atmosphere?

It's possible. It hasn't happened yet. It might never happen. However if it does happen, we go past the point of no return. Then what? What happens if we push the world past this point? Basically the answer is: we're fucked.

See there it is 'we're fucked'.

And until I'm dead, I'll ask folks like you to explain it. Explain how man made CO2 is dangerous. YOU CAN'T. It's not your fault, we all already know you can't. The tests and observations don't support it.

It is what the debate is about f00l.

again, post up some observational data that shows the doom and gloom. Hell, just show the observed man made CO2.

Did you read what I wrote?

CO2 is causing the seas to die.

The seas take 50% of CO2.

If the seas stop taking CO2, then the greenhouse effect will be multiplied by two. The greenhouse effect is part of the reason why we can live on this planet, but it's like central heating, you don't want the heating on when it's 90 degrees outside.

Man made CO2 isn't any more dangerous than natural CO2. However there is so much natural CO2 in the atmosphere and there always has been. At times there's been more (when Humans weren't around) and at times less.
The problem is humans can survive within a certain climate level comfortably. Too hot and too cold and we begin to suffer, we can't live life as we'd like. Evidence would probably be Eskimos, they live, but they didn't become that advanced. Too hot, how many sea level countries close to the equator developed as fast as countries who were in reasonable climates? The deep south isn't as developed in most parts as the north of the US.

But then again humans have managed to develop heating and air conditioning. But what of the animals outside? What of the wildlife, the flora and fauna?

But again. The point I made before and the point you choose to ignore (and then demand answers), what happens if we go over the point of no return?

As for the data you want, I posted this, you ignored it.

Shanghai Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

You can see the PM2.5 and the PM 10 levels. Currently 190 in Shanghai. You can see 400, sometimes you can see 2,000. Over 50 is bad.


10th and Weller, Seattle, Washington, USA Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

This is for some place in Seattle. Just chose a random place in the US. PM2.5 levels at 49, Not a single place in the US appears to be at Shanghai levels. Why not? What is in the air? Where does this come from? It's man made. It's made made pollution that is being pumped out.

A map of Europe, look at the places which are sparely inhabited. They're green, very little man made effects, very little pollution at all. Very few particles which are basically poisonous to humans.

Well, again, pollution isn't the argument. Your link says POLLUTION in it. It's about climate and CO2 affects to weather. Doom and gloom of hurricanes and tornadoes cause we drive cars and eat on barbeque grills. hell heat our homes when it is FKING Below Zero.

Is there pollution, you bet your ass there is. I don't argue that all. In fact, in an effort to reduce pollution, the geniuses of the planet invented what is called the catalytic convertor to reduce pollution. however, these fking geniuses didn't know that it would add more CO2 to the air. Did you know that? Just wonder what it is you do know. So, summary is, in the attempt to cut pollution, we ended up adding more CO2 to the air. You might say what the fk? Me too. Is that like a wow moment for ya?

And again, there is no evidence showing CO2 is causing seas to die. It is just a scare tactic. That's it. When I ask for evidence, you won't find any. It doesn't exist, and yet you'll post it's killing the sea. But you have no way to prove that statement. That's all. Why can't you accept that. you can't prove the sea is dying. you just can't. Why do you try and argue that when you know you can't?

Do you know what pollution is? CO2, when produced by humans, is pollution.

All pollution is, the definition of pollution, is:

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: pollution

"1. The act or process of polluting or the state of being polluted, especially the contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the discharge of harmful substances.
2. Something that pollutes; a pollutant or a group of pollutantsollution in the air reduced the visibility near the airport."

CO2 pollutes the air, the more there is, the more we have something that isn't natural, something that isn't desired.

Do you understand how CO2 affects the weather?

Essentially CO2 and other greenhouse gases prevent solar radiation from leaving the Earth's surface, hence increasing the impact of solar radiation.

H2O is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Did you know that?
CO2 is the second most abundant.

The thing is, that the H2O in the atmosphere is NATURAL. A lot of CO2 is also natural. The Earth uses this and life as we know it now emerged living in that atmosphere. It's a good thing. The moon doesn't have life, and one of the reasons for it is that it doesn't have a greenhouse effect. It's the same distance from the sun (more or less) as the Earth, but gets rather cold. The temperatures go from -153 degrees to +107 degrees (Celsius). So, the Greenhouse effect helps to regulate temperatures.

So how can CO2 be negative?

Well, like many things, too much or too little is bad. You can get cancer from too little sunlight, you can get cancer from too much sunlight. There's a balance there which needs to be achieved in order to be healthy.

The Earth isn't much different. CO2 is a long lasting greenhouse gas. It can stay in the atmosphere for 30-95 years. Methane is 72 times stronger than CO2 as a greenhouse gas but only has a shelf life of about 12 years. N2O has a life of 114 years, and is 289 times stronger, but there's far less of this going into the atmosphere.

CO2 is the big one because of how much humans are pumping into the air. CFCs which are 11,000 time stronger than CO2 have been phased out for being too dangerous, and for damaging the Ozone layer.

Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

Here you can see the difference in levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

 

[SSDD]

do you know what the word means? Just asking cause you seem to be having an issue with it.

And by the way, what is it I've made up? The only make up is the doom and gloom danger of CO2. And that buddy boy is a warmer invention. And one still unproven.

Oh, I know what it means. I know what lots of words and phrases mean. That doesn't mean the person I'm talking to has the same idea in their head when they're using such a word. Do you understand this concept? I've dealt with enough far right groups to know that when they say something, they don't mean what most people would interpret it to mean. And in this case I've a feeling you might not be using the same meaning as I'm thinking, because you seem to like trickery.

The doom and gloom of CO2?

There is doom and gloom, and it's not made up.

