The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps

[flacaltenn]

Oh, the silence of the lambiekins.

Is ocean acidification "global warming"?

Might be. But it's not's likely to ever come close to the apocalyptic projections.

Is increased storm intensity "global warming"?
Are changes in rain patterns "global warming"?
Are shifts in ocean currents "global warming"?

No empirical evidence for CURRENT effects. Projections based on sketchy and faulty simplistic guesses..

Is the recession of the West Antarctic grounding line "global warming"?

Don't even HAVE MEASUREMENTS of the "grounding line". The "grounding line" is FINE on ON SHORE.. Not likely to be simply warming of a fractional degree..

Is the increase in Antarctic sea ice "global warming"

SURE -- it is kiddo !!!

Are the changes in the timing of a thousand biological cycles "global warming"?

Likely more a lazy way to explain unrelated phenomena and get paid for it. Show me ONE biological cycle disrupted by a 0.5degC change in AVERAGE temp over 80 yrs.

The evidence for global warming is correct and it is overwhelming. You have no refutation. You have no replacement causation. You have virtually NO scientists on your side of this argument.

You are so careless in your assertions -- you shouldn't even be discussing scientific topics..
Judith Curry -- you lose moron...

 

[Kosh]

Oh, the silence of the lambiekins.

Is ocean acidification "global warming"?
Is increased storm intensity "global warming"?
Are changes in rain patterns "global warming"?
Are shifts in ocean currents "global warming"?
Is the recession of the West Antarctic grounding line "global warming"?
Is the increase in Antarctic sea ice "global warming"
Are the changes in the timing of a thousand biological cycles "global warming"?

The evidence for global warming is correct and it is overwhelming. You have no refutation. You have no replacement causation. You have virtually NO scientists on your side of this argument.

Look AGW laced questions not based on real science.

Just goes to show that this is a loyal AGW cult member that relies on religious scripture than actual real science.

Then again how can you take one serious when they believe in Hockey Sticks:

In 1998 a team of scientists applied a statistical analysis to a selected data set of earth's past temperatures and reported that instead of having a Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum over the past 1000 years, the earth's temperature was relatively flat, until the latter half of the twentieth century when it skyrocketed, allegedly providing proof positive that mankind was causing the warming due to CO2 emissions. The curve was called the Hockey Stick Curve because of the similarity of the graph to a hockey stick. Without verifying these results, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made this graph the centerpiece of its 2001 Summary for Policy Makers. When other scientists tried to verify the results, Dr. Michael Mann (the lead author of the study) refused to provide the data set to the scientists wanting to verify his results.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh, the silence of the lambiekins.

Is ocean acidification "global warming"?
Is increased storm intensity "global warming"?
Are changes in rain patterns "global warming"?
Are shifts in ocean currents "global warming"?
Is the recession of the West Antarctic grounding line "global warming"?
Is the increase in Antarctic sea ice "global warming"
Are the changes in the timing of a thousand biological cycles "global warming"?

The evidence for global warming is correct and it is overwhelming. You have no refutation. You have no replacement causation. You have virtually NO scientists on your side of this argument.

In your MIND -- all those things are Global Warming. They include observations that have THOUSANDS of alternate explanations. But are convieniently lumped into the pot of gold that is "global Warming" research..

The biggest defeat in recent history for your claims that to see "global warming" you only need to read the weather news came at a July 13 2013 Senate hearing that the Dems expected to be a celebration of all things Global Warming. They coughed up hairballs when asked to defend the statements about recent weather events being CAUSED by GW. And the THEME
was that there was TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON GLOBAL warming measurements and that Climate Change is a REGIONAL EFFECT.. So there is your reason for changing the name.. Easier to find terrifying examples. Less need to tie them to a GLOBAL theory of any kind..

You can't show extreme weather events in the news to be GLOBAL or even due to the WARMING --- So the focus is now on CLIMATE CHANGE, which can be regional and does not HAVE to be traced back to the tenets of Global Warming theory.

 

[Crick]

Is ocean acidification "global warming"?
Is increased storm intensity "global warming"?
Are changes in rain patterns "global warming"?
Are shifts in ocean currents "global warming"?
Is the recession of the West Antarctic grounding line "global warming"?
Is the increase in Antarctic sea ice "global warming"
Are the changes in the timing of a thousand biological cycles "global warming"?

The evidence for global warming is correct and it is overwhelming. You have no refutation. You have no replacement causation. You have virtually NO scientists on your side of this argument.

In your MIND -- all those things are Global Warming. They include observations that have THOUSANDS of alternate explanations. But are convieniently lumped into the pot of gold that is "global Warming" research..

