The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps

[daveman]

Of course. The Heartland Institute is a propaganda outlet with close financial ties to the fossil fuel industry. They have very little scientific support.

The Guardian is a newspaper and their articles that I've cited have all been reporting on real peer reviewed science that was published in reputable international science journals, or they are quoting one of the leading climate scientists.

You only bring "mockery and derision" down on yourself with ignorant and clueless posts like this one.

Examples...

Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows
13 November 2013
A new paper published in The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society fills in the gaps in the UK Met Office HadCRUT4 surface temperature data set, and finds that the global surface warming since 1997 has happened more than twice as fast as the HadCRUT4 estimate.

Apparent pause in global warming blamed on 'lousy' data
European Space Agency scientist says annual sea level rises since 1993 indicate that warming has continued unabated
13 June 2014
Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency's Directorate of Earth Observation says that surface air temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as "lousy". "It is like looking at the last hair on the tail of a dog and trying to decide what breed it is," he said on Friday at the Royal Society in London. A better measure, he said, was to look at the average rise in sea levels. The oceans store the vast majority of the climate's heat energy. Increases in this stored energy translate into sea level rises. "Sea level is a very good integrator of different indicators of climate change," said Briggs.

Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows
A new paper shows that global warming has continued over the past decade, and been manifested in different ways
10 December 2013
New research by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research [published in the American Geophysical Union's environmental science journal - 'Earth's Future'] investigates how the warming of the Earth's climate has behaved over the past 15 years compared with the previous few decades.

The Guardian is the British National Enquirer. Dismissed.

LOL. Yes, yes, you "dismiss" all of the actual science and cling to your cultic myths...we know. In spite of your idiotic dismissal of the facts, The Guardian is actually one of the leading British newspapers with an online edition that is the third most widely read in the world and a combined print and online readership of nearly 9 million readers. The Guardian reports on real science that appears in prominent peer reviewed scientific journals.

Yes, and we know how the AGW peer-review process works. Agree with the cult, or don't get published.

Hell, you moron, they TOLD you they stack the deck in the Climategate emails. But you're just the kind of mindless idiot they depend on.

 

[daveman]

/www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/images/6-TempPrecedesCO2_

Rather than changes in earth's CO2 causing temperature to change, scientists have actually found that changes in earth's temperatures always precedes changes in CO2 by 400 to a 1000 years -- just the opposite of what global warming proponents would have us believe.

Wrong again, Koshitter. Scientists have found that increases in CO2 preceded and drove the temperature changes at the end of the last period of glaciation. BTW, your unsourced anonymous graph is a joke.

Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Nature
Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard
Nature 484, 49–54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915
Received 16 September 2011 Accepted 01 February 2012 Published online 04 April 2012

Abstract

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

80 proxy records? For the entire planet?

You are unable to grasp how asinine that is.

 

[Crick]

And how many proxy records have YOU got?

I would like to point out that there were multiple instances in which temperatures rose without increased CO2 to drive it. There are other causes for increased temperatures. However, as I and others have pointed out here on multiple occasions, in every instance studied, those rising temperatures increased CO2 in the atmosphere which then increased greenhouse warming which came to dominate the process. There HAVE been instances in which CO2 levels shot up without apparent cause. See the Permian-Triassic extinction event, when oceanic CO2 levels rose dramatically over a period of tens of thousands of years and made extinct over 96% of all marine species by ocean acidification. BTW, the rate of ocean acidification TODAY is ten times as high as the rate that preceded the P-Tr extinction.

As I and others have ALSO pointed out on numerous occasions, the fact that warming the planet releases CO2 into the atmosphere HAS NO BEARING on the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere traps infrared. They are TWO SEPARATE, INDEPENDENT PROCESSES.

Unfortunately, that doesn't mean they're not linked. As temperatures rise, from whatever cause, CO2 will increase, greenhouse warming will increase, and the warming will accelerate.

Claiming that the historical record is some sort of guarantee that human activity cannot alter the climate is the argument of a complete fool.

 

[Iceweasel]

As I and others have ALSO pointed out on numerous occasions, the fact that warming the planet releases CO2 into the atmosphere HAS NO BEARING on the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere traps infrared. They are TWO SEPARATE, INDEPENDENT PROCESSES.

Wrong. That's part of the greenhouse effect, although H2O plays a much larger role.

 

[protectionist]

There certainly is no empirical data for the above claims.

Plant trees.

 

[mamooth]

Yes, and we know how the AGW peer-review process works. Agree with the cult, or don't get published.

Since many deniers get published regularly, that's one of your more obvious lies.

Hell, you moron, they TOLD you they stack the deck in the Climategate emails.

Bedwetting denier liars are a dime-a-dozen, Dave. Endless whining about the great socialist conspiracy is just boring. Got any new and more creative whines for us?

I'd ask you if it bothers you that the whole planet now considers you to be part of a liars' cult, but there's no need. As we can tell from your high-volume whining, it clearly does bother you a great deal.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If CO2 was really that powerful you'd think the Warmers would be LIVING in the lab showing the catastrophic effects of going from 400ppm to 402

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[sealybobo]

More truth to defeat the AGW cult:

Actually, it's just more misinformation and lies from a confused denier cult dupe.

