Total Posts:112|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Facts on global warming hoax

tbone8
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 11:36:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
1. If CO2 was a pollutant, we are already doomed.
2. 140,00 years ago, global temps were 4"C(7"F) higher.*
3. 350,000 years ago, global temps were 5"C(9"F) higher.*
4. Since September 1994, University of Alabama in Huntsville"s satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant global warming trend.
5. Man made global warming is a theory (hoax) without a shred of evidence.

*Vostok ice core data

Does anyone know how the glaciers melted from the past 6 ice ages encompassing 415,00 years? Does anyone know that temperatures varied 16"C(29"F) during this time frame? Does anyone with even a single brain cell realize what this means? You guessed it, our climate NATURALLY varies. And by the way, we are in an inter-glacial period. That means we are in between NATURAL ice ages. Temperatures, on average, over thousands of years, are going to slowly rise. We have 9"F to go yet from our warmest know inter-glacial high. I find it kind of ironic that the world did not end 350,000 years ago when we reached this high temperature. I wonder who Al Gore would have blamed back then had he been alive? Personally, I like the warming trend. Milder winters and longer summers, who isn't for that? Does anyone realize the consequence of wanting temperatures to decrease??? You guessed it again, a big ice glacier in your back yard. Where are all the Cat 5 hurricanes and EF5 tornadoes that man made global warming is supposed to create? Its such nonsense I find it difficult to believe thtis has to even be debated...
tdansen
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2015 11:57:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 11:36:49 PM, tbone8 wrote:
1. If CO2 was a pollutant, we are already doomed.
2. 140,00 years ago, global temps were 4"C(7"F) higher.*
3. 350,000 years ago, global temps were 5"C(9"F) higher.*
4. Since September 1994, University of Alabama in Huntsville"s satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant global warming trend.
5. Man made global warming is a theory (hoax) without a shred of evidence.

*Vostok ice core data

Does anyone know how the glaciers melted from the past 6 ice ages encompassing 415,00 years? Does anyone know that temperatures varied 16"C(29"F) during this time frame? Does anyone with even a single brain cell realize what this means? You guessed it, our climate NATURALLY varies. And by the way, we are in an inter-glacial period. That means we are in between NATURAL ice ages. Temperatures, on average, over thousands of years, are going to slowly rise. We have 9"F to go yet from our warmest know inter-glacial high. I find it kind of ironic that the world did not end 350,000 years ago when we reached this high temperature. I wonder who Al Gore would have blamed back then had he been alive? Personally, I like the warming trend. Milder winters and longer summers, who isn't for that? Does anyone realize the consequence of wanting temperatures to decrease??? You guessed it again, a big ice glacier in your back yard. Where are all the Cat 5 hurricanes and EF5 tornadoes that man made global warming is supposed to create? Its such nonsense I find it difficult to believe thtis has to even be debated...



Any kind of change causes fear, even aging of our bodies.
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 1:01:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 11:36:49 PM, tbone8 wrote:

And the feeble-minded deniers come out to play again with their toy 'facts' (= lies and misinformation).

1. If CO2 was a pollutant, we are already doomed.

A bare assertion, not a fact. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Whether it is or is not classified as a pollutant is irrelevant to whether it can build up in the atmosphere and have a greenhouse effect.

2. 140,00 years ago, global temps were 4"C(7"F) higher.*

So what?

3. 350,000 years ago, global temps were 5"C(9"F) higher.*

So what? Homo sapiens probably weren't even around then. There have also been ice ages and mini ice ages. What is the relevance?

4. Since September 1994, University of Alabama in Huntsville"s satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant global warming trend.

The University of Alabama? Ha ha ha ha. Link please to primary source for this data.

Misinformation. Satellites only measure atmospheric temperatures. The combined atmosphere/land/ocean temperature data gives a true reflection of the global warming trend. Taking one element in isolation is misleading.

5. Man made global warming is a theory (hoax) without a shred of evidence.

Another lie. There is a vast body of evidence.

http://climate.nasa.gov...

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


*Vostok ice core data

Does anyone know how the glaciers melted from the past 6 ice ages encompassing 415,00 years? Does anyone know that temperatures varied 16"C(29"F) during this time frame? Does anyone with even a single brain cell realize what this means? You guessed it, our climate NATURALLY varies.

So what? We aren't concerned with natural changes which occurred in the past but with unnatural changes (artificially induced by the actions of men) which are occurring now over a very small timeframe. What happened hundreds of thousands of years ago with no or very few humans around is entirely irrelevant when confronting the problem of 7 billion human beings with a large fraction likely to be adversely affected by climate change.

And by the way, we are in an inter-glacial period. That means we are in between NATURAL ice ages. Temperatures, on average, over thousands of years, are going to slowly rise. We have 9"F to go yet from our warmest know inter-glacial high.

Natural variation is one thing and we can't do anything about it. Anthropologically induced, rapid climate change is another matter entirely. Raising strawmen is part of the denier mentality.

I find it kind of ironic that the world did not end 350,000 years ago when we reached this high temperature.

Another bizarre strawman argument. No-one is predicting the end of the world, only dislocation and hardship to many of your fellow human beings.

I wonder who Al Gore would have blamed back then had he been alive?

He would have accepted established science, just as he does now.

Personally, I like the warming trend. Milder winters and longer summers, who isn't for that?

Lucky you. Aren't you fortunate that you aren't living on a Pacific Island or in a large population centre in Asia which is likely to suffer water shortages as meltwater reduces through global warming. But not to worry. You're okay Jack.

Does anyone realize the consequence of wanting temperatures to decrease??? You guessed it again, a big ice glacier in your back yard. Where are all the Cat 5 hurricanes and EF5 tornadoes that man made global warming is supposed to create? Its such nonsense I find it difficult to believe thtis has to even be debated...

And the denying idiots keep talking about a reduction in temperature when real scientists are concerned with simply limiting the rise to 2 or 3"C. You have to wonder at the IQ needed to convert an increase into a decrease. Shoe size?

tbone8
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 2:33:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 1:01:06 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/31/2015 11:36:49 PM, tbone8 wrote:

And the feeble-minded deniers come out to play again with their toy 'facts' (= lies and misinformation).

1. If CO2 was a pollutant, we are already doomed.

A bare assertion, not a fact. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Whether it is or is not classified as a pollutant is irrelevant to whether it can build up in the atmosphere and have a greenhouse effect.

2. 140,00 years ago, global temps were 4"C(7"F) higher.*

So what?

3. 350,000 years ago, global temps were 5"C(9"F) higher.*

So what? Homo sapiens probably weren't even around then. There have also been ice ages and mini ice ages. What is the relevance?

4. Since September 1994, University of Alabama in Huntsville"s satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant global warming trend.

The University of Alabama? Ha ha ha ha. Link please to primary source for this data.

Misinformation. Satellites only measure atmospheric temperatures. The combined atmosphere/land/ocean temperature data gives a true reflection of the global warming trend. Taking one element in isolation is misleading.

