The truth of Global Warming

[Catawba]

Oh, I get it.,.. humans are 100% responsible for the increase in CO2... gotcha.

Yes, that is what science has determined, that we have increased CO2 levels 40% over the last 150 years. In so doing, we have altered the balance between what the earth can produce and what it can sequester naturally.

 

[Deuce]

Now, here's the difference, the blanket will trap heat, but since your natural body heat will be around 98 degrees, you can add more blankets but you're not going to CAUSE any further heating... meaning, you're not going to get heated up to 110 degrees because you added a blanket, or several blankets.

You can't boil water by putting a blanket over it... and it's the same way with CO2... yes, it will trap heat, you will be warmer with the CO2 then without it, but it's not going to CAUSE any more warming then the energy inputs can allow.

You seem to be having trouble working out some simple physics issues. The cup analogy is wrong because the cup does not generate heat.

Put blankets over your body and you WILL get warmer. You could, in fact, heat up to 110 degrees by putting on blankets. Why? Your body generates heat. Quite a bit, actually. It has to constantly cool itself by various mechanisms. The reason you don't heat up to 110 degrees by putting on a blanket is because the body is pretty good at adapting its heat dissipation to match the environment. If your blanket was a 100% insulator and you wrapped yourself completely you'd eventually die of heatstroke.

No, the blanket was not the source of the energy, but it did cause you to heat up, didn't it? What you're arguing seems to be purely semantics. The addition of the blanket leads to a situation in which your temperature rises. You don't want to call that "causing," fine, whatever, it's the principle I'm interested in, not the words used.

Now, to adapt the real world to our blanket analogy. In this case the heat generator isn't the earth exactly. The source is outside. (solar radiation) However, the energy input passes through the blanket (atmosphere) uninterrupted. Think like microwaves passing through that stupid plastic tray on a TV dinner. The earth heats up and starts to radiate the heat outward, which is now trapped by the atmosphere (blanket.) The net result is that the air immediately around the earth ends up warmer than it would have been.

Put on an extra blanket (more CO2) and the air will get warmer still.

 

[Dittohead not!]

That's how feeble the position is that I can use your own numbers to tear apart your argument. EVERY TIME! So, ya... keep proving my point it's fun.

Yes, yes, I'm beginning to see the light! Your position is so secure that you can post graphs showing the opposite of what you've been saying, and still be correct. How can anyone possibly argue with such confidence?

Absolutely a blanket does not produce heat. It does TRAP heat, but it does not PRODUCE it. You can put a whole pile of blankets over a cup of water and it will not heat up, I assure you.

Correct. Likewise, greenhouse gasses don't produce heat, but merely trap it. The heat has to come from somewhere else, like say for example, a big flaming ball in the sky. You have noticed it, haven't you?

Is it the BLANKET that CAUSES the heat in that scenario?? Or is it your BODY producing the heat??? Thanks.

It is the body producing the heat, the blanket trapping it. I think that's obvious, but maybe there is someone who wants to refute the science behind that, too.

Again, it's not windows up or windows down that determines the heat inside the car. It's' how the OTHER FACTORS work together to determine how warm the car will get. You can have your car windows up in the dead of winter and it still won't heat up anymore then all the mitigating factors will allow.

Right. If there is no source of heat, then both cars will remain the same temperature. However, I did mention in the sun, in the summer. Try it sometime. I'm not sure how it is where you live, but here in California getting into a car that has been sitting in the sun in the summer with the windows up is not a pleasant experience.

Now, we have a source of heat, the sun. We have a way of trapping that heat, the car windows or a greenhouse gas. The result is pretty predictable don't you think?

Yes... but if it's an arctic winter, you need a bit more then just a glass greenhouse to keep it warm...

That is relevant.... how again?

Edit:
Final point : using this calculation that is used as PROOF, and the data, well... that equation MAY HAVE been true for a specific period, but how are you going to turn this small scale only equation to make long- term projections into the future... also, you must use a specific start date...

If this is how they determined their predictions, it's actually really pathetic that these people think that they can oversimplify the climate to such a degree and still HONESTLY tell you that this is accurate.

What is pathetic is trying to argue that trapping heat doesn't make something warmer. That is just grasping at straws, but, then, since you have no real argument, you have to resort to extreme measures.

