Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
OK, the differance between continental glaciers and interglacials is 100 ppm of CO2. There have been a number of swings in CO2 in the last 2 million years. When it was about 180 ppm, we have continental glaciers. When it was about 280 ppm, we had interglacials. Now it is at 400 ppm, and we are seeing rapid changes. Changes in the cryosphere, changes in the oceans. The last time the CO2 was this high, there were no polar caps.
Now we really don't know how this will play out. Thus far, the models we have used have been far too conservative. The glaciers and caps are losing ice far faster than predicted, and the ocean rise is also faster. Just denying these facts will hardly change reality, only paint those that do as fools.
For the umpteenth time, I'd like to see the experiment that 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperature rise. Or what the temperature rise is with an added 10 PPM, 40, or what is supposed to be at 280 PPM.
hahahaahhaahhahahaahahaha....................................LoSiNg
From the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on earth;
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
But you won't read the article, and I doubt you have the educational background to understand it if you did.
yep, it's what you do. You want me to read twenty five pages of papers written, instead of just grepping the words that prove your point. I don't see any mention of what the adding of CO2 in the atmosphere, the upper atmosphere will do to change temperatures by some value. there are many mentions of saturation and that CO2 in the atmosphere will become saturated and adding of more CO2 will do nothing.
I'll read it if you provide the paragraphs that prove the 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperatures to rise. Cause I read in it that it doesn't cause temperatures to rise.
from the document:
"Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.(7*) "
OK, the differance between continental glaciers and interglacials is 100 ppm of CO2. There have been a number of swings in CO2 in the last 2 million years. When it was about 180 ppm, we have continental glaciers. When it was about 280 ppm, we had interglacials. Now it is at 400 ppm, and we are seeing rapid changes. Changes in the cryosphere, changes in the oceans. The last time the CO2 was this high, there were no polar caps.
Now we really don't know how this will play out. Thus far, the models we have used have been far too conservative. The glaciers and caps are losing ice far faster than predicted, and the ocean rise is also faster. Just denying these facts will hardly change reality, only paint those that do as fools.
Is it the Sulfur Dioxide that our cars and corporate smokestacks are putting up?
The deniers are saying that it isn't us that's doing it. They say that volcano's put up more than we do. Please explain to them how/why/where they are wrong.
I watch the shows on PBS and it seems the science is in. It is very clear we are causing the problem. But when one party and half the country and the corporations and their media conglomerates are hiding/denying the truth....
From the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society on earth;
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
But you won't read the article, and I doubt you have the educational background to understand it if you did.
yep, it's what you do. You want me to read twenty five pages of papers written, instead of just grepping the words that prove your point. I don't see any mention of what the adding of CO2 in the atmosphere, the upper atmosphere will do to change temperatures by some value. there are many mentions of saturation and that CO2 in the atmosphere will become saturated and adding of more CO2 will do nothing.
I'll read it if you provide the paragraphs that prove the 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperatures to rise. Cause I read in it that it doesn't cause temperatures to rise.
from the document:
"Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.(7*) "
Climate Change: Causes
Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"
Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.
Methane. A hydrocarbon gas produced both through natural sources and human activities, including the decomposition of wastes in landfills, agriculture, and especially rice cultivation, as well as ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere.
Nitrous oxide. A powerful greenhouse gas produced by soil cultivation practices, especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Synthetic compounds of entirely of industrial origin used in a number of applications. They are also greenhouse gases.
yep, it's what you do. You want me to read twenty five pages of papers written, instead of just grepping the words that prove your point. I don't see any mention of what the adding of CO2 in the atmosphere, the upper atmosphere will do to change temperatures by some value. there are many mentions of saturation and that CO2 in the atmosphere will become saturated and adding of more CO2 will do nothing.
I'll read it if you provide the paragraphs that prove the 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperatures to rise. Cause I read in it that it doesn't cause temperatures to rise.
from the document:
"Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.(7*) "
Climate Change: Causes
Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"
Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.
Methane. A hydrocarbon gas produced both through natural sources and human activities, including the decomposition of wastes in landfills, agriculture, and especially rice cultivation, as well as ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere.
Nitrous oxide. A powerful greenhouse gas produced by soil cultivation practices, especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Synthetic compounds of entirely of industrial origin used in a number of applications. They are also greenhouse gases.
Hey, look at you. You know what and where sulfur dioxide comes from. Good for you. Now do you have proof it affects climate? Again, do you have proof. Proof you've actually seen. See, so far in six months no one has provided that proof. So right now, you are basically parrotting someone else's words without any hard evidence to support it.
Tsk, tsk.
yep, it's what you do. You want me to read twenty five pages of papers written, instead of just grepping the words that prove your point. I don't see any mention of what the adding of CO2 in the atmosphere, the upper atmosphere will do to change temperatures by some value. there are many mentions of saturation and that CO2 in the atmosphere will become saturated and adding of more CO2 will do nothing.
