The truth about CO2 and climate change

[Redfish]

Redfish -

I have not posted a one time measurement.

What I have posted is a medium-term trend analysis. I'll post this sentence again for you, as you seem to be having diffculty with it:

Sea ice extent in October averaged 8.06 million square kilometers (3.11 million square miles). This is 850,000 square kilometers (328,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 8.91 million square kilometers (3.44 million square miles) and 1.29 million square kilometers (498,000 square miles) above the record low for the month observed in 2007.

So that is based on averages over more than 30 years. The ice is currently 850,000 square kilimeters below that 30-year average. There a series of graphs in this link that will help explain and provide more information.


Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag


I'll ask again - is the Artic losing ice?

In a word, NO. short term changes do not prove a trend. Are you really so stupid that you don't get that?

 

[konradv]

As I said earlier, you are free to believe the AGW crap if you choose and if it makes you feel good. I do not. If you and algore were right, there would be no arctic ice today and half of the state of Fla would be under water.

I see, to hell with facts. What happens to the energy that CO2 absorbs? Think about that for a while, instead of listening to propaganda. Since you brought up Gore, I realize you don't really understand much. The people that do, discuss the topic; those that don't, talk about Gore.

 

[Redfish]

first of all your claim about humans and CO2 has been disproven several times.
second, CO2 is not a pollutant, read the OP
third, the sun causes climate change, both short term and long term.
fourth, the acts of humans did not cause the hot and cold trends over the last few millions of years, but you claim that a 50 year trend is significant?

First, Human activity doe emit CO2 at higher levels than nature.

Second, I never said CO2 was a pollutant, but I will say sometimes to much of a good thing is bad. Take water, necessary for life, but deadly when it causes flooding, ala Katrina.

Third, Sure the sun effects climate but now you're committing the very error you accuse others of ascribing to CO2, acting like it's the only cause of climate fluctuation.

Fourth, no one claims CO2 was the only reason for climate change in the past. The claim about CO2 is that it is the cause for many of the changes seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

I'm afraid you're still making many logical errors.

Wrong on all counts, but that is par for the course for the far left AGW irony impaired drones..

Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.

Your graph is pure, unadulterated fantasy.

only in the genetically defective liberal mind do facts equal fantasy.

 

[Redfish]

As I said earlier, you are free to believe the AGW crap if you choose and if it makes you feel good. I do not. If you and algore were right, there would be no arctic ice today and half of the state of Fla would be under water.

I see, to hell with facts. What happens to the energy that CO2 absorbs? Think about that for a while, instead of listening to propaganda. Since you brought up Gore, I realize you don't really understand much. The people that do, discuss the topic; those that don't, talk about Gore.

the truth has been posted, if you choose to ignore it, fine. I really don't care what you believe.

better tell your canibis plants that CO2 is bad for them, they really like it and need it to survive.

but what happens to the energy that water vapor absorbs? should we ban water?

 

[orogenicman]

first of all your claim about humans and CO2 has been disproven several times.
second, CO2 is not a pollutant, read the OP
third, the sun causes climate change, both short term and long term.
fourth, the acts of humans did not cause the hot and cold trends over the last few millions of years, but you claim that a 50 year trend is significant?

First, Human activity doe emit CO2 at higher levels than nature.

Second, I never said CO2 was a pollutant, but I will say sometimes to much of a good thing is bad. Take water, necessary for life, but deadly when it causes flooding, ala Katrina.

Third, Sure the sun effects climate but now you're committing the very error you accuse others of ascribing to CO2, acting like it's the only cause of climate fluctuation.

Fourth, no one claims CO2 was the only reason for climate change in the past. The claim about CO2 is that it is the cause for many of the changes seen since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

I'm afraid you're still making many logical errors.

Wrong on all counts, but that is par for the course for the far left AGW irony impaired drones..

Of all the carbon emitted into the atmosphere each year, 210 billion tons are from natural sources, and only 6.3 billion tons are from man's activity. Man's burning of fossil fuel, therefore only accounts for 3 percent of total emissions of CO2.

Your graph is pure, unadulterated fantasy.

only in the genetically defective liberal mind do facts equal fantasy.