 

[ptif219]

Nor can you say that it is all natural.. Oh, come to think of it, you can.

Of course, you'd be wrong if you did.

History would say it is more likely natural than from man

 

[ptif219]

Where do you read 'guess" into it? Do you understand what scientific theory is? Do you know that gravity is just a scientific theory? Would you let a rock fall on your head because you believe gravity is just a theory and not a fact?

Yes I understand this is opinions and assumptions and conjecture on the part of scientist. This is more BS from scientist that exaggerate and manipulate to get the answers that further their GW agenda

 

[ptif219]

"Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm)."

That is a 40% increase.

"The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.
One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase."

"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere."
RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

Why are you going back 150 years. I thought it was man? What co2 did man cause 150 years ago. You show your theory is flawed if you have to go back before man started producing co2

 

[Catawba]

Why are you going back 150 years. I thought it was man? What co2 did man cause 150 years ago. You show your theory is flawed if you have to go back before man started producing co2

Does the Era of Industrial Ascendency: 1861 - 1945 mean anything to you?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Yes, yes, I'm beginning to see the light! Your position is so secure that you can post graphs showing the opposite of what you've been saying, and still be correct. How can anyone possibly argue with such confidence?

NO... I'm using the proof of correlation to prove that there is no significant causation.

Correct. Likewise, greenhouse gasses don't produce heat, but merely trap it. The heat has to come from somewhere else, like say for example, a big flaming ball in the sky. You have noticed it, haven't you?

"the sun is not responsible for the current warming."

But these greenies will just spout any nonsense to claim as proof othat iit's CO2 the cause.

It is the body producing the heat, the blanket trapping it. I think that's obvious, but maybe there is someone who wants to refute the science behind that, too.

No, that's correct and that is the EXTENT to which it is true. The blanket is not ADDING / CAUSING an increase in the heat (beyond perhaps a minute increase above what is available). Even when the calculations to 'prove' the extent to which this is true are VERIFIABLY wrong when checked against the available data, you maintain this illusion that AL Gore is some sort of climate god... and we must pay him a tax for the priviledge of using CO2 (for stuff like breathing).

Right. If there is no source of heat, then both cars will remain the same temperature. However, I did mention in the sun, in the summer. Try it sometime. I'm not sure how it is where you live, but here in California getting into a car that has been sitting in the sun in the summer with the windows up is not a pleasant experience.

But you're also comparing a small box to a planet... it doesn't scale up in the same way.

Now, we have a source of heat, the sun. We have a way of trapping that heat, the car windows or a greenhouse gas. The result is pretty predictable don't you think?

No, it's more complex then even that...

That is relevant.... how again?

Because at the arctic, the distance from the sun is negligibly different... yet the temperature is vastly different the only REAL difference between the two is just the ANGLE at which the solar energy hits the earth.

The extent to which the car can trap heat is only relevant to what heat is available. But when you scale up there becomes numerous other factors that come into play which science does NOT UNDERSTAND.

What is pathetic is trying to argue that trapping heat doesn't make something warmer. That is just grasping at straws, but, then, since you have no real argument, you have to resort to extreme measures.

No, it's accurate, it's just you're being so single minded and heard headed in your belief that you can't see the difference required to make your statements accurate... but if you give that up then you'll also have to abandon your belief that CO2 is a pollutant.

Don't worry, I know you won't give that up because you signed on to this scam whole heartedly... and like other ponzi schemes, you're out there trying to defend the perpetrators because you can't conceive that you've fallen victim to this scam. It's normal... some previous ponzi scheme victims have defended the perpetrator of the crime for even years before realizing that the perpetrator is NOT coming back with their share of the money.

 

[BmanMcfly]

You seem to be having trouble working out some simple physics issues. The cup analogy is wrong because the cup does not generate heat.

No, but you're trying to claim the blanket effectively does. Honestly, saying that the CO2 is CAUSING the warming trend of the past 150 years IS like saying that it's because of creating a 'thicker blanket'

Put blankets over your body and you WILL get warmer. You could, in fact, heat up to 110 degrees by putting on blankets. Why? Your body generates heat. Quite a bit, actually. It has to constantly cool itself by various mechanisms. The reason you don't heat up to 110 degrees by putting on a blanket is because the body is pretty good at adapting its heat dissipation to match the environment. If your blanket was a 100% insulator and you wrapped yourself completely you'd eventually die of heatstroke.