The CO2 emitted into the air from natural sources is balanced by the natural CO2 sinks that absorb CO2 from the air. The only new carbon being added to the atmosphere comes from the fossil fuels that have been buried for millions of years or from the melting permafrost. Mankind is currently adding 37 billion tons of CO2 to the air every year, and this has cumulatively increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 43% (so far) over pre-industrial levels.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere
Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia? Seriously? Mankind's population has increased since the industrial age so just breathing with increase CO2s. What are the natural "sinks" since man evolved? Chapter and verse please.

Step 1. Christians and Corporations need to stop denying man is contributing to GW.
Step 2. Start the clean up

 

[sealybobo]

If CO2 was really that powerful you'd think the Warmers would be LIVING in the lab showing the catastrophic effects of going from 400ppm to 402

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

07/29/2010: EPA Rejects Claims of Flawed Climate Science

 

[sealybobo]

Tell me you can't see Rolling Thunder yelling "AGW AKBAR!!!!" and blowing himself up taking "Deniers" with him

Progressives do have a tendency for mindless violence.

Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program, the IPCC is charged with evaluating the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. In its most recent assessment, the IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities . . . are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents . . . that absorb or scatter radiant energy. . . . [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

 

[sealybobo]

If CO2 was really that powerful you'd think the Warmers would be LIVING in the lab showing the catastrophic effects of going from 400ppm to 402

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

 

[Kosh]

If CO2 was really that powerful you'd think the Warmers would be LIVING in the lab showing the catastrophic effects of going from 400ppm to 402

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

Yes AGW has become a cash cow, many of these so called scientist are not quite ready to give up their Bentleys to admit they were wrong.

Then again anyone speaking out against AGW is usually ousted.

AGW is religion and not based on any real science. While they may and try and use science to justify their religion the is zero scientific proof that CO2 drives temperature.

A graph has already been posted which shows the human influence vs natural and we see that humans are only responsible for 3%.

So you want to throw 47 Trillion dollars at something that is only 3% of the problem?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If CO2 was really that powerful you'd think the Warmers would be LIVING in the lab showing the catastrophic effects of going from 400ppm to 402

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

show me the lab work Consensus Boy

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[mamooth]

Yes AGW has become a cash cow, many of these so called scientist are not quite ready to give up their Bentleys to admit they were wrong.

Kosh, just because you'd gladly lie, cheat, steal and commit fraud for a buck, don't assume any others share you moral failings. We are not like you. All those scientists you slur could double their salaries by switching sides and becoming a liar denier, but they don't. They willingly take a pay cut rather than lie, and that gives them credibility.

In contrast, your side does the opposite, taking big bucks for lying.

Then again anyone speaking out against AGW is usually ousted.

Since denier scientists get published all the time, saying such a stupid thing makes you either delusional or dishonest.

AGW is religion and not based on any real science.

Kosh, being you're not capable of anything except parroting your cult's websites, your hypocrisy here is especially funny. If we ever need a professional to instruct us in the art of partisan asslicking, you'll be the first one we call. But outside of your expertise in that field, you're of no use to anyone.

 

[westwall]

If CO2 was really that powerful you'd think the Warmers would be LIVING in the lab showing the catastrophic effects of going from 400ppm to 402

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

The IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. A National Academy of Sciences report begins unequivocally: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise." The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and it answers yes. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all issued statements concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

Indeed they do. Their very livelihoods and professional reputations are dependent on people believing the BS. Nothing new. Same unethical type of people trying to screw over the poor people yet again.

It cracks me up that you people scream at the tops of your lungs about the evil rich people and here you are breaking your backs and selling your souls to make them EVEN WEALTHIER!

What morons...

 

[Crick]

What evidence do you actually have that all the world's climate scientists are lying?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What evidence do you actually have that all the world's climate scientists are lying?

It's not all of them, so right there, you're lying.

 

[daveman]

And how many proxy records have YOU got?

I would like to point out that there were multiple instances in which temperatures rose without increased CO2 to drive it. There are other causes for increased temperatures. However, as I and others have pointed out here on multiple occasions, in every instance studied, those rising temperatures increased CO2 in the atmosphere which then increased greenhouse warming which came to dominate the process. There HAVE been instances in which CO2 levels shot up without apparent cause. See the Permian-Triassic extinction event, when oceanic CO2 levels rose dramatically over a period of tens of thousands of years and made extinct over 96% of all marine species by ocean acidification. BTW, the rate of ocean acidification TODAY is ten times as high as the rate that preceded the P-Tr extinction.

As I and others have ALSO pointed out on numerous occasions, the fact that warming the planet releases CO2 into the atmosphere HAS NO BEARING on the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere traps infrared. They are TWO SEPARATE, INDEPENDENT PROCESSES.

Unfortunately, that doesn't mean they're not linked. As temperatures rise, from whatever cause, CO2 will increase, greenhouse warming will increase, and the warming will accelerate.

Claiming that the historical record is some sort of guarantee that human activity cannot alter the climate is the argument of a complete fool.