5. Man made global warming is a theory (hoax) without a shred of evidence.

Another lie. There is a vast body of evidence.

http://climate.nasa.gov...

Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


*Vostok ice core data

Does anyone know how the glaciers melted from the past 6 ice ages encompassing 415,00 years? Does anyone know that temperatures varied 16"C(29"F) during this time frame? Does anyone with even a single brain cell realize what this means? You guessed it, our climate NATURALLY varies.

So what? We aren't concerned with natural changes which occurred in the past but with unnatural changes (artificially induced by the actions of men) which are occurring now over a very small timeframe. What happened hundreds of thousands of years ago with no or very few humans around is entirely irrelevant when confronting the problem of 7 billion human beings with a large fraction likely to be adversely affected by climate change.

And by the way, we are in an inter-glacial period. That means we are in between NATURAL ice ages. Temperatures, on average, over thousands of years, are going to slowly rise. We have 9"F to go yet from our warmest know inter-glacial high.

Natural variation is one thing and we can't do anything about it. Anthropologically induced, rapid climate change is another matter entirely. Raising strawmen is part of the denier mentality.

I find it kind of ironic that the world did not end 350,000 years ago when we reached this high temperature.

Another bizarre strawman argument. No-one is predicting the end of the world, only dislocation and hardship to many of your fellow human beings.

I wonder who Al Gore would have blamed back then had he been alive?

He would have accepted established science, just as he does now.

Personally, I like the warming trend. Milder winters and longer summers, who isn't for that?

Lucky you. Aren't you fortunate that you aren't living on a Pacific Island or in a large population centre in Asia which is likely to suffer water shortages as meltwater reduces through global warming. But not to worry. You're okay Jack.

Does anyone realize the consequence of wanting temperatures to decrease??? You guessed it again, a big ice glacier in your back yard. Where are all the Cat 5 hurricanes and EF5 tornadoes that man made global warming is supposed to create? Its such nonsense I find it difficult to believe thtis has to even be debated...

And the denying idiots keep talking about a reduction in temperature when real scientists are concerned with simply limiting the rise to 2 or 3"C. You have to wonder at the IQ needed to convert an increase into a decrease. Shoe size?



Has anyone ever noticed when one disagrees with the globull alarmist, they immediately start with hurling insults? In regards to fact#1, CO2 is exhaled by every living animal on the planet. The amazing thing is, plants seem to love the stuff and indeed thrive on it! What do we get in return? You guessed it, oxygen. CO2 levels in our atmosphere have been far higher in the past, that is a fact. Another fact, CO2 in ppm has risen from roughly 280ppm in 1880 to 380ppm currently. Thats a huge increase in scale, but, there has been about .5"C (1"F) rise in temperature during the same period, how do you explain this? This indicates that CO2 is not a primary driver of climate change. CO2 levels of the previous four inter-glacial periods were between 270-290ppm yet our interglacial period is the coolest of the previous four, how do you explain this?

Since you ignored fact #2 and #3, I will make no comment.

Fact#4, you really need a link to University of Alabama in Huntsville data???

Fact #5, as with most things in science, they are supported by theory. Man made globull warming, I know you will find this difficult to grasp, is a theory. Remember when it was thought tat the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth? All later disproven obviously by science but make an excellent point. Theories in science are disproven all the time and adjusted accordingly (another fact). I can site a study that will disprove any nonsense agenda theory you can whether it be about CO2 or drowning polar bears. What makes this such a steep road for people to understand is that there is a multi billion dollar political agenda fueling the globull warming movement, another fact.

In summary, if CO2 is indeed a pollutant, we are screwed. We all exhale it, combustion contributes to it (which we need to fuel cars, heat homes, etc) and plants love it. If you study the Vostok ice core data, you will see prior temperature and CO2 data that clearly show, our climate naturally changes. The roughly 100ppm increase the past 135 years in CO2 has had zero effect on temperature, fact (unless you think .5C is significant). And finally, globull warming is just another theory, as weak in science as it may be...
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 11:04:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 2:33:11 AM, tbone8 wrote:
At 11/1/2015 1:01:06 AM, dee-em wrote:

Has anyone ever noticed when one disagrees with the globull alarmist, they immediately start with hurling insults?

A spade is a spade. An idiot is an idiot. Just out of curiosity, how much does it pay to be a shill for the fossil fuel industry?

In regards to fact#1, CO2 is exhaled by every living animal on the planet. The amazing thing is, plants seem to love the stuff and indeed thrive on it! What do we get in return? You guessed it, oxygen.

It's a greenhouse gas and the levels of it in the atmosphere are rising due to man-made emissions. Everything else you say is irrelevant to this actual fact compared to your pseudo 'facts'.

CO2 levels in our atmosphere have been far higher in the past, that is a fact.

Irrelevant to the current man-made problem.

Another fact, CO2 in ppm has risen from roughly 280ppm in 1880 to 380ppm currently. Thats a huge increase in scale, but, there has been about .5"C (1"F) rise in temperature during the same period, how do you explain this?

Thank you. You have just acknowledged that increasing CO2 levels have resulted in a temperature jump. We could stop right here. Your denials have just been blown out of the water by your own words. Lol.

This indicates that CO2 is not a primary driver of climate change. CO2 levels of the previous four inter-glacial periods were between 270-290ppm yet our interglacial period is the coolest of the previous four, how do you explain this?

Why do I need to explain it? It's entirely irrelevant to the proven link between currently rising CO2 levels and global warming. Try and focus, and stop with the red herrings.

Since you ignored fact #2 and #3, I will make no comment.

Perhaps you failed to notice that these 'facts' were also entirely irrelevant.

Fact#4, you really need a link to University of Alabama in Huntsville data???

Yep. It's not much to ask for surely? Here, let me help you:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

For some time, the UAH satellite data's chief significance was that they appeared to contradict a wide range of surface temperature data measurements and analyses showing warming. In 1998 the UAH data showed a cooling of 0.05 K per decade (at 3.5 km - mid to low troposphere). Wentz & Schabel at RSS in their 1998 paper showed this (along with other discrepancies) was due to the orbital decay of the NOAA satellites.[6] Once the orbital changes had been allowed for the data showed a 0.07 K per decade increase in temperature at this level of the atmosphere.

So here we have clear evidence of a denier using outdated information to mislead the credulous. Far from being a 'fact', what we have is intellectual dishonesty.

Fact #5, as with most things in science, they are supported by theory. Man made globull warming, I know you will find this difficult to grasp, is a theory. Remember when it was thought tat the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth? All later disproven obviously by science but make an excellent point.

So science works? Thanks for that. Lol.

Theories in science are disproven all the time and adjusted accordingly (another fact).

Then go ahead and disprove AGW. Make yourself famous. Unfortunately if all you have are your above 'facts', be prepared to be laughed at. Just a friendly bit of advice.