First, don't waste everyone's time here trying guess what is in my mind.
Second, I provided that list in response to the tired "global warming -> climate change" comment made by those too ignorant to know better. It is simply a small collection of other, secondary AGW effects, the inclusion of which might suggest to someone discussing the topic that they use a more inclusive term. They are NOT part of my definition of AGW. I have given you my definition on more than one occasion and I stand by my prior statements. I have also suggested a number of ways you ought to be able to falsify it, particularly if any of the many claims you and yours have made were actually true.

The biggest defeat in recent history for your claims that to see "global warming" you only need to read the weather news

I have never made any such claim and I would not do so. Save it for your straw man.

came at a July 13 2013 Senate hearing that the Dems expected to be a celebration of all things Global Warming. They coughed up hairballs when asked to defend the statements about recent weather events being CAUSED by GW.

When have I EVER given the impression that I thought the US House or Senate were good sources for accurate science information? If you'd wanted an explanation as to how global warming could have produced the cold weather extremes experienced in the US midwest and northeast, you could have asked me. I explained it here several times: Rossby waves caused by a reduced temperature differential between the equator and the poles - remember? Going to some denier blog's description of a congressional dog-and-pony show, however, was just plain stupid.

And the THEMEwas that there was TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON GLOBAL warming measurements and that Climate Change is a REGIONAL EFFECT.

I'm sorry, but I remember no such thing. I would have paid very little attention to anything going on in Congress in this regard, but I should think it would have been mentioned here and I recall no such thing coming up. Are you sure you're not just making this stuff up?

So there is your reason for changing the name.. Easier to find terrifying examples. Less need to tie them to a GLOBAL theory of any kind..

Are you suggesting that the term "climate change" replaced "global warming" on 13 July 2013? You realize how simple that is to prove wrong? Please stop wasting our time. Remember Thumper's Mom: "If you don't have anything useful to say, don't say anything at all".

You can't show extreme weather events in the news to be GLOBAL or even due to the WARMING --- So the focus is now on CLIMATE CHANGE, which can be regional and does not HAVE to be traced back to the tenets of Global Warming theory.

You look foolish trying to set artificial constraints on me. Do you actually think any region of the Earth is permanently immune to extreme weather events or that it is necessary that the entire planet suffer such events simultaneously before we can say they are happening? We've had Katrina, Sandy, midwest flooding, western droughts and the Polar Vortex. The Philippines had Typhoon Haiyan while the Pacific as a whole suffered 13 typhoons, five of them classified as "super". The Rossby Waves that put the northern US in the deep freeze all winter left other portions of the northern hemisphere in unseasonably warm weather.

I will have no trouble finding extreme weather events world wide - and it will only get easier to do so as global temperatures rise. BTW, unless its the actual topic of conversation as it is here, I almost never, ever use the term "climate change".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh, the silence of the lambiekins.

Is ocean acidification "global warming"?
Is increased storm intensity "global warming"?
Are changes in rain patterns "global warming"?
Are shifts in ocean currents "global warming"?
Is the recession of the West Antarctic grounding line "global warming"?
Is the increase in Antarctic sea ice "global warming"
Are the changes in the timing of a thousand biological cycles "global warming"?

The evidence for global warming is correct and it is overwhelming. You have no refutation. You have no replacement causation. You have virtually NO scientists on your side of this argument.

Is cherry picking events and altering data at odds with the theory "Global Warming"

Is pointing at stories on the Weather Channel and Shrieking "Global Warming!!!!", global warming?

BTW. It's not called "Global Warming" any longer, it's "Climate Disruption"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh, the silence of the lambiekins.

Is ocean acidification "global warming"?
Is increased storm intensity "global warming"?
Are changes in rain patterns "global warming"?
Are shifts in ocean currents "global warming"?
Is the recession of the West Antarctic grounding line "global warming"?
Is the increase in Antarctic sea ice "global warming"
Are the changes in the timing of a thousand biological cycles "global warming"?

The evidence for global warming is correct and it is overwhelming. You have no refutation. You have no replacement causation. You have virtually NO scientists on your side of this argument.

And yet, we are still waiting for any lab experiment that shows how CO2 does ANY, much less ALL of the above

 

[jc456]

Oh, the silence of the lambiekins.

Is ocean acidification "global warming"?
Is increased storm intensity "global warming"?
Are changes in rain patterns "global warming"?
Are shifts in ocean currents "global warming"?
Is the recession of the West Antarctic grounding line "global warming"?
Is the increase in Antarctic sea ice "global warming"
Are the changes in the timing of a thousand biological cycles "global warming"?

The evidence for global warming is correct and it is overwhelming. You have no refutation. You have no replacement causation. You have virtually NO scientists on your side of this argument.

what is your definition of global warming?

 

[orogenicman]

Oh, the silence of the lambiekins.