The PH levels of the seas are dropping. Half of all CO2 is taken up by the seas, and they're suffering for it. Coral is dying because of the change in CO2 levels, species are struggling and getting towards the point of extinction because the seas are changing so much.

Now, the question I have is this. What happens if the seas die, and their ability to absorb CO2 goes from 50% of CO2 in the atmosphere to 0% of CO2 in the atmosphere?

It's possible. It hasn't happened yet. It might never happen. However if it does happen, we go past the point of no return. Then what? What happens if we push the world past this point? Basically the answer is: we're fucked.

See there it is 'we're fucked'.

And until I'm dead, I'll ask folks like you to explain it. Explain how man made CO2 is dangerous. YOU CAN'T. It's not your fault, we all already know you can't. The tests and observations don't support it.

It is what the debate is about f00l.

again, post up some observational data that shows the doom and gloom. Hell, just show the observed man made CO2.

Did you read what I wrote?

CO2 is causing the seas to die.

The seas take 50% of CO2.

If the seas stop taking CO2, then the greenhouse effect will be multiplied by two. The greenhouse effect is part of the reason why we can live on this planet, but it's like central heating, you don't want the heating on when it's 90 degrees outside.

Man made CO2 isn't any more dangerous than natural CO2. However there is so much natural CO2 in the atmosphere and there always has been. At times there's been more (when Humans weren't around) and at times less.
The problem is humans can survive within a certain climate level comfortably. Too hot and too cold and we begin to suffer, we can't live life as we'd like. Evidence would probably be Eskimos, they live, but they didn't become that advanced. Too hot, how many sea level countries close to the equator developed as fast as countries who were in reasonable climates? The deep south isn't as developed in most parts as the north of the US.

But then again humans have managed to develop heating and air conditioning. But what of the animals outside? What of the wildlife, the flora and fauna?

But again. The point I made before and the point you choose to ignore (and then demand answers), what happens if we go over the point of no return?

As for the data you want, I posted this, you ignored it.

Shanghai Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

You can see the PM2.5 and the PM 10 levels. Currently 190 in Shanghai. You can see 400, sometimes you can see 2,000. Over 50 is bad.


10th and Weller, Seattle, Washington, USA Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

This is for some place in Seattle. Just chose a random place in the US. PM2.5 levels at 49, Not a single place in the US appears to be at Shanghai levels. Why not? What is in the air? Where does this come from? It's man made. It's made made pollution that is being pumped out.

A map of Europe, look at the places which are sparely inhabited. They're green, very little man made effects, very little pollution at all. Very few particles which are basically poisonous to humans.

Well, again, pollution isn't the argument. Your link says POLLUTION in it. It's about climate and CO2 affects to weather. Doom and gloom of hurricanes and tornadoes cause we drive cars and eat on barbeque grills. hell heat our homes when it is FKING Below Zero.

Is there pollution, you bet your ass there is. I don't argue that all. In fact, in an effort to reduce pollution, the geniuses of the planet invented what is called the catalytic convertor to reduce pollution. however, these fking geniuses didn't know that it would add more CO2 to the air. Did you know that? Just wonder what it is you do know. So, summary is, in the attempt to cut pollution, we ended up adding more CO2 to the air. You might say what the fk? Me too. Is that like a wow moment for ya?

And again, there is no evidence showing CO2 is causing seas to die. It is just a scare tactic. That's it. When I ask for evidence, you won't find any. It doesn't exist, and yet you'll post it's killing the sea. But you have no way to prove that statement. That's all. Why can't you accept that. you can't prove the sea is dying. you just can't. Why do you try and argue that when you know you can't?

Do you know what pollution is? CO2, when produced by humans, is pollution.

All pollution is, the definition of pollution, is:

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: pollution

"1. The act or process of polluting or the state of being polluted, especially the contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the discharge of harmful substances.
2. Something that pollutes; a pollutant or a group of pollutantsollution in the air reduced the visibility near the airport."

CO2 pollutes the air, the more there is, the more we have something that isn't natural, something that isn't desired.

Do you understand how CO2 affects the weather?

Essentially CO2 and other greenhouse gases prevent solar radiation from leaving the Earth's surface, hence increasing the impact of solar radiation.

H2O is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Did you know that?
CO2 is the second most abundant.

The thing is, that the H2O in the atmosphere is NATURAL. A lot of CO2 is also natural. The Earth uses this and life as we know it now emerged living in that atmosphere. It's a good thing. The moon doesn't have life, and one of the reasons for it is that it doesn't have a greenhouse effect. It's the same distance from the sun (more or less) as the Earth, but gets rather cold. The temperatures go from -153 degrees to +107 degrees (Celsius). So, the Greenhouse effect helps to regulate temperatures.

So how can CO2 be negative?

Well, like many things, too much or too little is bad. You can get cancer from too little sunlight, you can get cancer from too much sunlight. There's a balance there which needs to be achieved in order to be healthy.

The Earth isn't much different. CO2 is a long lasting greenhouse gas. It can stay in the atmosphere for 30-95 years. Methane is 72 times stronger than CO2 as a greenhouse gas but only has a shelf life of about 12 years. N2O has a life of 114 years, and is 289 times stronger, but there's far less of this going into the atmosphere.

CO2 is the big one because of how much humans are pumping into the air. CFCs which are 11,000 time stronger than CO2 have been phased out for being too dangerous, and for damaging the Ozone layer.

Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

Here you can see the difference in levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

According to that hypothesis...a tropospheric hot spot should develop....instead we have seen more than two decades pass with statistically insignificant warming while CO2 continues a steady increase....when a prediction is made based on a hypothesis, and the prediction fails to happen, in real science, the hypothesis is scrapped, more research is done and a new hypothesis is put forward...why isn't the AGW hypothesis being scrapped?...could it be that climate science isn't really science at all?