I can site a study that will disprove any nonsense agenda theory you can whether it be about CO2 or drowning polar bears.

Whatever that bluster means.

What makes this such a steep road for people to understand is that there is a multi billion dollar political agenda fueling the globull warming movement, another fact.

Yes, it is all a giant conspiracy by every government and every national science organization around the world. That is just so plausible. As opposed to the multi-billion dollar vested interest by the fossil fuel industry (your paymaster) to allow them to keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere regardless of consequences.

In summary, if CO2 is indeed a pollutant, we are screwed. We all exhale it, combustion contributes to it (which we need to fuel cars, heat homes, etc) and plants love it.

It still hasn't sunk into your brain yet, has it? It's a greenhouse gas and it is accumulating in the atmosphere (as you have acknowledged!). Repeat after me, it's a greenhouse gas.

If you study the Vostok ice core data, you will see prior temperature and CO2 data that clearly show, our climate naturally changes.

Irrelevant when discussing unnatural, rapid climate change. Since you fail to address this point, you are either being dishonest or we have that IQ problem in play.

The roughly 100ppm increase the past 135 years in CO2 has had zero effect on temperature, fact (unless you think .5C is significant).

Bzzzt. Wrong again.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The global average (land and ocean) surface temperature shows a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] "C in the period 1880 to 2012, based on multiple independently produced datasets.[31] Earth's average surface temperature rose by 0.74"0.18 "C over the period 1906"2005. The rate of warming almost doubled for the last half of that period (0.13"0.03 "C per decade, versus 0.07"0.02 "C per decade).[32]

And finally, globull warming is just another theory, as weak in science as it may be...

People of low IQ cannot spell 'global' for some reason. They also don't seem to have a clue what a scientific theory is. Surprise, surprise. Also irrelevant, since global warming is not a theory but an observation.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 3:32:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 11:36:49 PM, tbone8 wrote:
1. If CO2 was a pollutant, we are already doomed.

Why?

2. 140,00 years ago, global temps were 4"C(7"F) higher.*
3. 350,000 years ago, global temps were 5"C(9"F) higher.*

Yes, but higher temperatures have economic consequences from desertification, higher sea levels, more storms, etc.

4. Since September 1994, University of Alabama in Huntsville"s satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant global warming trend.

This data only measures the top part of the atmosphere. This part is above the greenhouse gasses and so are not affected by the greenhouse effect.

Does anyone know how the glaciers melted from the past 6 ice ages encompassing 415,00 years? Does anyone know that temperatures varied 16"C(29"F) during this time frame? Does anyone with even a single brain cell realize what this means? You guessed it, our climate NATURALLY varies. And by the way, we are in an inter-glacial period. That means we are in between NATURAL ice ages. Temperatures, on average, over thousands of years, are going to slowly rise. We have 9"F to go yet from our warmest know inter-glacial high.

Yes, the problem is instead of letting temperatures change by themselves over hundreds of thousands of years, we are dramatically changing them ourselves over decades. This kind of fiddling with nature has consequences.

I find it kind of ironic that the world did not end 350,000 years ago when we reached this high temperature.

Nobody is saying global warming is going to end the world.

I wonder who Al Gore would have blamed back then had he been alive?

It depends on what factor changed the most during that period. Today it is CO2.

Personally, I like the warming trend. Milder winters and longer summers, who isn't for that? Does anyone realize the consequence of wanting temperatures to decrease???

Well, also it means more desertification. This is going to be a disaster for the California and US farming. Also Africa is going to be hit hard. It is going to work out ok for Russia and Canada. If the arctic ice sheets melt, much of New York, the Netherlands, and Florida will be under water.

You guessed it again, a big ice glacier in your back yard. Where are all the Cat 5 hurricanes and EF5 tornadoes that man made global warming is supposed to create? Its such nonsense I find it difficult to believe thtis has to even be debated...

It is a proven fact that Hurricanes have gotten stronger since global warming. The hurricanes in the 2000s are very strong.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 8:22:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 3:32:50 PM, distraff wrote:

Yes, but higher temperatures have economic consequences from desertification, higher sea levels, more storms, etc.

1) Desertification due to warm temperatures has been debunked.
2) Economic impact on Sea levels are markedly negligible higher considering the fact that economic developments on shorelines usually cope with differences of at least 10 feet of water due to natural tides, so even a few inches is nothing that can't be easily compensated for.
3) There are more storms, and also a 2% increase in cloud cover over the last few decades along with more freshwater rain. The net benefit for life increases with the added freshwater coupled with the shrinking tundra and taiga deserts and an increase in arable land. It shows concrete evidence of a greener planet with warmer temperatures.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 8:45:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Those who like to predict doom from "global warming" typically say that any increase in temperature will inevitably lead to crop failure, massive storms, more powerful storms, sea level rises, drought and desertification.

In fact in the greatest hothouse epoch of all geological time, the Eocene (caused by a superspike in greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide - and possibly a large pulse or many pulses of methan) where the temperature was as much as 20C in the arctic area, mid and high latitude regions were SIGNIFICANTLY wetter than today.

Here's the proof:

http://www.sciencemag.org...
"This increased offset could result from suppression of surface-water ^8;18O values by a tropical, annual moisture balance substantially wetter than that of today. Results from an atmospheric general circulation model support this interpretation and suggest that Eocene low latitudes were extremely wet."

And warm temperatures + wetter weather = greater productivity of plants.

Greater productivity of plants = higher crop yields.

Higher Crop Yields = larger sustainable human population.

So much for the doom from warming theory.

It's *cooling* we need to worry about.

Oops. Please try harder dear climate modeler "scientists". FAIL.

http://dieoffdebunked.blogspot.com...
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 8:46:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 8:22:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/1/2015 3:32:50 PM, distraff wrote:

Yes, but higher temperatures have economic consequences from desertification, higher sea levels, more storms, etc.

1) Desertification due to warm temperatures has been debunked.

Thank you for your opinion. The scientific community thinks differently.

2) Economic impact on Sea levels are markedly negligible higher considering the fact that economic developments on shorelines usually cope with differences of at least 10 feet of water due to natural tides, so even a few inches is nothing that can't be easily compensated for.

Yes, but that is at current tide levels. At current tide levels, businesses can cope of a high tide of 10 feet. Problem if that if the average tide rises by 10 feet, then average tide will be where high tide used to be. So the new high tide will be 20 feet from the old average tide. Also, if the greenland ice sheets collapse, the sea level rise will be more than 20 feet.

3) There are more storms, and also a 2% increase in cloud cover over the last few decades along with more freshwater rain. The net benefit for life increases with the added freshwater coupled with the shrinking tundra and taiga deserts and an increase in arable land. It shows concrete evidence of a greener planet with warmer temperatures.