No, the blanket was not the source of the energy, but it did cause you to heat up, didn't it? What you're arguing seems to be purely semantics. The addition of the blanket leads to a situation in which your temperature rises. You don't want to call that "causing," fine, whatever, it's the principle I'm interested in, not the words used.

Now, to adapt the real world to our blanket analogy. In this case the heat generator isn't the earth exactly. The source is outside. (solar radiation) However, the energy input passes through the blanket (atmosphere) uninterrupted. Think like microwaves passing through that stupid plastic tray on a TV dinner. The earth heats up and starts to radiate the heat outward, which is now trapped by the atmosphere (blanket.) The net result is that the air immediately around the earth ends up warmer than it would have been.

Put on an extra blanket (more CO2) and the air will get warmer still.

Yes, but it's not the CO2 CAUSING the warming... but you MAKE MY POINT AGAIN!! It's NOT until you put an overly intense EXTREME level that there's ANY REAL concern.

Now, the reality is that CO2 is like a 'sheet'... and the human produced element of that are like 'patches' on the sheet... the 'blanket' is the water vapor, which is ALSO limited because, and there are what you might call 'natural control mechanism's that counterbalance the increases in CO2. Trees and plants grow larger faster... which means they can put in more oxygen... of course there was that globe showing CO2 concentrations at 400ppm as like dark menacing red... I mean honestly, I don't know if that was color coded for an effect, but the color scheme makes it look like people are roasting to death and that rivers are boiling over type heat is being generated... when the reality is that the effect of specifically CO2 is WAY OVERESTIMATED as was verified by testing this theory with AGW favorable data... and it fails at their own test... so who is the 'correct' one... because the math shows that What they think CO2 is generating is WAY OVERBOARD to reality.

Like in the past 150 years there's what 1-2 degree difference?? maybe 5-10% of that looking at the numbers provided is ACTUALLY caused by CO2... and of that it's not 100% CO2 that is man-made as was alluded to earlier by someone... That's asinine to think that nature had maintained a perfect stable CO2 concentration prior to mankind and that 100% of the change in the past 150 years is due solely to mankind.

We're talking another maybe 5-10% of that change in CO2 concentrations, with the rest being natural variations, which I had previously shown using that sceptics page... which was in the 0.x% per year based on the numbers for human caused change in co2 concentration globally.

Show me the numbers that say otherwise. I know you're all scared to crunch numbers because everytime it proves your position doesn't have a real leg to stand on.

 

[ricksfolly]

Do you understand what scientific theory is? Do you know that gravity is just a scientific theory? Would you let a rock fall on your head because you believe gravity is just a theory and not a fact?

Scientific theories are educated guesses about about what causes what, and gravity is a prime example of it. No clear explanation of cause, only effect.

So simple even a cave man can understand it...

ricksfolly

 

[Catawba]

Honestly, saying that the CO2 is CAUSING the warming trend of the past 150 years IS like saying that it's because of creating a 'thicker blanket'

Well what do you know, Bman is getting it despite himself!

 

[Catawba]

Scientific theories are educated guesses about about what causes what, and gravity is a prime example of it. No clear explanation of cause, only effect.

So simple even a cave man can understand it...

ricksfolly

So since gravity is just a "theory", you deny its existence?

 

[Deuce]

No, but you're trying to claim the blanket effectively does. Honestly, saying that the CO2 is CAUSING the warming trend of the past 150 years IS like saying that it's because of creating a 'thicker blanket'



Yes, but it's not the CO2 CAUSING the warming... but you MAKE MY POINT AGAIN!! It's NOT until you put an overly intense EXTREME level that there's ANY REAL concern.

Now, the reality is that CO2 is like a 'sheet'... and the human produced element of that are like 'patches' on the sheet... the 'blanket' is the water vapor, which is ALSO limited because, and there are what you might call 'natural control mechanism's that counterbalance the increases in CO2. Trees and plants grow larger faster... which means they can put in more oxygen... of course there was that globe showing CO2 concentrations at 400ppm as like dark menacing red... I mean honestly, I don't know if that was color coded for an effect, but the color scheme makes it look like people are roasting to death and that rivers are boiling over type heat is being generated... when the reality is that the effect of specifically CO2 is WAY OVERESTIMATED as was verified by testing this theory with AGW favorable data... and it fails at their own test... so who is the 'correct' one... because the math shows that What they think CO2 is generating is WAY OVERBOARD to reality.

