The truth about CO2 and climate change

[jc456]

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?

If I thought you were smart enough to grasp the theory, I'd point you to a site or two. Alas...

you can't and fail. We all know this. See, that is the point of the deniers club glad you're a strong member.

Tell me in your own words what makes a greenhouse gas a greenhouse gas.

do you not know?

 

[JoeNormal]

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?

If I thought you were smart enough to grasp the theory, I'd point you to a site or two. Alas...

you can't and fail. We all know this. See, that is the point of the deniers club glad you're a strong member.

Tell me in your own words what makes a greenhouse gas a greenhouse gas.

do you not know?

Yes, I do. I'd like to see if you do.

 

[jc456]

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?

If I thought you were smart enough to grasp the theory, I'd point you to a site or two. Alas...

you can't and fail. We all know this. See, that is the point of the deniers club glad you're a strong member.

Tell me in your own words what makes a greenhouse gas a greenhouse gas.

do you not know?

Yes, I do. I'd like to see if you do.

Why, do I pose an issue for you? Or, can you show the experiment that shows what adding 120 PPM of CO2 does to climate? You got that one? See once you provide me that, I will gladly answer your question.

 

[konradv]

See the facts are CO2 is logarithmic and as such the more CO2 does not affect climate. So you can either show your experiment that proves your point or accept defeat on the challenge.

Just because it's logarithmic, doesn't mean there's no effect. CO2 has gone up 30-40% since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, depending on whose numbers you use. On a logarithmic scale that's approximately 11-15%. I think you need to show that that isn't significant. I've proven that CO2 absorbs energy and that the increase is non-trivial. I think it's your turn to prove something.

 

[jc456]

See the facts are CO2 is logarithmic and as such the more CO2 does not affect climate. So you can either show your experiment that proves your point or accept defeat on the challenge.

Just because it's logarithmic, doesn't mean there's no effect. CO2 has gone up 30-40% since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, depending on whose numbers you use. On a logarithmic scale that's approximately 11-15%. I think you need to show that that isn't significant. I've proven that CO2 absorbs energy and that the increase is non-trivial. I think it's your turn to prove something.

So prove your point!

 

[JoeNormal]

If I thought you were smart enough to grasp the theory, I'd point you to a site or two. Alas...

you can't and fail. We all know this. See, that is the point of the deniers club glad you're a strong member.

Tell me in your own words what makes a greenhouse gas a greenhouse gas.

do you not know?

Yes, I do. I'd like to see if you do.

Why, do I pose an issue for you? Or, can you show the experiment that shows what adding 120 PPM of CO2 does to climate? You got that one? See once you provide me that, I will gladly answer your question.

You come off in typical denier fashion - long on vitriol and short on fact. And if you knew ANYTHING about science, you'd know that there can never be a single experiment that shows what adding 120 ppm to the atmosphere will do under real world conditions.

 

[jc456]

you can't and fail. We all know this. See, that is the point of the deniers club glad you're a strong member.

Tell me in your own words what makes a greenhouse gas a greenhouse gas.

do you not know?

Yes, I do. I'd like to see if you do.

Why, do I pose an issue for you? Or, can you show the experiment that shows what adding 120 PPM of CO2 does to climate? You got that one? See once you provide me that, I will gladly answer your question.

You come off in typical denier fashion - long on vitriol and short on fact. And if you knew ANYTHING about science, you'd know that there can never be a single experiment that shows what adding 120 ppm to the atmosphere will do under real world conditions.

right!!!!!!

Edit: BTW, Herr Koch did one in 1901. Go look for it. It backs my side.

 

[mamooth]

But that shows that you fail hard at the science. Which is nothing new. We've explained why you failed, but sadly, you're far too stupid to understand it. It doesn't help that your cult commands you to not understand the science.

What you do need to understand is that your kook beliefs don't change reality. No matter how stupid you get, the physics don't change, and the world is still warming. You'll keep screaming that it can't be so, but the world doesn't care. The only thing your conspiracy nuttery affects is how many strokes you'll get in the denier cult circle jerk rituals.