When you decide to actually post a fact, do let the rest of us know.

 

[konradv]

the truth has been posted, if you choose to ignore it, fine. I really don't care what you believe.

better tell your canibis plants that CO2 is bad for them, they really like it and need it to survive.

but what happens to the energy that water vapor absorbs? should we ban water

The water cycle is well known. It both traps and blocks energy. Now tell me what happens to the energy CO2 absorbs and forget the stupid banning comments. It just underscores your lack of knowledge and logic.

 

[Saigon]

In a word, NO. short term changes do not prove a trend. Are you really so stupid that you don't get that?

Thanks for answering...and somehow I don't think my stupidity is an issue here.

Let's look at a slightly longer perspective, although I think for most people the fact that the catastrophic drop in ice is EXACTLY the opposite of what you claimed earlier in this thread is probably clear evidence of something....

What do you do you see in this chart, for instance...

History of Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Part 1 Open Mind

 

[BluesLegend]

Come AGW advocates. lets hear your refutation of those FACTS.

They won't because they are liars. This isn't about emissions or global warming, that's just an ends to a means, an angle of attack to achieve their real goal. Do you really think they care about the spotted owl or some damn desert tortious? No. Of the 50 plus ranchers who were grazing cattle on public lands that were pretty much desolate useless lands they used the desert tortious to run them off the land, of the 50 plus ranchers they ran off all but one by heaping restrictions and regulations on the ranchers until they gave up. If you want to piss off the liberals just make money on public lands this enrages them to no end. Ditto with the spotted owl, the libs hated that corporations were making money harvesting trees on public lands so they used the spotted owl and endangered species act to wipe them out. When dealing with these liberals you have to understand you are dealing with lying bitter people.

 

[Saigon]

And one last one, showing the trend since 1953....what trend does it showm Redfish?

 

[konradv]

They won't because they are liars. This isn't about emissions or global warming, that's just an ends to a means, an angle of attack to achieve their real goal. Do you really think they care about the spotted owl or some damn desert tortious? No. Of the 50 plus ranchers who were grazing cattle on public lands that were pretty much desolate useless lands they used the desert tortious to run them off the land, of the 50 plus ranchers they ran off all but one by heaping restrictions and regulations on the ranchers until they gave up. If you want to piss off the liberals just make money on public lands this enrages them to no end. Ditto with the spotted owl, the libs hated that corporations were making money harvesting trees on public lands so they used the spotted owl and endangered species act to wipe them out. When dealing with these liberals you have to understand you are dealing with lying bitter people.

You're the liar. No one is purposely trying to hurt ranchers or anyone else.

 

[JoeNormal]

According to AGW lore, the ice caps are not supposed to grow..

That is the irony impairment of your AGW/far left faith.

But then again!

This might be the most simpleminded statement I've seen yet. Where in AGW theory does it say that yearly variations are not to be expected?

 

[Kosh]

In a word, NO. short term changes do not prove a trend. Are you really so stupid that you don't get that?

Thanks for answering...and somehow I don't think my stupidity is an issue here.

Let's look at a slightly longer perspective, although I think for most people the fact that the catastrophic drop in ice is EXACTLY the opposite of what you claimed earlier in this thread is probably clear evidence of something....

What do you do you see in this chart, for instance...

History of Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Part 1 Open Mind

And what was the Ice levels at 10,000 years ago? 100,000 years ago?

The far left/AGW cult cont8inues to push religious dogma over real and actual sconce..

 

[konradv]

According to AGW lore, the ice caps are not supposed to grow..

That is the irony impairment of your AGW/far left faith.

But then again!

This might be the most simpleminded statement I've seen yet. Where in AGW theory does it say that yearly variations are not to be expected?

Unfortunately that's the kind of argument we usually see from the deniers.

 

[Kosh]

According to AGW lore, the ice caps are not supposed to grow..

That is the irony impairment of your AGW/far left faith.

But then again!

This might be the most simpleminded statement I've seen yet. Where in AGW theory does it say that yearly variations are not to be expected?

Unfortunately that's the kind of argument we usually see from the deniers.