Like in the past 150 years there's what 1-2 degree difference?? maybe 5-10% of that looking at the numbers provided is ACTUALLY caused by CO2... and of that it's not 100% CO2 that is man-made as was alluded to earlier by someone... That's asinine to think that nature had maintained a perfect stable CO2 concentration prior to mankind and that 100% of the change in the past 150 years is due solely to mankind.

We're talking another maybe 5-10% of that change in CO2 concentrations, with the rest being natural variations, which I had previously shown using that sceptics page... which was in the 0.x% per year based on the numbers for human caused change in co2 concentration globally.

Show me the numbers that say otherwise. I know you're all scared to crunch numbers because everytime it proves your position doesn't have a real leg to stand on.

You've already been shown evidence that the CO2 rise is virtually 100% man-made and that the temperature rise is primarily from the rise in CO2 and the feedbacks created by that warming. The sun is another small part, but that's been steady for 50 years.
Why should I post these numbers again?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Well what do you know, Bman is getting it despite himself!

No, I got it the whole time.... but you're not getting that this is only a MINUTE FACTOR, NOT a primary CAUSE. In other words, where the claim is that the past 150 years of warming is completely unnatural is... well, it's hubris to think that we, as little more then ants on the scale of the planet are having such a drastic effect.

The REALITY, is that there IS a GRAIN of truth to this new green religion... just enough truth to build a pile of lies and to create this alarmism. The only real SCIENCE beyond that is the political sciences. Using fear mongering to promote this 'green' agenda to deindustrialize the western world.

You've already been shown evidence that the CO2 rise is virtually 100% man-made and that the temperature rise is primarily from the rise in CO2 and the feedbacks created by that warming. The sun is another small part, but that's been steady for 50 years.
Why should I post these numbers again?

Ok, fine don't bother, I know you get scared of putting numbers because everytime you do, it only serves to prove the case that there is nothing to be worried about.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
This site puts the total impact of anthropogenic CO2 derived warming at 0.1% of the total warming, and runs the numbers...How about you demonstrate how that's wrong..

Which brings up another funny point : You guys... everyone that responded to my calculations... how come none of you had ANYTHING to say about my calculations being wrong, or defending the WHY your numbers don't add up in the real world?? You all used a strawman to divert from the fact that your own calculation to prove the point, well... it FAR EXAGERATES what was viewed in the real world, on ALL points that I tried... I could have went for more points to try, but well... it seemed reduntant as the level of disparity from reality was increasing exponentially.

 

[Deuce]

That calculation ignores completely an entire half of the carbon cycle. Nature emits a lot of CO2, but it also absorbs a lot of CO2. This number is nowhere in his calculation. (because it would ruin his calculation completely)

edit: It also conflates "total warming" with the change from pre-industrial temperatures because it adds pre-industrial levels of CO2 into the calculation.

Basically, he's hiding two main points from you:
1) Nature is actually a net carbon sink, so that part where he puts in the "natural CO2 emissions" should actually be a negative number.
2) Total greenhouse warming would have to be calculated from an atmosphereless planet baseline, which would be about 33 C colder, so a few percentage points is a lot bigger than he makes it sound.

 

[Catawba]

this is only a MINUTE FACTOR, NOT a primary CAUSE.

A claim that has been disproven by science and you have not provided any evidence as to a credible cause of GW other than excess CO2.

In other words, where the claim is that the past 150 years of warming is completely unnatural is... well, it's hubris to think that we, as little more then ants on the scale of the planet are having such a drastic effect.

As has been pointed out to you before here, its irresponsible to think your actions have no consequences. Just because brush fires started naturally before man, does not prove man cannot start brush fires.

“Human activity has become the number one driver of most of the major changes in Earth's topography and climate, said Dr Gale. “You can’t have 6.5 billion people living on a planet the size of ours and exploiting every possible resource without creating huge changes in the physical, chemical and biological environment which will be reflected dramatically in our geological record of the planet.”