I'll read it if you provide the paragraphs that prove the 120 PPM of CO2 causes temperatures to rise. Cause I read in it that it doesn't cause temperatures to rise.
from the document:
"Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius's calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.(7*) "
Climate Change: Causes
Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"
Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.
Methane. A hydrocarbon gas produced both through natural sources and human activities, including the decomposition of wastes in landfills, agriculture, and especially rice cultivation, as well as ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere.
Nitrous oxide. A powerful greenhouse gas produced by soil cultivation practices, especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Synthetic compounds of entirely of industrial origin used in a number of applications. They are also greenhouse gases.
Hey, look at you. You know what and where sulfur dioxide comes from. Good for you. Now do you have proof it affects climate? Again, do you have proof. Proof you've actually seen. See, so far in six months no one has provided that proof. So right now, you are basically parrotting someone else's words without any hard evidence to support it.
Tsk, tsk.
Climate Change: Causes
Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"
Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.
Methane. A hydrocarbon gas produced both through natural sources and human activities, including the decomposition of wastes in landfills, agriculture, and especially rice cultivation, as well as ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere.
Nitrous oxide. A powerful greenhouse gas produced by soil cultivation practices, especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Synthetic compounds of entirely of industrial origin used in a number of applications. They are also greenhouse gases.
Hey, look at you. You know what and where sulfur dioxide comes from. Good for you. Now do you have proof it affects climate? Again, do you have proof. Proof you've actually seen. See, so far in six months no one has provided that proof. So right now, you are basically parrotting someone else's words without any hard evidence to support it.
Tsk, tsk.
The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.
So if I kill you and no one sees me do it, what proof do you have? It was my gun? So what, someone else could have used it. I don't have an alibi? So what? I was alone watching tv that night. OMG my gun is missing? We had an argument the night before? I said I'M GOING TO KILL YOU? My fingerprints are at your home? So what? I've been there before.
If you were on the jury, would you find me innocent?
No down side to going green other than it's going to cost you. So what? It will also create a new industry. Same thing with Obamacare. Look at that. The insurance companies mandated that everyone has to buy their products. Brilliant! Who do you think will get the Green Contracts? Haloburton!
Climate Change: Causes
Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"
Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.
Methane. A hydrocarbon gas produced both through natural sources and human activities, including the decomposition of wastes in landfills, agriculture, and especially rice cultivation, as well as ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere.
Nitrous oxide. A powerful greenhouse gas produced by soil cultivation practices, especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning.
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Synthetic compounds of entirely of industrial origin used in a number of applications. They are also greenhouse gases.
Hey, look at you. You know what and where sulfur dioxide comes from. Good for you. Now do you have proof it affects climate? Again, do you have proof. Proof you've actually seen. See, so far in six months no one has provided that proof. So right now, you are basically parrotting someone else's words without any hard evidence to support it.
Tsk, tsk.
Nasa and the leading scientists collectively say yes they do have proof and corporations know this is happening but they just don't want to pay to go green so they spend a lot of money denying it.
We also know that just like the tobacco lobby could find a few scientists that would deny cigarettes cause cancer, they too found scientists that if you pay them enough they will deny man made global warming. And we know who's behind the denial. The corporations who only care about profit. They do not I repeat DO NOT care about pollution. Let us worry about that. That's probably going to be their solution in the end. They'll say fine global warming is happening, but if you make us pay for it it's going cost the consumer. The standard/typical/same old republican talking point. IT'LL COST JOBS! Don't charge the job creators. And then it's going to cost you ya broke ass. Why? Because you say the corporations are in charge, not our government, ya fucking dope. You trust the corporations more than your government.
The question is, why do you deny it? Do you go along with everything Rush and Fox say? Are you worried if the corporations have to pay to clean up their act, that's going to cost you at the store? Or are you a rich baron? Even Newt Gingrich years ago admitted they all know that corporate smokestacks and cars are destroying the planet. They always hoped the ozone would heal itself. But then India, China, Mexico, the Middle East and Europe all started industrializing and driving cars and now we see we are really raising the temperature of this planet.
No more debating it. No more spin. No more half truths. You guys are all either really stupid or really evil. Either liars or fools. The rich control your every thought. If they say shit is candy you'd eat it.
How come middle class and poor republicans are this stupid? First of all, they use god, gays and guns and racism to blind a lot of you. You are just one issue wedge voters. If you are anti abortion, that's all that matters. IN FACT, a lot of you don't believe global warming is going to destroy the planet because the bible says Jesus is coming back soon. So that's how stupid a lot of you are. So why am I even bothering? Probably because it makes me feel better to let you guys know what pieces of stupid shit you are.