Storms can destroy trees just as easily as they provide water to them. Also, with global warming, the amount of snow in the mountains decline, and this results in less river water. This is one reason why California is drying up.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 8:53:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 8:46:50 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/1/2015 8:22:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/1/2015 3:32:50 PM, distraff wrote:

Yes, but higher temperatures have economic consequences from desertification, higher sea levels, more storms, etc.

1) Desertification due to warm temperatures has been debunked.

Thank you for your opinion. The scientific community thinks differently.
Uh no. not the global community. Warmer temperatures are increasing freshwater and melting taiga and tundra; that's an increase in arable land, not an increase in deserts, the fossil evidence says you and your circle of scientists are wrong.
http://dieoffdebunked.blogspot.com...

2) Economic impact on Sea levels are markedly negligible higher considering the fact that economic developments on shorelines usually cope with differences of at least 10 feet of water due to natural tides, so even a few inches is nothing that can't be easily compensated for.

Yes, but that is at current tide levels. At current tide levels, businesses can cope of a high tide of 10 feet. Problem if that if the average tide rises by 10 feet, then average tide will be where high tide used to be. So the new high tide will be 20 feet from the old average tide. Also, if the greenland ice sheets collapse, the sea level rise will be more than 20 feet.


10 feet is nowhere even close to the most insane alarmist predictions.
You just made that up.

3) There are more storms, and also a 2% increase in cloud cover over the last few decades along with more freshwater rain. The net benefit for life increases with the added freshwater coupled with the shrinking tundra and taiga deserts and an increase in arable land. It shows concrete evidence of a greener planet with warmer temperatures.

Storms can destroy trees just as easily as they provide water to them. Also, with global warming, the amount of snow in the mountains decline, and this results in less river water. This is one reason why California is drying up.

Again the net positive to the entire planet easily overshadows a few localized increase of storms near the shoreline. You have to think global.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 9:30:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 8:46:50 PM, distraff wrote:

Yes, but that is at current tide levels. At current tide levels, businesses can cope of a high tide of 10 feet. Problem if that if the average tide rises by 10 feet, then average tide will be where high tide used to be. So the new high tide will be 20 feet from the old average tide. Also, if the greenland ice sheets collapse, the sea level rise will be more than 20 feet.


Even if you take the most ridiculous claims that show the sea rising 10 inches in 100 years, extrapolating a linear trend over 1000 years still won't put you at 10 feet. that's hardly alarmist...
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 10:52:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 8:53:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/1/2015 8:46:50 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/1/2015 8:22:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/1/2015 3:32:50 PM, distraff wrote:

Yes, but higher temperatures have economic consequences from desertification, higher sea levels, more storms, etc.

1) Desertification due to warm temperatures has been debunked.

Thank you for your opinion. The scientific community thinks differently.
Uh no. not the global community. Warmer temperatures are increasing freshwater and melting taiga and tundra; that's an increase in arable land, not an increase in deserts, the fossil evidence says you and your circle of scientists are wrong.
http://dieoffdebunked.blogspot.com...

Your source is a blog. It seems pretty obvious to me that warmer temperatures will make deserts bigger and tundra smaller. Just climate science common sense.

2) Economic impact on Sea levels are markedly negligible higher considering the fact that economic developments on shorelines usually cope with differences of at least 10 feet of water due to natural tides, so even a few inches is nothing that can't be easily compensated for.

Yes, but that is at current tide levels. At current tide levels, businesses can cope of a high tide of 10 feet. Problem if that if the average tide rises by 10 feet, then average tide will be where high tide used to be. So the new high tide will be 20 feet from the old average tide. Also, if the greenland ice sheets collapse, the sea level rise will be more than 20 feet.


10 feet is nowhere even close to the most insane alarmist predictions.
You just made that up.

over the past century the sea levels have risen 4 to 8 inches. Lets say 6 inches. Some of that rise was from thermal expansion of the water and others came from melting ice. It is difficult for scientists to predict how ice sheets will react to warmer temperature. We are not exactly sure if the arctic sheets will hold up to higher temperatures.

So if the arctic sheets hold up very well, the sea level rise will only be a few inches over the next hundred years. If they collapse, the sea level rise will by about 24 feet. Scientists predict that reality will be in between these two situations. We will see between 2.5 to 6.5 feet.
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com...

3) There are more storms, and also a 2% increase in cloud cover over the last few decades along with more freshwater rain. The net benefit for life increases with the added freshwater coupled with the shrinking tundra and taiga deserts and an increase in arable land. It shows concrete evidence of a greener planet with warmer temperatures.

Storms can destroy trees just as easily as they provide water to them. Also, with global warming, the amount of snow in the mountains decline, and this results in less river water. This is one reason why California is drying up.

Again the net positive to the entire planet easily overshadows a few localized increase of storms near the shoreline. You have to think global.

That is just a claim. Scientists disagree.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 10:53:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 9:30:42 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/1/2015 8:46:50 PM, distraff wrote:

Yes, but that is at current tide levels. At current tide levels, businesses can cope of a high tide of 10 feet. Problem if that if the average tide rises by 10 feet, then average tide will be where high tide used to be. So the new high tide will be 20 feet from the old average tide. Also, if the greenland ice sheets collapse, the sea level rise will be more than 20 feet.


Even if you take the most ridiculous claims that show the sea rising 10 inches in 100 years, extrapolating a linear trend over 1000 years still won't put you at 10 feet. that's hardly alarmist...

The sea level rise is estimated to be 2.5 to 6.5 feet depending on how the greenland sheets react to the warming and how much warming happens.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 10:57:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 10:53:59 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/1/2015 9:30:42 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/1/2015 8:46:50 PM, distraff wrote:

Yes, but that is at current tide levels. At current tide levels, businesses can cope of a high tide of 10 feet. Problem if that if the average tide rises by 10 feet, then average tide will be where high tide used to be. So the new high tide will be 20 feet from the old average tide. Also, if the greenland ice sheets collapse, the sea level rise will be more than 20 feet.


Even if you take the most ridiculous claims that show the sea rising 10 inches in 100 years, extrapolating a linear trend over 1000 years still won't put you at 10 feet. that's hardly alarmist...

The sea level rise is estimated to be 2.5 to 6.5 feet depending on how the greenland sheets react to the warming and how much warming happens.
over 1000 years? most buildings are entirely rebuilt every 100 years.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 11:00:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 10:52:41 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/1/2015 8:53:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/1/2015 8:46:50 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/1/2015 8:22:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/1/2015 3:32:50 PM, distraff wrote:

Yes, but higher temperatures have economic consequences from desertification, higher sea levels, more storms, etc.

1) Desertification due to warm temperatures has been debunked.

Thank you for your opinion. The scientific community thinks differently.
Uh no. not the global community. Warmer temperatures are increasing freshwater and melting taiga and tundra; that's an increase in arable land, not an increase in deserts, the fossil evidence says you and your circle of scientists are wrong.
http://dieoffdebunked.blogspot.com...

Your source is a blog. It seems pretty obvious to me that warmer temperatures will make deserts bigger and tundra smaller. Just climate science common sense.