Man's Impact On The Planet Brings About New Epoch In Earth's History

 

[BmanMcfly]

That calculation ignores completely an entire half of the carbon cycle. Nature emits a lot of CO2, but it also absorbs a lot of CO2. This number is nowhere in his calculation. (because it would ruin his calculation completely)

edit: It also conflates "total warming" with the change from pre-industrial temperatures because it adds pre-industrial levels of CO2 into the calculation.

Basically, he's hiding two main points from you:
1) Nature is actually a net carbon sink, so that part where he puts in the "natural CO2 emissions" should actually be a negative number.
2) Total greenhouse warming would have to be calculated from an atmosphereless planet baseline, which would be about 33 C colder, so a few percentage points is a lot bigger than he makes it sound.

Ok, in that case, we can half his result and determine that man is responsible for 0.05% of the total warming... which actually detracts from your point... I don't know what kind of 1984 world your mind is in where you say he's wrong in a way that exaggerates in your favor and then say that in such a way as though that mistake actually makes your case stronger... and not even flinch while saying it.

Look, run the numbers... I know that facts and number crunching fails your position every time, but for the sake of argument.

I would also like to bring up your subtle shifting of the goal posts.

A claim that has been disproven by science and you have not provided any evidence as to a credible cause of GW other than excess CO2.

Oh you mean like your calculation that verifiably now exaggerates the extent to which CO2 is a factor??? Nobody attacked my calculation, so it sounds as though we're all in agreement that even with your own numbers it's all fake.

As has been pointed out to you before here, its irresponsible to think your actions have no consequences. Just because brush fires started naturally before man, does not prove man cannot start brush fires.

Not through CO2 which has been verified using your own 'calculation' which made pulling teeth seem like fun to get you to even bring up a single number to backup your claim.

So, for this to be true, the culprit is something OTHER THAN CO2... which has been a case I've tried to make countless times... but CO2 is always more concerning because having 2 growing seasons a year is such a terrible thing apparently.

“Human activity has become the number one driver of most of the major changes in Earth's topography and climate, said Dr Gale. “You can’t have 6.5 billion people living on a planet the size of ours and exploiting every possible resource without creating huge changes in the physical, chemical and biological environment which will be reflected dramatically in our geological record of the planet.”

Man's Impact On The Planet Brings About New Epoch In Earth's History

Oddly enough, 90% of what this article points out are NOT results of CO2 in any way shape or form.... another point in my favor thanks to the greenies.

 

[Catawba]

For the science buffs ~

"ScienceDaily (May 4, 2010) — Trees and other plants help keep the planet cool, but rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are turning down this global air conditioner. According to a new study by researchers at the Carnegie Institution for Science, in some regions more than a quarter of the warming from increased carbon dioxide is due to its direct impact on vegetation.

This warming is in addition to carbon dioxide's better-known effect as a heat-trapping greenhouse gas. For scientists trying to predict global climate change in the coming century, the study underscores the importance of including plants in their climate models.

"Plants have a very complex and diverse influence on the climate system," says study co-author Ken Caldeira of Carnegie's Department of Global Ecology. "Plants take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, but they also have other effects, such as changing the amount of evaporation from the land surface. It's impossible to make good climate predictions without taking all of these factors into account."

Plants give off water through tiny pores in their leaves, a process called evapotranspiration that cools the plant, just as perspiration cools our bodies. On a hot day, a tree can release tens of gallons of water into the air, acting as a natural air conditioner for its surroundings. The plants absorb carbon dioxide for photosynthesis through the same pores (called stomata). But when carbon dioxide levels are high, the leaf pores shrink. This causes less water to be released, diminishing the tree's cooling power.

The warming effects of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas have been known for a long time, says Caldeira. But he and fellow Carnegie scientist Long Cao were concerned that it is not as widely recognized that carbon dioxide also warms our planet by its direct effects on plants. Previous work by Carnegie's Chris Field and Joe Berry had indicated that the effects were important. "There is no longer any doubt that carbon dioxide decreases evaporative cooling by plants and that this decreased cooling adds to global warming," says Cao. "This effect would cause significant warming even if carbon dioxide were not a greenhouse gas."
Carbon dioxide's effects on plants increase global warming, study finds

 

[ptif219]

Does the Era of Industrial Ascendency: 1861 - 1945 mean anything to you?