Oh my the irony impairment posts continue without hesitation..

The true deniers of science are the AGW cult members, but hey don't that real science stuff impede your AGW religious dogma..

More proof that AGW/far left cult are true deniers of actual real science..

 

[Saigon]

Come AGW advocates. lets hear your refutation of those FACTS.

TW, the US is seeing record cold temps this year, and the ice caps are growing. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo. ?

So I am delighted to say that I think the claim about ice caps has been totally proven wrong, beyond any reasonable doubt.

I am so glad we won't be heaing that nonsense again.

 

[Kosh]

According to AGW lore, the ice caps are not supposed to grow..

That is the irony impairment of your AGW/far left faith.

But then again!

This might be the most simpleminded statement I've seen yet. Where in AGW theory does it say that yearly variations are not to be expected?

As always the AGW cult is wrong even when it comes to their own religion..

The only time they say such things is like now when there has been no significant warming for the past 15 years..

However the AGW cult still believes the computer models over actual observations..

Please provide the dataset with source code that proves CO2 drives climate..

 

[Kosh]

Come AGW advocates. lets hear your refutation of those FACTS.

TW, the US is seeing record cold temps this year, and the ice caps are growing. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo. ?

So I am delighted to say that I think the claim about ice caps has been totally proven wrong, beyond any reasonable doubt.

I am so glad we won't be heaing that nonsense again.

Still spamming the boards with AGW religious nonsense?

 

[mamooth]

Kosh, when are you going to apologize for deliberately using forged and fudged data?

You're a proud and unapologetic liar for your cult. Hence, everyone correctly assumes everything you say is a lie, unless independent evidence shows otherwise. The only response necessary to any of your posts is to point out your history of pathological dishonesty.

 

[JoeNormal]

According to AGW lore, the ice caps are not supposed to grow..

That is the irony impairment of your AGW/far left faith.

But then again!

This might be the most simpleminded statement I've seen yet. Where in AGW theory does it say that yearly variations are not to be expected?

As always the AGW cult is wrong even when it comes to their own religion..

The only time they say such things is like now when there has been no significant warming for the past 15 years..

However the AGW cult still believes the computer models over actual observations..

I was hoping you'd bring up this bit of classic denier stupidity. Here's the reference graph from one of your buddies:

Flat for almost 18 years. What? How could that be? Well, you start in the hottest month in the Northern Hemisphere and end in a cool month - April in this case. They were probably tempted to show that temperature was going down by ending in January but even the brain-dead denier cult would have smelled bullshit then.

 

[Kosh]

According to AGW lore, the ice caps are not supposed to grow..

That is the irony impairment of your AGW/far left faith.

But then again!

This might be the most simpleminded statement I've seen yet. Where in AGW theory does it say that yearly variations are not to be expected?

As always the AGW cult is wrong even when it comes to their own religion..

The only time they say such things is like now when there has been no significant warming for the past 15 years..

However the AGW cult still believes the computer models over actual observations..

I was hoping you'd bring up this bit of classic denier stupidity. Here's the reference graph from one of your buddies:

Flat for almost 18 years. What? How could that be? Well, you start in the hottest month in the Northern Hemisphere and end in a cool month - April in this case. They were probably tempted to show that temperature was going down by ending in January but even the brain-dead denier cult would have smelled bullshit then.

And once again the AGW cult shows that deny even their own cult to push the agenda..

Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown Reuters

Yep you and your old outdated propaganda continue to prove that it is about pushing religious agenda than actual real science..

Keep posting as it proves that the far left/AGW cult proves that they are the one and true deniers of science..

Again another graph showing how the AGW religion is bunk:

It is often reported that the temperature of the earth is higher the past 20 years than it has ever been in history. This is simply not true, nor has it ever been. Hundreds of research studies using ice cores, pollen sedimentation, tree rings, etc. have shown that there were dozens of periods in the past 11,000 years (the Holocene period) that earth's temperature was warmer than it is today. Earth's temperature was very much warmer at least four times during the current interglacial period.

Also still waiting for those datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate, you know the whole basis on which your religion was founded?