And global warming will not destroy the planet. The planet will be just fine. Humans will go extinct maybe but the planet and a lot of other animals will live on. Will we take Bears, Elephants, Tigers, Zebras, Deer, Wolves, Rabbit, Snakes, Rodents with us? Some things will live on. Probably not the bigger things. Rats and cockroaches will live on.
So actually I think this planet will be better off after we are gone. And what will I care I'll be dead. Maybe that is why the corporations don't care. If the CEO is 60 years old, he won't be around when the planet wipes us out IF it even happens. He's willing to take the chance. Are you? Again, how do you benefit from killing the planet?
Hey, look at you. You know what and where sulfur dioxide comes from. Good for you. Now do you have proof it affects climate? Again, do you have proof. Proof you've actually seen. See, so far in six months no one has provided that proof. So right now, you are basically parrotting someone else's words without any hard evidence to support it.
Tsk, tsk.
The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.
So if I kill you and no one sees me do it, what proof do you have? It was my gun? So what, someone else could have used it. I don't have an alibi? So what? I was alone watching tv that night. OMG my gun is missing? We had an argument the night before? I said I'M GOING TO KILL YOU? My fingerprints are at your home? So what? I've been there before.
If you were on the jury, would you find me innocent?
No down side to going green other than it's going to cost you. So what? It will also create a new industry. Same thing with Obamacare. Look at that. The insurance companies mandated that everyone has to buy their products. Brilliant! Who do you think will get the Green Contracts? Haloburton!
So I asked if you had seen the proof. You've seen where they show where adding CO2 to the atmosphere actually causes temperatures to go up. You've witnessed that correct? Because me sitting on jury, I'd say throw the case out. There is no evidence, none nada that has been presented. So great, let's see this experiment. See, the simple mistake everyone who believes makes is they believe correlation is causation and buddy it ain't.
Go read this thread: More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!
The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.
So if I kill you and no one sees me do it, what proof do you have? It was my gun? So what, someone else could have used it. I don't have an alibi? So what? I was alone watching tv that night. OMG my gun is missing? We had an argument the night before? I said I'M GOING TO KILL YOU? My fingerprints are at your home? So what? I've been there before.
If you were on the jury, would you find me innocent?
No down side to going green other than it's going to cost you. So what? It will also create a new industry. Same thing with Obamacare. Look at that. The insurance companies mandated that everyone has to buy their products. Brilliant! Who do you think will get the Green Contracts? Haloburton!
So I asked if you had seen the proof. You've seen where they show where adding CO2 to the atmosphere actually causes temperatures to go up. You've witnessed that correct? Because me sitting on jury, I'd say throw the case out. There is no evidence, none nada that has been presented. So great, let's see this experiment. See, the simple mistake everyone who believes makes is they believe correlation is causation and buddy it ain't.
Go read this thread: More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!
The scientific community disagrees with you.
So I asked if you had seen the proof. You've seen where they show where adding CO2 to the atmosphere actually causes temperatures to go up. You've witnessed that correct? Because me sitting on jury, I'd say throw the case out. There is no evidence, none nada that has been presented. So great, let's see this experiment. See, the simple mistake everyone who believes makes is they believe correlation is causation and buddy it ain't.
Go read this thread: More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!
The scientific community disagrees with you.
Fail......Answer the question posed.
OK, the differance between continental glaciers and interglacials is 100 ppm of CO2. There have been a number of swings in CO2 in the last 2 million years. When it was about 180 ppm, we have continental glaciers. When it was about 280 ppm, we had interglacials. Now it is at 400 ppm, and we are seeing rapid changes. Changes in the cryosphere, changes in the oceans. The last time the CO2 was this high, there were no polar caps.
Now we really don't know how this will play out. Thus far, the models we have used have been far too conservative. The glaciers and caps are losing ice far faster than predicted, and the ocean rise is also faster. Just denying these facts will hardly change reality, only paint those that do as fools.
OK, the differance between continental glaciers and interglacials is 100 ppm of CO2. There have been a number of swings in CO2 in the last 2 million years. When it was about 180 ppm, we have continental glaciers. When it was about 280 ppm, we had interglacials. Now it is at 400 ppm, and we are seeing rapid changes. Changes in the cryosphere, changes in the oceans. The last time the CO2 was this high, there were no polar caps.
Now we really don't know how this will play out. Thus far, the models we have used have been far too conservative. The glaciers and caps are losing ice far faster than predicted, and the ocean rise is also faster. Just denying these facts will hardly change reality, only paint those that do as fools.
Can you please explain why it is that temperatures immediately COLLAPSE after CO2 spikes?
The scientific community disagrees with you.
Fail......Answer the question posed.
If 95% say you are PROBABLY wrong we better go with that until YOU prove otherwise. The consensus says we need to go green and NOW.
