Man made global warming is a hoax

[istodolez]

I'll help:

View attachment 67324249

That's the stuff! Straight line from Karl Marx to Obama.

Too bad your guy (Trump) didn't win a second term, eh?

 

[istodolez]

Again, the only chatters that I have EVER heard mention Saul Alinsky is the right wing extremists. Such fevered conspiracy mindsets!

Yeah, honestly I've never heard of half these Liberal Masterminds that the Right digs up. Sure some are interesting, but the Right has this view that the Left has to have some sort of puppetmasters...presumably because they themselves can't formulate ideas with Rush (RIP), Hannity or Carlsen telling them what to be outraged over! LOL.

 

[Donw]

Another climate scientist! They are coming out of the woodwork!

OK don't like scientist. How about your own observations. Less than 200 years ago you could drink water out of most streams and rivers. Today you have to be carful eating the fish. Fog hanging over most large city's. There are lots of changes to the environment in the last 200 years. They can be blamed on the whamy monster if you like, or read a report by a scientist.

 

[Waddy]

The most recent climate models all show we have ten years before the models are all wrong again.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yeah, honestly I've never heard of half these Liberal Masterminds that the Right digs up. Sure some are interesting, but the Right has this view that the Left has to have some sort of puppetmasters...presumably because they themselves can't formulate ideas with Rush (RIP), Hannity or Carlsen telling them what to be outraged over! LOL.

And only the left digs up Ayn Rand as if that is a motivating thing for the right. I never even heard of her until seeing posting about her here by the left.

What puppet-masters told the leftists here that she was a prooblem, and motivated them to make posts about her?

 

[istodolez]

And only the left digs up Ayn Rand as if that is a motivating thing for the right.

Fair enough. But to be quite fair a lot of you folks who fancy yourselves smarter than the average bear came to that "John Galt" fantasy through Rand.

I never even heard of her until seeing posting about her here by the left.

Fair enough.

What puppet-masters told the leftists here that she was a prooblem, and motivated them to make posts about her?

Most of us are reasonably well read.

 

[watsup]

The most recent climate models all show we have ten years before the models are all wrong again.

Not true.

 

[watsup]

And only the left digs up Ayn Rand as if that is a motivating thing for the right. I never even heard of her until seeing posting about her here by the left.

What puppet-masters told the leftists here that she was a prooblem, and motivated them to make posts about her?

Right wing Libertsrians do indeed continue to see the works of Ayn Rand as an underpinning of their political theories. Please pay better attention next time.
And who the hell if Noam Chomsky and why would anyone care?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Fair enough. But to be quite fair a lot of you folks who fancy yourselves smarter than the average bear came to that "John Galt" fantasy through Rand.

I would disagree. Now I never read the books, but after liberals slandered Rand as much as they did, I watched the trilogy when it came out. I have no idea how the books alter from the movies. However, the reason the productive left and started their new society was perfectly understandable. They got sick and tired of the government controlling the fruits of their labors.

Most of us are reasonably well read.

So you read her books?

Does "well read" mean you read everything? My understanding is that her books were taught at some universities as reading material for insight into evil hearts.

 

[watsup]

I would disagree. Now I never read the books, but after liberals slandered Rand as much as they did, I watched the trilogy when it came out. I have no idea how the books alter from the movies. However, the reason the productive left and started their new society was perfectly understandable. They got sick and tired of the government controlling the fruits of their labors.


So you read her books?

Does "well read" mean you read everything? My understanding is that her books were taught at some universities as reading material for insight into evil hearts.

“I don’t know anything about Ayn Rand but I watched the movies based on her books”. *L*

 

[Logical1]

Lots and lots of words from the left, but they have in no way been able to refute the fact that man made CO2 amounts to no more than 6 PARTS IN A MILLION in the atmosphere. Facts and numbers dont lie.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Lots and lots of words from the left, but they have in no way been able to refute the fact that man made CO2 amounts to no more than 6 PARTS IN A MILLION in the atmosphere. Facts and numbers dont lie.

Yet you consistently leave out the part that the 6 ppm is an annual addition to the atmosphere. Only about half of which is absorbed into the biosphere. You have been corrected on this. The facts don't lie. Why do you deny the facts?

We are in fact contributing to an annual increase in the atmospheric CO2.

Again, we have repeatedly schooled you on this fact. Why do you persist in misrepresenting the facts?

 

[watsup]

Lots and lots of words from the left, but they have in no way been able to refute the fact that man made CO2 amounts to no more than 6 PARTS IN A MILLION in the atmosphere. Facts and numbers dont lie.

Facts and numbers do lie if you misinterpret them. Like you do.

 

[Steve Case]

Yeah, honestly I've never heard of half these
Liberal Masterminds that the Right digs up.

In other words, you're ignorant. Why don't
you remind everyone again about that Ph.D.
you claim to possess.

 

[vegas giants]

Lots and lots of words from the left, but they have in no way been able to refute the fact that man made CO2 amounts to no more than 6 PARTS IN A MILLION in the atmosphere. Facts and numbers dont lie.