So how much did they pollute? In the 1800's those horses gave off a lot of carbon.. It shows you have to exaggerate to get your numbers to work

 

[ptif219]

You've already been shown evidence that the CO2 rise is virtually 100% man-made and that the temperature rise is primarily from the rise in CO2 and the feedbacks created by that warming. The sun is another small part, but that's been steady for 50 years.
Why should I post these numbers again?

So the heat source is minor and it is all man? |207|


get The Smilies @ https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/14455

 

[Deuce]

Ok, in that case, we can half his result and determine that man is responsible for 0.05% of the total warming...

Holy **** you failed math class didn't you?

which actually detracts from your point... I don't know what kind of 1984 world your mind is in where you say he's wrong in a way that exaggerates in your favor and then say that in such a way as though that mistake actually makes your case stronger... and not even flinch while saying it.

I mean Jesus Christ I don't even know how to respond to this. "Half the carbon cycle" doesn't mean you just cut his final result in half! What the ****? Did you even look at his calculations to try and understand how they work? That has to be it. You didn't actually look at his calculations so don't have a clue about them, and that's why you concluded the proper response to my "half the carbon cycle" remark is to cut his number in half. That has to be it. Right? Tell me that's it.

Look, run the numbers... I know that facts and number crunching fails your position every time, but for the sake of argument.

Says the guy who clearly didn't even read the number crunching.

I would also like to bring up your subtle shifting of the goal posts.

What shift would that be?

Oh you mean like your calculation that verifiably now exaggerates the extent to which CO2 is a factor??? Nobody attacked my calculation, so it sounds as though we're all in agreement that even with your own numbers it's all fake.

As if you are even qualified to make any calculation.

And in what universe are those my numbers?

 

[Dittohead not!]

NO... I'm using the proof of correlation to prove that there is no significant causation.

I see! In your parallel universe, correlation proves that there is no causation. Wow. What color is your sky again?

But you're also comparing a small box to a planet... it doesn't scale up in the same way.

of course it does.

Because at the arctic, the distance from the sun is negligibly different... yet the temperature is vastly different the only REAL difference between the two is just the ANGLE at which the solar energy hits the earth.

Which is why it's colder in the Arctic than at the Equator, and colder in the winter than in the summer. The relevancy of that to global warming somehow escapes me. Has the angle of the sun somehow changed? is the tilt of the Earth more or less than it was a century and a half ago?

The extent to which the car can trap heat is only relevant to what heat is available. But when you scale up there becomes numerous other factors that come into play which science does NOT UNDERSTAND.

There is one factor that science does understand. The sun's heat is trapped by the glass in the car's windows, just as it is by the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Perhaps you could find an illustration in a grade school science book to refresh your memory.

No, it's accurate, it's just you're being so single minded and heard headed in your belief that you can't see the difference required to make your statements accurate... but if you give that up then you'll also have to abandon your belief that CO2 is a pollutant.

I've never said that CO2 is a pollutant. Quite the contrary, it is necessary for life. The same for that other greenhouse gas, water vapor.


Posted by that other person who is wrong in this discussion:

Why are you going back 150 years. I thought it was man? What co2 did man cause 150 years ago. You show your theory is flawed if you have to go back before man started producing co2

Is it necessary to move the time of the beginning of the industrial revolution in order to support your argument? Maybe the past is not really mutable after all, which would mean that your argument is.... No, no, perish the thought!

 

[ricksfolly]

So since gravity is just a "theory", you deny its existence?

Spin, spin, spin... That's not what I said... Read it again... This time with your pre-conditioned blinders off.

ricksfolly

 

[BmanMcfly]

Holy **** you failed math class didn't you?

Oh... *facepalm*... you're right... ok... my bad.. Man caused what 0.5% of the total warming.

I mean Jesus Christ I don't even know how to respond to this. "Half the carbon cycle" doesn't mean you just cut his final result in half! What the ****? Did you even look at his calculations to try and understand how they work? That has to be it. You didn't actually look at his calculations so don't have a clue about them, and that's why you concluded the proper response to my "half the carbon cycle" remark is to cut his number in half. That has to be it. Right? Tell me that's it.

Instead of crying about it, correct his calculations... because from the way I look at it this guy's got it nailed down to a proper perspective.

I mean come on, you blame ALL of the increase in CO2 to man... meanwhile CO2 levels are a variable LONG before mankind was around to do anything about it...