There is absolutely nothing "common sense" about warmer temperatures meaning less fresh water and less clouds, which is the only way to increase deserts by temperature alone. The earth doesn't react like your hair when you put heat on it....
The earth is mostly water...what happens when you heat water?? Oh yah...common sense...
tbone8
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2015 11:53:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Again you start with hurling the insults, typical of the liberal when confronted by facts. I have a Bachler"s of Science in Biology/Chemistry plus a post grad degree. What are your science credentials? As far as being a paid shill, (which of course I must be to disagree with this perpetrated hoax) I am not paid. However, if Exxon or any other big oil want to send me money, I am all for it.
Ok, back to the paycheck, that"s sarcasm in case folks from down under cannot recognize it. You keep harping on labeling CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which I am sure you knew cuz you are so smart and I am just a lowly idiot. Should we put a ban on water and add it to the evil greenhouse emission list with CO2? You think you are so smart arguing CO2 being a greenhouse gas when in reality, you have no idea what you are talking about. Then, your superior intellect tells me that it is irrelevant that past CO2 and temperatures have been much higher and the earth didn"t implode. So, we can look back in time to prior CO2/temp level data and its "IRRELEVANT BECAUSE ITS MAN MADE"??? Who cares if its natural, man made or pumped in by aliens? I suppose the talking point of being man made gives it the evil capitalist spin to it? What a joke.
"Thank you. You have just acknowledged that increasing CO2 levels have resulted in a temperature jump." Do you even know the ignorance in that statement? CO2 changes in the atmosphere lag temperature changes as temperature increased or decreased by hundreds of years. The cause does not follow the effect. This is clearly sent in present time as a CO2 has risen roughly 25% since 1880 and there has been no 25% or even close temperature rise. That"s another fact by the way. "CO2 levels of the previous four inter-glacial periods were between 270-290ppm yet our interglacial period is the coolest of the previous four, how do you explain this?" I know, I know another irrelevant fact for those that choose to ignore facts. As far as the U of A Huntsville data, I find it amusing you can pick apart that temperature data but have no issues with the adjusted (upwards of course) NOAA temp data. As I said before, during inter glacial periods, temps are expected to rise. That"s how prior glaciers melted by the way. You want to talk about irrelevant, we are still far below prior interglacial period temperature peaks. That"s what is relevant.
So in conclusion, as most liberals do, you cite all pertinent facts as being irrelevant. You point out lack of IQ along with other insults. In reality, you have no credentials, no formal knowledge of this subject and no leg to stand on. Let"s see what kind of vile nonsense you post next"
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 12:29:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 11:00:48 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/1/2015 10:52:41 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/1/2015 8:53:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/1/2015 8:46:50 PM, distraff wrote:
At 11/1/2015 8:22:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/1/2015 3:32:50 PM, distraff wrote:

Yes, but higher temperatures have economic consequences from desertification, higher sea levels, more storms, etc.

1) Desertification due to warm temperatures has been debunked.

Thank you for your opinion. The scientific community thinks differently.
Uh no. not the global community. Warmer temperatures are increasing freshwater and melting taiga and tundra; that's an increase in arable land, not an increase in deserts, the fossil evidence says you and your circle of scientists are wrong.
http://dieoffdebunked.blogspot.com...

Your source is a blog. It seems pretty obvious to me that warmer temperatures will make deserts bigger and tundra smaller. Just climate science common sense.

There is absolutely nothing "common sense" about warmer temperatures meaning less fresh water and less clouds, which is the only way to increase deserts by temperature alone. The earth doesn't react like your hair when you put heat on it....
The earth is mostly water...what happens when you heat water?? Oh yah...common sense...

Land ice has dropped as temperatures rise. Your personal conjecture that increased humidity will make up for higher temperatures doesn't actually work.
Fly
Posts: 2,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 12:32:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 11:53:19 PM, tbone8 wrote:
Again you start with hurling the insults, typical of the liberal when confronted by facts. I have a Bachler"s of Science in Biology/Chemistry plus a post grad degree. What are your science credentials? As far as being a paid shill, (which of course I must be to disagree with this perpetrated hoax) I am not paid. However, if Exxon or any other big oil want to send me money, I am all for it.
Ok, back to the paycheck, that"s sarcasm in case folks from down under cannot recognize it. You keep harping on labeling CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which I am sure you knew cuz you are so smart and I am just a lowly idiot. Should we put a ban on water and add it to the evil greenhouse emission list with CO2? You think you are so smart arguing CO2 being a greenhouse gas when in reality, you have no idea what you are talking about. Then, your superior intellect tells me that it is irrelevant that past CO2 and temperatures have been much higher and the earth didn"t implode. So, we can look back in time to prior CO2/temp level data and its "IRRELEVANT BECAUSE ITS MAN MADE"??? Who cares if its natural, man made or pumped in by aliens? I suppose the talking point of being man made gives it the evil capitalist spin to it? What a joke.
"Thank you. You have just acknowledged that increasing CO2 levels have resulted in a temperature jump." Do you even know the ignorance in that statement? CO2 changes in the atmosphere lag temperature changes as temperature increased or decreased by hundreds of years. The cause does not follow the effect. This is clearly sent in present time as a CO2 has risen roughly 25% since 1880 and there has been no 25% or even close temperature rise. That"s another fact by the way. "CO2 levels of the previous four inter-glacial periods were between 270-290ppm yet our interglacial period is the coolest of the previous four, how do you explain this?" I know, I know another irrelevant fact for those that choose to ignore facts. As far as the U of A Huntsville data, I find it amusing you can pick apart that temperature data but have no issues with the adjusted (upwards of course) NOAA temp data. As I said before, during inter glacial periods, temps are expected to rise. That"s how prior glaciers melted by the way. You want to talk about irrelevant, we are still far below prior interglacial period temperature peaks. That"s what is relevant.
So in conclusion, as most liberals do, you cite all pertinent facts as being irrelevant. You point out lack of IQ along with other insults. In reality, you have no credentials, no formal knowledge of this subject and no leg to stand on. Let"s see what kind of vile nonsense you post next"

You don't make any mention of feedback loops. Yes, water vapor is technically a "greenhouse gas," but it is itself increased via warming. Also, it is relatively short lived whereas CO2 has staying power.

More on this here:

"What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming
__________________________________________________________
Climate Myth...
Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
"Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. This is part of the difficulty with the public and the media in understanding that 95% of greenhouse gases are water vapour. The public understand it, in that if you get a fall evening or spring evening and the sky is clear the heat will escape and the temperature will drop and you get frost. If there is a cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour as a greenhouse gas and the temperature stays quite warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at one point a daytime or noon high of 52 degrees Celsius " by midnight that night it was -3.6 degree Celsius. ["] That was caused because there is no, or very little, water vapour in the atmosphere and it is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas." (Tim Ball)
___________________________________________________________

When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere " making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further"a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1"C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1"C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1"C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3"C.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.