 

[jc456]

But that shows that you fail hard at the science. Which is nothing new. We've explained why you failed, but sadly, you're far too stupid to understand it. It doesn't help that your cult commands you to not understand the science.

What you do need to understand is that your kook beliefs don't change reality. No matter how stupid you get, the physics don't change, and the world is still warming. You'll keep screaming that it can't be so, but the world doesn't care. The only thing your conspiracy nuttery affects is how many strokes you'll get in the denier cult circle jerk rituals.

Did you tape record that? you need to listen to it daily 24 by 7 by 365, that will enlighten you!!

 

[orogenicman]

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 it was once ice free!! You are asking a stupid question to which you want a specific answer. The answer is the Arctic was once free of ice and the planet was fine. Move on!

During the entire history of man on this Earth, the Arctic has NEVER been free of ice. Using your logic, because the Earth once had an atmosphere with no oxygen, the Earth would be fine if it had no oxygen in the future. Well, that may be true for the Earth, but not for it's inhabitants. According to the IUCN, there are currently 22,413 at risk of going extinct, largely because of the activities of man on this planet. Many, such as the Bluefin Tuna and Atlantic Cod, are an important food source for millions. Overfishing and climate change are wreaking havoc on marine ecosystems, and you think that is peachy keen. And I suspect that your children, and their children will know who to blame in the future. And it won't be people like me, that's for sure.

 

[orogenicman]

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..

Roy Spencer? Really? Bahahahahahaha.

So can you post the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate?

Do you have any real science to back up your stance other than the A typical AGW cult religious mentality?

AGW is the accepted paradigm according to 97% of climate scientists. You are among neither the 97% that agree, nor the 3% that disagree since you aren't even a scientist. Yet your claim, by your own admission, is in the denialist camp. As such, it is for you to provide a scientific refutation of AGW. It is not for me to provide data in support of the 97% since it is widely published and available to anyone who cares to read it, including you. And it is certainly not for me to provide documentation to support your view. That is your problem, not mine. I didn't post the graph above, and am not under any obligation to support it. That falls to the person who did post it. Got anything like that?

Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Congratulations, asshole. What your response tells us is that you don't subscribe to the scientific method. And that puts your posts squarely outside of the purview of these conversations, since we are talking about science, not skullduggery.

Cheers,

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientists disagree with Plimer is correct. After all, all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policy statements that say AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

in the 1970s those same groups said the earth was going into a new ice age.

I do not understand why you libs can't understand the difference between pollution and climate change. Pollution is bad, everyone agrees. When you try to make a false connection between pollution and climate change you hurt the drive to eliminate pollution.

the only explanation that is possible is that liberalism is indeed a mental disease.

No, there was never a consensus about an new Ice Age. That is a bold face lie you keep repeating based on a Newsweek article.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s

I never said that there was a consensus, just as today there is no consensus.

OK, Buddy Boy, name one Scientific Society in the world, one National Academy of Science, or one major University that states that AGW is wrong. If all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policy statements that state AGW is real, then one would have to say there is a pretty strong consensus.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thats rich, you guys post graphs covering 20 or 30 years and claim they prove a trend for a planet that is billions of years old----------thats the irony, idiot.

You're ignoring the time element. You can't compare things that happened over tens of thousands to millions of years with what's happened over the last 200.

OMG, amazingly ignorant. The climate of our planet has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now. The actions of humans have never had anything to do with it.

You're logic impaired, aren't you? You can't compare the present to the past, if underlying conditions have changed, like humans emitting more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

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?

the logic challenged one is you, my little friend.

Asshole, provide a link to your claims or stand branded a liar. Show who and how the claims about humans and CO2 have been disproven several times. I mean, we only have all the records of the coal are petroleum burned for the last century.