Says the guy who clearly didn't even read the number crunching.

WAAAH WAAAHH!! Stop crying and correct his calculations... The fact is I was told
"This is the equation for Co2's impact" I took that calculation and used "proof of Co2 causational heating" and ran the numbers and what do you know EACH TIME was WELL BEYOND what was observed in the real world. So, unless you're going to correct those numbers or show how my work was flawed, this is pointless.

As if you are even qualified to make any calculation.

I know you won't.

And in what universe are those my numbers?

You told me you won't supply numbers, most likely due to the fact that when you put those numbers into the real world they don't stand any real level of scrutiny... So, I found someone that has numbers and sources backing it up, and now we got your claim that he's wrong with nothing but crying... so who am I supposed to believe??

I see! In your parallel universe, correlation proves that there is no causation. Wow. What color is your sky again?

No, if there's a CAUSE you can measure the extent of that cause... the fact that the numbers don't work proves that you're at least OVER ESTIMATING the cause effect relationship, OR there's no cause effect relationship at all, but merely that the relationship is much more complex then a simple 'cause effect'... but that would involve blaspheming against your new religion.

of course it does.

No, it doesn't... that's why the most powerful computers in the field of meteorology can only predict weather up to 14 days out... and the overall climate models are MUCH more simplisticly created then those computers... that's why they have yet to generate an accurate projection. If you don't remember, the ice caps are supposed to be melted already.

Which is why it's colder in the Arctic than at the Equator, and colder in the winter than in the summer. The relevancy of that to global warming somehow escapes me. Has the angle of the sun somehow changed? is the tilt of the Earth more or less than it was a century and a half ago?

I'm saying that even something as minor as that has a HUGE IMPACT on the temperatures... so, you cannot simply dismiss solar factors... but even THAT is an oversimplification. The reality is so complext that there's not enough computing power in the world to properly calculate the climate and all the factors that determine the climate.

There is one factor that science does understand. The sun's heat is trapped by the glass in the car's windows, just as it is by the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Perhaps you could find an illustration in a grade school science book to refresh your memory.

HONESTLY... that's the part I agree with you, the greenhouse effect IS real, BUT IT DOES NOT SCALE UP in the same way. There's no oceans in your car... there's no jet stream in your car... there's no significant magnetic field to your car... there's no moon rotating around your car. Etc.

I've never said that CO2 is a pollutant. Quite the contrary, it is necessary for life. The same for that other greenhouse gas, water vapor.

You'll be the first... according to others, who know who they are, they might as well consider CO2 a deadly neurotoxin the way it gets discussed.

Posted by that other person who is wrong in this discussion:

Is it necessary to move the time of the beginning of the industrial revolution in order to support your argument? Maybe the past is not really mutable after all, which would mean that your argument is.... No, no, perish the thought!

No, move back MILLIONS of years and there's NO CORRELATION WHAT SO EVER!! Move back to the 800k year graph and 90% of the 'cause' of the climate happens AFTER the effects it's allegedly causing.

There's natural cycles at play, and you'd really have to go back at least hundreds of years and have your numbers match the real world results at least 90+% of the time in order to consider your theory to be truly viable... the fact of the matter is that there IS a correlation between temperature and CO2, in relative recent times... but there's no real cause-effect relationship, or else you could quantify these matters.

 

[Catawba]

For the science buffs:

Two Severe Amazon Droughts in Five Years Alarms Scientists

"ScienceDaily (Feb. 3, 2011) — New research shows that the 2010 Amazon drought may have been even more devastating to the region's rainforests than the unusual 2005 drought, which was previously billed as a one-in-100 year event.

Analyses of rainfall across 5.3 million square kilometres of Amazonia during the 2010 dry season, recently published in Science, shows that the drought was more widespread and severe than in 2005. The UK-Brazilian team also calculate that the carbon impact of the 2010 drought may eventually exceed the 5 billion tonnes of CO2 released following the 2005 event, as severe droughts kill rainforest trees. For context, the United States emitted 5.4 billion tonnes of CO2 from fossil fuel use in 2009.

The authors suggest that if extreme droughts like these become more frequent, the days of the Amazon rainforest acting as a natural buffer to man-made carbon emissions may be numbered."

Two severe Amazon droughts in five years alarms scientists