Yeah. Who here has made that argument?

Oh, yeah, nobody. Strawman fail.

 

[daveman]

Yes, and we know how the AGW peer-review process works. Agree with the cult, or don't get published.

Since many deniers get published regularly, that's one of your more obvious lies.

Hell, you moron, they TOLD you they stack the deck in the Climategate emails.

Bedwetting denier liars are a dime-a-dozen, Dave. Endless whining about the great socialist conspiracy is just boring. Got any new and more creative whines for us?

I'd ask you if it bothers you that the whole planet now considers you to be part of a liars' cult, but there's no need. As we can tell from your high-volume whining, it clearly does bother you a great deal.

The whole planet? Really? You have an astronomically inflated view of your own importance, Skippy.

Meanwhile, back in reality:
National Review Online | Print

Here’s what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by “peer review.” When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann “consensus,” Jones demanded that the journal “rid itself of this troublesome editor,” and Mann advised that “we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers.”

So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the “consensus” reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley (“one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change”) suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to “get him ousted.” When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Which in essence is what they did. The more frantically they talked up “peer review” as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: “How To Forge A Consensus.” Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That’s “peer review,” climate-style.


The more their echo chamber shriveled, the more Mann and Jones insisted that they and only they represent the “peer-reviewed” “consensus.” And gullible types like Ed Begley Jr. and Andrew Revkin of the New York Times fell for it hook, line, and tree-ring.​

But it's not just scientists who are censored. It's anyone deemed a dangerous denier:

https://www.credomobilize.com/effor...ish-climate-change-denial-conspiracy-theories
19 campaigns to get newspapers to stop printing letters from scary dangerous horrible deniers.

The New Politics Of Climate Change: No Space For Deniers - Forbes

In a report published last week in London, Andrew Miller, the Labour Member of Parliament who chairs the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, urged the BBC and other media to stop giving time and space to ‘climate change deniers’, and to accompany any appearance of them with a health warning denouncing their views. What the deniers are peddling, Miller argues, is not science but politics, and the public should be informed that their views are rejected by 97% of scientists. Just where the figure of 97% came from Miller does not say; but he is adamant that all government ministers should acquaint themselves with the science of climate change, and be prepared to speak with one voice, accepting collective responsibility for the official opinion, which will be his opinion and the opinion of his committee.

The invocation of collective responsibility is revealing. For this implies that the orthodoxy Miller adheres to is, after all, not simply a matter of science, but a ‘party line’ that must be supported for the sake of policy. If it is the science that concerns us, then dissenting voices must surely be part of the data, and not dismissed out of hand on the authority of the ‘97%’. No doubt, at the time when Galileo stood before the Inquisition, 97% of scientists were prepared to assert that the sun goes round the earth. Luckily for Galileo, his humiliations were not crowned by an appearance on the BBC with a health warning strung round his neck.​

Then there's this fascist little prick -- sorry, it'd be easier to just call him a progressive, wouldn't it? Same same -- College professor: ?Jail climate change deniers!? « Hot Air

As such, Torcello wants governments to make “the funding of climate denial” a crime.

“The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.”​

Arrest Climate-Change Deniers

If you have all of this information at your command and that reform project still scares you, if you think it necessarily entails a sacrifice of your personal freedom that you cannot brook, fine. That's a debate we can have. But if you are actively trying to deny people the tools they need to inform themselves, to protect themselves against a scientifically proven threat to life and limb, you shouldn't be part of the debate. You should be punished for your self-serving malice.​

And now for the REAL lunatic psycho cultists:

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

During today’s hearing, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, confronted Stephen Johnson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a threatening e-mail from a group of which EPA is currently a member. The e-mail threatens to “destroy” the career of a climate skeptic. Michael T. Eckhart, president of the environmental group the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), wrote in an email on July 13, 2007 to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI):

“It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."​

?Execute? Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: ?At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers? ? ?Shouldn?t we start punishing them now?? | Climate Depot

At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers
June 2, 2009, 9:42PM
What is so frustrating about these fools is that they are the politicians and greedy bastards who don’t want a cut in their profits who use bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool who will distort data for a few bucks. The vast majority of the scientific minds in the World agree and understand it’s a very serious problem that can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth.

So when the right wing fucktards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events – how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn’t we start punishing them now?​

AGW cultists are unhinged. You should all seek professional help.

 

[daveman]

Actually, it's just more misinformation and lies from a confused denier cult dupe.

The CO2 emitted into the air from natural sources is balanced by the natural CO2 sinks that absorb CO2 from the air. The only new carbon being added to the atmosphere comes from the fossil fuels that have been buried for millions of years or from the melting permafrost. Mankind is currently adding 37 billion tons of CO2 to the air every year, and this has cumulatively increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 43% (so far) over pre-industrial levels.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere
Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia? Seriously? Mankind's population has increased since the industrial age so just breathing with increase CO2s. What are the natural "sinks" since man evolved? Chapter and verse please.

Step 1. Christians and Corporations need to stop denying man is contributing to GW.
Step 2. Start the clean up

Ummm...Step 1 is actually "AGW Cultists need to use real science to make their case."