Is ocean acidification "global warming"?
Is increased storm intensity "global warming"?
Are changes in rain patterns "global warming"?
Are shifts in ocean currents "global warming"?
Is the recession of the West Antarctic grounding line "global warming"?
Is the increase in Antarctic sea ice "global warming"
Are the changes in the timing of a thousand biological cycles "global warming"?

The evidence for global warming is correct and it is overwhelming. You have no refutation. You have no replacement causation. You have virtually NO scientists on your side of this argument.

what is your definition of global warming?

Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a cause. It is a symptom, a result of 150+ years of cumulative human industrial and consumer emission of greenhouse gases. It can be mitigated without destroying economies. Yes old habits die hard. Particularly with respect to political chicanery. But we can ill afford to allow it to continue unchecked.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is ocean acidification "global warming"?
Is increased storm intensity "global warming"?
Are changes in rain patterns "global warming"?
Are shifts in ocean currents "global warming"?
Is the recession of the West Antarctic grounding line "global warming"?
Is the increase in Antarctic sea ice "global warming"
Are the changes in the timing of a thousand biological cycles "global warming"?

The evidence for global warming is correct and it is overwhelming. You have no refutation. You have no replacement causation. You have virtually NO scientists on your side of this argument.

what is your definition of global warming?

Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a cause. It is a symptom, a result of 150+ years of cumulative human industrial and consumer emission of greenhouse gases. It can be mitigated without destroying economies. Yes old habits die hard. Particularly with respect to political chicanery. But we can ill afford to allow it to continue unchecked.

Scientific chicanery is when someone avoids the lab like the were Dracula greeting the morning sun in a field of garlic

 

[jc456]

Is ocean acidification "global warming"?
Is increased storm intensity "global warming"?
Are changes in rain patterns "global warming"?
Are shifts in ocean currents "global warming"?
Is the recession of the West Antarctic grounding line "global warming"?
Is the increase in Antarctic sea ice "global warming"
Are the changes in the timing of a thousand biological cycles "global warming"?

The evidence for global warming is correct and it is overwhelming. You have no refutation. You have no replacement causation. You have virtually NO scientists on your side of this argument.

what is your definition of global warming?

Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a cause. It is a symptom, a result of 150+ years of cumulative human industrial and consumer emission of greenhouse gases. It can be mitigated without destroying economies. Yes old habits die hard. Particularly with respect to political chicanery. But we can ill afford to allow it to continue unchecked.

Answer one question is the heat absorbed in CO2 hotter than the sun?

 

[Kosh]

Is ocean acidification "global warming"?
Is increased storm intensity "global warming"?
Are changes in rain patterns "global warming"?
Are shifts in ocean currents "global warming"?
Is the recession of the West Antarctic grounding line "global warming"?
Is the increase in Antarctic sea ice "global warming"
Are the changes in the timing of a thousand biological cycles "global warming"?

The evidence for global warming is correct and it is overwhelming. You have no refutation. You have no replacement causation. You have virtually NO scientists on your side of this argument.

what is your definition of global warming?

Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a cause. It is a symptom, a result of 150+ years of cumulative human industrial and consumer emission of greenhouse gases. It can be mitigated without destroying economies. Yes old habits die hard. Particularly with respect to political chicanery. But we can ill afford to allow it to continue unchecked.

AGW is religion based on belief not based in science, it is a cult based on the color green and now powered by the far left around the world and their political allies.

 

[Crick]

what is your definition of global warming?

Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a cause. It is a symptom, a result of 150+ years of cumulative human industrial and consumer emission of greenhouse gases. It can be mitigated without destroying economies. Yes old habits die hard. Particularly with respect to political chicanery. But we can ill afford to allow it to continue unchecked.

Answer one question is the heat absorbed in CO2 hotter than the sun?

Answer one question: did you complete your first year of basic Earth science before they failed you or did they toss you mid-term? I know you've got some idea brewing. Why don't you just spit it out before you embarrass yourself any further trying to be clever.

 

[Kosh]

Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a cause. It is a symptom, a result of 150+ years of cumulative human industrial and consumer emission of greenhouse gases. It can be mitigated without destroying economies. Yes old habits die hard. Particularly with respect to political chicanery. But we can ill afford to allow it to continue unchecked.

Answer one question is the heat absorbed in CO2 hotter than the sun?

Answer one question: did you complete your first year of basic Earth science before they failed you or did they toss you mid-term? I know you've got some idea brewing. Why don't you just spit it out before you embarrass yourself any further trying to be clever.

So in other words you can not answer the question.

Go figure that from the loyal AGW religious followers.

Where is that link to the datasets with source code that proves CO@ drives climate which the entire basis of your religion?

 

[jc456]

Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a cause. It is a symptom, a result of 150+ years of cumulative human industrial and consumer emission of greenhouse gases. It can be mitigated without destroying economies. Yes old habits die hard. Particularly with respect to political chicanery. But we can ill afford to allow it to continue unchecked.