So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger."

https://www.skepticalscience.com...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 12:44:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 12:29:19 AM, distraff wrote:

Land ice has dropped as temperatures rise. Your personal conjecture that increased humidity will make up for higher temperatures doesn't actually work.

Except where it already actually does at the equator where your "dry hair" theory would have all land areas on the equator with the most sun exposure and high temperatures a barren wasteland instead of lush forest.
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 3:35:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/1/2015 11:53:19 PM, tbone8 wrote:

Again you start with hurling the insults, typical of the liberal when confronted by facts.

Your 'facts' have been blown out of the water or dismissed as irrelevant. The fact that you fail to address my criticisms directly confirms this.

I have a Bachler"s of Science in Biology/Chemistry plus a post grad degree. What are your science credentials?

How does a science graduate start talking about a decrease in temperature and glaciers in their backyard? How does a science graduate claim that there is no evidence for AGW when I linked you to the NASA site which summarised a mountain of evidence? I can only make inferences from what you post and so far your record has been abysmal. Sorry.

As far as being a paid shill, (which of course I must be to disagree with this perpetrated hoax) I am not paid. However, if Exxon or any other big oil want to send me money, I am all for it.

Uh huh.

Ok, back to the paycheck, that"s sarcasm in case folks from down under cannot recognize it. You keep harping on labeling CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which I am sure you knew cuz you are so smart and I am just a lowly idiot. Should we put a ban on water and add it to the evil greenhouse emission list with CO2?

Are humans pumping H2O into the atmosphere? No? Then your line of argument is absurd. We are taking stored carbon from out of the ground, burning it and producing vast amounts of CO2. As far as I am aware the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is relatively constant. When the concentration gets too high it falls as rain or snow. Next.

You think you are so smart arguing CO2 being a greenhouse gas when in reality, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I got you to acknowledge it is a greenhouse gas, didn't I? That's progress, instead of that inane blabbering about it being a pollutant.

Then, your superior intellect tells me that it is irrelevant that past CO2 and temperatures have been much higher and the earth didn"t implode.

Who said anything about an implosion? There you go with your strawmen again.

So, we can look back in time to prior CO2/temp level data and its "IRRELEVANT BECAUSE ITS MAN MADE"??? Who cares if its natural, man made or pumped in by aliens?

Pay attention. What happened in the past via natural changes to the Earth's climate is pretty much irrelevant to us today, here and now. That's a fairly simple concept. Do you agree?

On the other hand if it is conclusively demonstrated that the actions of mankind are rapidly inducing climate change over a very short interval of only a century or two, and this will severely impact on the flora and fauna of the Earth with habitat and species loss not to mention dire economic consequences to humanity, don't you think we have a moral responsibility to stop our harmful actions? Again this is a fairly simple concept. Do you agree?

Perhaps an analogy will help. There have always been bushfires and forest fires caused by natural means such as lightning strikes. It is part of the cycle of nature. Now imagine that there is a pyromaniac running around starting fires which result in raging bushfires or forest fires and possible loss of property and human life. Should we just shrug our shoulders and mutter something about fires being part of the cycle of nature or should the police try and catch the pyromaniac and stop him? What do you think?

I suppose the talking point of being man made gives it the evil capitalist spin to it? What a joke.

No, it's about responsibility. Would you smoke around your children if you knew tobacco smoke was harmful, or would you try and quit for their sake and yours?

"Thank you. You have just acknowledged that increasing CO2 levels have resulted in a temperature jump." Do you even know the ignorance in that statement? CO2 changes in the atmosphere lag temperature changes as temperature increased or decreased by hundreds of years. The cause does not follow the effect.

This is another piece of misinformation to go along with all the others you have foisted on us.

http://grist.org...

Rising CO2 levels are both a cause and an effect of warming as the article explains. Next.

This is clearly sent in present time as a CO2 has risen roughly 25% since 1880 and there has been no 25% or even close temperature rise. That"s another fact by the way.

Please show as your mathematical model which identifies that the relationship between levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature increase (a process which you in fact deny is even possible!) is a linear one. Make sure you take into account that water vapour is by far the largest contituent of the greeenhouse gas mix in the atmosphere. Thank you.

"CO2 levels of the previous four inter-glacial periods were between 270-290ppm yet our interglacial period is the coolest of the previous four, how do you explain this?" I know, I know another irrelevant fact for those that choose to ignore facts.

You're still raising strawmen. I've told you, I don't need to explain anything about uncertain climactic conditions in the past. In your simplistic world there is only CO2 and temperature and you ignore every other possible factor. What you fail to do is understand that there is an established link between pumping out a greenhouse gas into the sky and raising the temperature of the Earth. This is the elephant in the room which you ignore as you chase your red herrings.

As far as the U of A Huntsville data, I find it amusing you can pick apart that temperature data but have no issues with the adjusted (upwards of course) NOAA temp data.

Um, they got it wrong. They overlooked orbital decay of the satellite. It's rocket science. Lol. Your weak attempt at casting aspersions is exposed for what is is - mere bluster. You have been found guilty of spreading misinformation and you have no real comeback, so you fall back on your conspiracy theories. It's pathetic.

As I said before, during inter glacial periods, temps are expected to rise. That"s how prior glaciers melted by the way. You want to talk about irrelevant, we are still far below prior interglacial period temperature peaks. That"s what is relevant.

Irrelevant. This is about rapid man-made warming over and above nature. You can't seem to grasp this elementary point. You are hung up about what may or may not have happened in the past so that you can ignore the present crisis. Luckily for us, you and your kind are in the loony minority and world leaders will meet and take some action in Paris shortly.

So in conclusion, as most liberals do, you cite all pertinent facts as being irrelevant.

No, I dismantled most of your so-called facts and gave compelling reasons why a couple were wholly irrelevant. You, for your part, have done nothing except to keep on restating your failed, ignorant myths about AGW. You cite nothing because your secret sources are disreputable. We all know this.

You point out lack of IQ along with other insults. In reality, you have no credentials, no formal knowledge of this subject and no leg to stand on. Let"s see what kind of vile nonsense you post next"

See above. Ad homs about credentials aside, it should be quite clear who has nothing but mistruths, bare assertions and irrelevancies and who is providing detailed scientifically valid refutations to every outlandish claim taken from the denier handbook.
tbone8
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 7:00:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Just because in your mind, you think my facts have been blown out of the water or dismissed as irrelevant, doesn"t make it so. Your link to NOAA"s pseudoscience mountain of evidence is not credible. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.

A copy of measured vs reported data for your viewing please: https://i1.wp.com...

Here is open letter to NOAA on cooking the books from Bob Tisdale: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com...

Another article from Anthony Watts on making up temp data: http://wattsupwiththat.com...