The left the right and the middle have all tried to correct you.

You are out on an island by yourself

 

[istodolez]

In other words, you're ignorant.

No, I just don't take my "marching orders" from whatever bete noir the right comes up with.

I understand that you guys need someone to tell you what to think. That's good for you.

 

[Logical1]

Yet you consistently leave out the part that the 6 ppm is an annual addition to the atmosphere. Only about half of which is absorbed into the biosphere. You have been corrected on this. The facts don't lie. Why do you deny the facts?

We are in fact contributing to an annual increase in the atmospheric CO2.

Again, we have repeatedly schooled you on this fact. Why do you persist in misrepresenting the facts?

Thank you, that puts the man made CO2 down to 3 parts in a million.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Thank you, that puts the man made CO2 down to 3 parts in a million.

Per year accumulation at the current rate, approximately.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The accumulation is caused by us. That is not disagreed on by anyone who understands these sciences.



That is a few years old, out of an Yale Environment 360 article. I don't care for their bias, but they are better than blogs. We have seen a clear upward trend in atmospheric CO2. Nature actually sources far more than us annually, but nature sinks as much as it sources. We have caused an imbalance. We source more CO2 than nature can sink.

How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters

Last year marked the first time in several million years that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 passed 400 parts per million. By looking at what Earth’s climate was like in previous eras of high CO2 levels, scientists are getting a sobering picture of where we are headed.

e360.yale.edu

 

[longview]

Thank you, that puts the man made CO2 down to 3 parts in a million.

That is per year, not that it is terrible, but we have to understand that the ~3 ppm is an annual level of increase.
In reality, the biosphere absorbs a bit more than half, and growth for the last two decades has been between 2 and 3 ppm per year,
with only 1 year in the last 20 exceeding 3ppm.
NOAA trends in atmospheric CO2
What that level of CO2 growth can do to the climate is a bit of an open question.
On the one hand, the entire greenhouse effect since Earth had an atmosphere, is ~33C, of which CO2 is said to be 20%, or 6.6C.
If we only start counting at 1ppm, then each doubling of CO2, would be worth .81C to get to 280 ppm.
On the other hand, models based on assumptions of how the climate will respond, to added CO2,
predict that the response will be much higher, around 3C for each doubling.
There is not a repeatable laboratory test that can tell up how much warming each doubling of CO2 will cause,
but there are some very real limits on the number of possible doubling s that Humans could cause.
280 ppm to 560 ppm, the first doubling is possible, BUT to get there assumes that we do not have many technology advances
in the next 40 years.
A second doubling fro 560 ppm to 1120 ppm, is all but impossible, and would require burning lots of coal, and finding a lot more oil.
We have to consider that the CO2 level is only up 135 ppm in 141 years, when no one was really thinking about controlling CO2 emissions.

 

[Waddy]

CO2 only absorbs solar radiation in a very narrow range. the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere already absorbs all of the solar radiation in that band. More CO2 will NOT cause more warming.

 

[Steve Case]

CO2 only absorbs solar radiation in a very narrow range. the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere already absorbs all of the solar radiation in that band. More CO2 will NOT cause more warming.

Most reasonable people on both sides of this issue agree that there should be some warming due
to increased carbon dioxide. Here's a favorite quote from the IPCC AR4 Chapter 8 Page 631:

In the idealised situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 consisted of a uniform temperature
change only, with no feedbacks operating (but allowing for the enhanced radiative cooling resulting from the temperature
increase), the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2°C (Hansen et al., 1984; Bony et al., 2006).

There are two issues

1. How much additional warming will feedback from increased water vapor produce?
2. Is a warmer world a problem?

Global Warming in the popular press will have a 40th birthday this year.
You can decide for yourself what the answer is to either of those questions.

 

[istodolez]

CO2 only absorbs solar radiation in a very narrow range. the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere already absorbs all of the solar radiation in that band. More CO2 will NOT cause more warming.

It is not saturated yet. The key is how greenhouse warming actually works. With more CO2 the level in the atmosphere which re-radiates the heat back out into space goes up and up and up. The problem is that with higher levels of this re-radiation it happens where there is less atmosphere, less gas overall and colder and the re-radiation back into space is less efficient.

If you'd like a relatively simplified explanation of the physics you can find it HERE

 

[Lord of Planar]

CO2 only absorbs solar radiation in a very narrow range. the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere already absorbs all of the solar radiation in that band. More CO2 will NOT cause more warming.

The extra CO2 does help warm. There are areas in the spectrum not 100% opaque, and as CO2 increases, so does the opacity in these other areas.

 

[istodolez]

Global Warming in the popular press will have a 40th birthday this year.
You can decide for yourself what the answer is to either of those questions.

In the popular press is hardly the bar. In fact AGW has a history as a hypothesis of more than a century. During which time we've seen that, indeed, exactly as expected more greenhouse gas emissions has lead to more warming. More CO2 emissions has led to more ocean acidification. Basically the science is lining up exactly as it should.