Answer one question is the heat absorbed in CO2 hotter than the sun?

Answer one question: did you complete your first year of basic Earth science before they failed you or did they toss you mid-term? I know you've got some idea brewing. Why don't you just spit it out before you embarrass yourself any further trying to be clever.

yep, I did have an alternative motive, but you can't even answer that question honestly. It is a fairly simple question I thought. See, I'm trying to grasp how you think it can get hotter than the heat from the sun. You obviously can't. See, I believe that CO2 holds the heat it receives for awhile and then begins to cool, that's why it gets colder at night when the sun goes down, the CO2 and other greenhouse gases started to release there energy. Now, I can't see how it can make it hotter than the sun. And you again obviously can't answer that. Although, it is your claim.

 

[mamooth]

See, I'm trying to grasp how you think it can get hotter than the heat from the sun.

That's meaningless jabber on your part.

But for our amusement, do go on. Please tell us exactly how hot the heat from the sun is.

Now, I can't see how it can make it hotter than the sun.

So apparently, you do see how CO2 makes the planet as hot as the sun, just not hotter. Can you explain why we haven't all been vaporized?

 

[elektra]

See, I'm trying to grasp how you think it can get hotter than the heat from the sun.

That's meaningless jabber on your part.

But for our amusement, do go on. Please tell us exactly how hot the heat from the sun is.

Now, I can't see how it can make it hotter than the sun.

So apparently, you do see how CO2 makes the planet as hot as the sun, just not hotter. Can you explain why we haven't all been vaporized?

wow, your a real hack, huh mamooth?

You really had to cut up such a short post so you could cherry pick and flame someone, wow.

Mamoot, you don't know shit about anything.

How about a link to a link to a link that links to a press release. You are good at those mamoot

 

[elektra]

Oh, the silence of the lambiekins.

Is ocean acidification "global warming"?
Is increased storm intensity "global warming"?
Are changes in rain patterns "global warming"?
Are shifts in ocean currents "global warming"?
Is the recession of the West Antarctic grounding line "global warming"?
Is the increase in Antarctic sea ice "global warming"
Are the changes in the timing of a thousand biological cycles "global warming"?

The evidence for global warming is correct and it is overwhelming. You have no refutation. You have no replacement causation. You have virtually NO scientists on your side of this argument.

The West Antarctic, is that where the Scientist got stuck in the ICE thinking there was no ICE there?

Seriously, the Scientists state the ICE is gone, believe the ICE is gone, they go to investigate and they get stuck in the ICE.

Now that is a fact, evidence of what, that these Scientists know zero outside a computer model.

I bet the Scientist used their own computer models to predict the weather on their Antartic trip.

 

[Crick]

Do you REALLY think that has any significance to these issues? REALLY? Don't be stupid. The entire West Antarctic ice sheet will be floating at some point in the future and there is NOTHING we can do to stop it. NOTHING. That's what happens when you prey on human cowardice and inertia to get your own, ignorant, greedy, thoughtless way and put off needed actions. You get to pay the price for it you stupid ass.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you REALLY think that has any significance to these issues? REALLY? Don't be stupid. The entire West Antarctic ice sheet will be floating at some point in the future and there is NOTHING we can do to stop it. NOTHING. That's what happens when you prey on human cowardice and inertia to get your own, ignorant, greedy, thoughtless way and put off needed actions. You get to pay the price for it you stupid ass.

You can throw yourself into one of the underwater volcanoes

 

[Andylusion]

Do you REALLY think that has any significance to these issues? REALLY? Don't be stupid. The entire West Antarctic ice sheet will be floating at some point in the future and there is NOTHING we can do to stop it. NOTHING. That's what happens when you prey on human cowardice and inertia to get your own, ignorant, greedy, thoughtless way and put off needed actions. You get to pay the price for it you stupid ass.

Yes yes, of course.

If there is nothing we can do to stop it, why don't you find something more productive to do with your time?

Whether or not the ice will be floating, unlike you, I don't pretend I know everything.

But given how all the models used thus far, have been consistently wrong, your credibility is questionable... read 'non-existent'.

However, honestly as one poster to chicken little... if you really believe the sky is falling and there is nothing anyone can do about it.......

Why don't you.... I don't know... find something useful to do with your life? Maybe help out a charity? Spend more time with your wife? Or your kids? Or help fix something in society? Like a help out at a hospital? Go plant some trees at a park?

Or lets hit closer to home. Out of all the threads I talk about, and discuss with others, I choose ones I think can be changed, or helped.

If I thought we're all doomed, and there is nothing we can do about X, I wouldn't be on thread X. Why scream and yell for no reason, and you just said there's no reason?

Leftists are nutz. Nothing they do ever makes sense.