You really believe I am paid to write this? Of all the ignorant things you say, I do wish that were true. And while we are on the topic, did you know burning natural gas produces the greenhouse gas, water vapour? The point was, water and CO2 are both natural byproducts and both allow plant life to thrive. Did you know that 66 million years ago, CO2 was 1700ppm? Earth didn"t implode. Also, you got me to acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? What are you, 5 years old? I never said it wasn"t. However, your globull alarmists believe it a pollutant:

" Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare."

How"s that for blabbering on?

"What happened in the past via natural changes to the Earth's climate is pretty much irrelevant to us today, here and now. That's a fairly simple concept. Do you agree?" Ok, I take it back, this is probably the most ignorant thing you have said yet. As I say over and over, far higher concentrations of CO2, higher temps and rate at which temps rose historically over thousands of years is not valuable data? Surely you cannot be serious.

"On the other hand if it is conclusively demonstrated that the actions of mankind are rapidly inducing climate change over a very short interval of only a century or two, and this will severely impact on the flora and fauna of the Earth with habitat and species loss not to mention dire economic consequences to humanity, don't you think we have a moral responsibility to stop our harmful actions? Again this is a fairly simple concept. Do you agree?"
That"s the thing, all the dire computer model and catastrophic weather predictions of draught, floods and famine have not matriculated. There is always going to be natural droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, etc. Interestingly, with all this CO2 floating around, severe weather has been record low in numbers. Also, your premise on sparky starting forest fires is a joke.

Here is my model on CO2/temp relationship:

By: Marc Morano
The level of carbon dioxide, a trace essential gas in the atmosphere that humans exhale from our mouths, has come very close to reaching the "symbolic" 400 parts per million (ppm) threshold in the atmosphere. Former Vice President Al Gore declared the 400 ppm level "A sad milestone. A call to action." New York times reporter Justin Gillis compared trace amounts of CO2 to "a tiny bit of arsenic or cobra venom" and warned that rising CO2 means "the fate of the earth hangs in the balance." The New Yorker Magazine declared "Everything we use that emits carbon dioxide needs to be replaced with something that doesn"t." And a UK Guardian editorial declared "Swift political action can avert a carbon dioxide crisis."

But despite the man-made global warming fear movement"s clarion call of alarm, many scientists are dismissing the 400ppm level of carbon dioxide as a non-event. Scientists point out that there are literally hundreds of factors that govern Earth"s climate and temperature " not just CO2. Renowned climatologists have declared that a doubling or even tripling of CO2 would not have major impacts on the Earth"s climate or temperature.

Scientists also note that geologically speaking, the Earth is currently in a "CO2 famine" and that the geologic record reveals that ice ages have occurred when CO2 was at 2000 ppm to as high as 8000ppm. In addition, peer-reviewed studies have documented that there have been temperatures similar to the present day on Earth when carbon dioxide was up to twenty times higher than today"s levels. And, a peer-reviewed study this year found that the present day carbon dioxide level of 400 ppm was exceeded " without any human influence " 12,750 years ago when CO2 may have reached up to 425 ppm.

Princeton U. Physicist Dr. William Happer and NASA Moonwalker & Geologist Dr. Harrison H. Schmitt wrote on May 8, 2013 in the Wall Street Journal: "Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That"s simply not the case."

"The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA"s and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been"and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn"t the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather," Happer and Schmidt wrote.

Princeton"s Dr. Happer, who has authored 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, explained in Senate testimony in 2009 that the Earth is currently in a "CO2 "famine." Happer explained to Congress: "Warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind""CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving "pollutant" and "poison" of their original meaning," Happer added.

"Many people don"t realize that over geological time, we"re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) " 280 (parts per million " ppm) " that"s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it"s been quite higher than that," Happer told the Senate Committee. "Earth was just fine in those times," Happer added. "The oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it"s baffling to me that we"re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started," Happer explained.

The claim by global warming activists and scientists that CO2 is the global temperature "control knob" has been challenged in the peer-reviewed literature and the Earth"s geologic history.

Again, not only are you completely wrong, you are intellectually outmatched...
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 11:59:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Princeton"s Dr. Happer, who has authored 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers,

But none - AFAIK - on climate modelling. But Happer - an adaptive optics specialist - on climate modeling is like a climate scientist commenting on adaptive optics. I know who I'd trust about adaptive optics, so who is to be trusted on climate?
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 1:14:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 7:00:04 AM, tbone8 wrote:

Just because in your mind, you think my facts have been blown out of the water or dismissed as irrelevant, doesn"t make it so.

It does when I have clearly articulated how they have been blown out of the water.

Your link to NOAA"s pseudoscience mountain of evidence is not credible. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.

More unsubstantiated slander of real scientists. You should hear yourself. Any credibility you had just went down the tube right there.

A copy of measured vs reported data for your viewing please: https://i1.wp.com...

Here is open letter to NOAA on cooking the books from Bob Tisdale: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com...

Another article from Anthony Watts on making up temp data: http://wattsupwiththat.com...

Thank you for confirming that you get your 'information' from disreputable sources. Random bloggers on the internet can be dismissed with the scorn they deserve. You have the nerve to tell us you have science training and then you link to the rubbish above! Furthermore you label real science organizations as pseudoscience and then you put your trust in any nitwit who can create a website. Unbelievable!

You really believe I am paid to write this? Of all the ignorant things you say, I do wish that were true.

Then that makes you doubly idiotic. The sites from which you parrot your denier drivel probably have authors who are paid shills of the fossil fuel industry. Your parroting of their nonsense is done for free. How foolish does that make you?

And while we are on the topic, did you know burning natural gas produces the greenhouse gas, water vapour?

Interesting. Perhaps we should stop burning fossil fuels? Lol.

The point was, water and CO2 are both natural byproducts and both allow plant life to thrive.

What part of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere and causing a greenhouse effect don't you understand? You have acknowledged that the ppm count has gone up. You acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Now you seek to deny that a greenhouse gas has a greenhouse effect!

Did you know that 66 million years ago, CO2 was 1700ppm? Earth didn"t implode.

Already answered. Restating the same strawmen over and over just makes you appear simple minded.

Also, you got me to acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? What are you, 5 years old? I never said it wasn"t.

Great. So if it builds up in the atmosphere it has a greenhouse effect and increases warming, right? Right?

However, your globull alarmists believe it a pollutant:

" Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare."

Anonymous opinion ignored. Classifying CO2 as a pollutant does not alter the fact that it is a greenhouse gas.

How"s that for blabbering on?

Up to your usual standard. You make a great non-point.

"What happened in the past via natural changes to the Earth's climate is pretty much irrelevant to us today, here and now. That's a fairly simple concept. Do you agree?" Ok, I take it back, this is probably the most ignorant thing you have said yet. As I say over and over, far higher concentrations of CO2, higher temps and rate at which temps rose historically over thousands of years is not valuable data? Surely you cannot be serious.

Please don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say it was not valuable data. What I said, in context, is right in my sentence above. What the climate did then (naturally) has no direct relevance to what the climate is doing now courtesy of man-made emmisions (unnaturally). It seems you can't grasp this simple point.