 

[konradv]

Just because CO2's effect is logarithmic, doesn't mean there's no effect. CO2 has gone up 30-40% since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, depending on whose numbers you use. On a logarithmic scale that's approximately 11-15%. I think you need to show that that isn't significant. I've proven that CO2 absorbs energy and that the increase is non-trivial. I think it's your turn to prove something.

So prove your point!

It's your turn. I feel I've shown CO2 can have an effect. So far you haven't proven anything. You keep talking about some guy proving your point, but we haven't seen the goods. Either tell us what his proof is or give us a cite.

 

[Redfish]

Just because CO2's effect is logarithmic, doesn't mean there's no effect. CO2 has gone up 30-40% since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, depending on whose numbers you use. On a logarithmic scale that's approximately 11-15%. I think you need to show that that isn't significant. I've proven that CO2 absorbs energy and that the increase is non-trivial. I think it's your turn to prove something.

So prove your point!

It's your turn. I feel I've shown CO2 can have an effect. So far you haven't proven anything. You keep talking about some guy proving your point, but we haven't seen the goods. Either tell us what his proof is or give us a cite.

water vapor has more of a radiation blocking effect than CO2. Do you fools want to ban water next?

 

[Redfish]

Thats rich, you guys post graphs covering 20 or 30 years and claim they prove a trend for a planet that is billions of years old----------thats the irony, idiot.

You're ignoring the time element. You can't compare things that happened over tens of thousands to millions of years with what's happened over the last 200.

OMG, amazingly ignorant. The climate of our planet has been changing for millions of years and will be changing millions of years from now. The actions of humans have never had anything to do with it.

You're logic impaired, aren't you? You can't compare the present to the past, if underlying conditions have changed, like humans emitting more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

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?

the logic challenged one is you, my little friend.

Asshole, provide a link to your claims or stand branded a liar. Show who and how the claims about humans and CO2 have been disproven several times. I mean, we only have all the records of the coal are petroleum burned for the last century.

When you can provide proof that the acts of humans caused the last ice age (climate change) we can talk, until then you might as well just sit in front of your algore alter and pray to your prophet.

 

[Saigon]

The myth:

BTW, the US is seeing record cold temps this year,

The reality:

You may have heard that September 2014 was the warmest September ever recorded and that the past six months were the hottest April through September in 130 years of records. NASA Earth Observatory readers sometimes ask: How much does it matter when a monthly or yearly temperature record is broken? And where does global temperature data come from?

For instance, the map above depicts temperature anomalies, or changes from the norm, between April and September 2014; it does not show absolute temperatures. Reds and blues show how much warmer or cooler each area was during that period in 2014 compared to an averaged base period of the same months from 1951–1980.

NASA GISS Research Features Rising Temperatures A Month Versus a Decade

 

[Redfish]

The myth:

BTW, the US is seeing record cold temps this year,

The reality:

You may have heard that September 2014 was the warmest September ever recorded and that the past six months were the hottest April through September in 130 years of records. NASA Earth Observatory readers sometimes ask: How much does it matter when a monthly or yearly temperature record is broken? And where does global temperature data come from?

For instance, the map above depicts temperature anomalies, or changes from the norm, between April and September 2014; it does not show absolute temperatures. Reds and blues show how much warmer or cooler each area was during that period in 2014 compared to an averaged base period of the same months from 1951–1980.

NASA GISS Research Features Rising Temperatures A Month Versus a Decade

and in your small mind a 6 month variation proves climate change? OK, sure, now take that paxil and go back to sleep.

 

[Saigon]

Redfish -

Your claim is false.

The global trend shows clear warming.

You made two claims on page one of this thread. Both have been proven to be false.

If you're smart - you will adjust your position so that it is backed by facts.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here you go;

Berkeley Earth

Global land temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years
Berkeley Earth has just released analysis of land-surface temperature records going back 250 years, about 100 years further than previous studies. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.


Temperature, CO2, and volcano data | More recent data | High-resolution image