"On the other hand if it is conclusively demonstrated that the actions of mankind are rapidly inducing climate change over a very short interval of only a century or two, and this will severely impact on the flora and fauna of the Earth with habitat and species loss not to mention dire economic consequences to humanity, don't you think we have a moral responsibility to stop our harmful actions? Again this is a fairly simple concept. Do you agree?"

That"s the thing, all the dire computer model and catastrophic weather predictions of draught, floods and famine have not matriculated.

Nice dodge. Matriculated? We aren't discussing predictions and whether they have come to fruition. What we are discussing is the link between rising CO2 levels and rising temperature. Once you have acknowledged this reality (or refuted it somehow) then we can discuss consequences in detail. Temperatures have only risen by less than 1"C in the last century. It is a rise of 4 or 5"C which has scientists worried. Besides, there certainly have been weather changes:

http://www.theguardian.com...

Follow the link to the study.

There is always going to be natural droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, etc. Interestingly, with all this CO2 floating around, severe weather has been record low in numbers.

An ignorant assertion backed by nothing. See link above which blows your claim sky high. Pun intended. Lol.

Also, your premise on sparky starting forest fires is a joke.

It's called an analogy and your total failure to argue against it speaks volumes. You have nothing but bluster.

Here is my model on CO2/temp relationship:

By: Marc Morano
The level of carbon dioxide, a trace essential gas in the atmosphere that humans exhale from our mouths, has come very close to reaching the "symbolic" 400 parts per million (ppm) threshold in the atmosphere. Former Vice President Al Gore declared the 400 ppm level "A sad milestone. A call to action." New York times reporter Justin Gillis compared trace amounts of CO2 to "a tiny bit of arsenic or cobra venom" and warned that rising CO2 means "the fate of the earth hangs in the balance." The New Yorker Magazine declared "Everything we use that emits carbon dioxide needs to be replaced with something that doesn"t." And a UK Guardian editorial declared "Swift political action can avert a carbon dioxide crisis."

Yes. All good points. Thank you.

But despite the man-made global warming fear movement"s clarion call of alarm, many scientists are dismissing the 400ppm level of carbon dioxide as a non-event. Scientists point out that there are literally hundreds of factors that govern Earth"s climate and temperature " not just CO2. Renowned climatologists have declared that a doubling or even tripling of CO2 would not have major impacts on the Earth"s climate or temperature.

An anonymous opinion vaguely referencing 'many scientists' and unnamed 'renowned climatologists'. Is this a joke? Are you embarassed to cite your source? We understand if you are. Lol.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 1:38:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/31/2015 11:36:49 PM, tbone8 wrote:
5. Man made global warming is a theory (hoax) without a shred of evidence.

TBone, I understand that you don't want to believe in climate change, and that you've found evidence you think refutes such claims.

You doubtless also know that such evidence is easy to find, because it has been placed for you to find. Normally, you'd have to dig hard to get hold of scientific data, and interpreting it would be difficult, but not in this case, yes? Yours is a view that some interests and publishers would like you to have, and all the arguments you've recited are ones that others have made before you.

So, given that it's easy to find information and arguments you normally couldn't find, do you believe that:

1) you have sourced the best information available?
2) you have independently researched the evidence, methods, authorities and opinion, and scrutinised it carefully?
3) you are competent enough and objective enough to undertake such scrutiny without expert assistance?
4) anyone on this forum should value your judgement?
5) you are accountable to other members for the judgement you've formed?

Why or why not?
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 1:39:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 7:00:04 AM, tbone8 wrote:

Scientists also note that geologically speaking, the Earth is currently in a "CO2 famine" and that the geologic record reveals that ice ages have occurred when CO2 was at 2000 ppm to as high as 8000ppm. In addition, peer-reviewed studies have documented that there have been temperatures similar to the present day on Earth when carbon dioxide was up to twenty times higher than today"s levels. And, a peer-reviewed study this year found that the present day carbon dioxide level of 400 ppm was exceeded " without any human influence " 12,750 years ago when CO2 may have reached up to 425 ppm.

Another anonymous opinion by some nobody. Ignored.

Princeton U. Physicist Dr. William Happer and NASA Moonwalker & Geologist Dr. Harrison H. Schmitt wrote on May 8, 2013 in the Wall Street Journal: "Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That"s simply not the case."

More opinions by people who are not climatologists. Irrelevant and ignored.

"The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA"s and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been"and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn"t the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather," Happer and Schmidt wrote.

Ditto.

Princeton"s Dr. Happer, who has authored 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, explained in Senate testimony in 2009 that the Earth is currently in a "CO2 "famine." Happer explained to Congress: "Warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind""CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving "pollutant" and "poison" of their original meaning," Happer added.

Quoting a fellow denier who has no peer-reviewed work on climatology does nothing for your cause. This is just opinion from someone speaking outside of their field of expertise. Would you entertain a medical opinion from your accountant?

Your Dr. Happer has been Chairman of the Board of the Marshall Institute, which, among other initiatives, has denied the threat of global climate change, and, no surprise, fought against stronger regulations on the tobacco industry. It must be pure coincidence that ExxonMobil donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Happer's organization, the Marshall Institute. Gee, you really are easily duped aren't you?

"Many people don"t realize that over geological time, we"re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) " 280 (parts per million " ppm) " that"s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it"s been quite higher than that," Happer told the Senate Committee. "Earth was just fine in those times," Happer added. "The oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it"s baffling to me that we"re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started," Happer explained.

Words paid for by ExxonMobil dirty money.

The claim by global warming activists and scientists that CO2 is the global temperature "control knob" has been challenged in the peer-reviewed literature and the Earth"s geologic history.

Another totally unsubstantiated claim by a paid shill.

Again, not only are you completely wrong, you are intellectually outmatched...

Yeah, right. If intellectual dishonesty and reliance on charlatans outmatches real science, you must live in a different universe to mine. Lol.
tbone8
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 10:58:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 1:38:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/31/2015 11:36:49 PM, tbone8 wrote:
5. Man made global warming is a theory (hoax) without a shred of evidence.

TBone, I understand that you don't want to believe in climate change, and that you've found evidence you think refutes such claims.

You doubtless also know that such evidence is easy to find, because it has been placed for you to find. Normally, you'd have to dig hard to get hold of scientific data, and interpreting it would be difficult, but not in this case, yes? Yours is a view that some interests and publishers would like you to have, and all the arguments you've recited are ones that others have made before you.

So, given that it's easy to find information and arguments you normally couldn't find, do you believe that:

1) you have sourced the best information available?
2) you have independently researched the evidence, methods, authorities and opinion, and scrutinised it carefully?
3) you are competent enough and objective enough to undertake such scrutiny without expert assistance?
4) anyone on this forum should value your judgement?
5) you are accountable to other members for the judgement you've formed?

Why or why not?

You actually have it wrong, climate change is real. Its been happening for billions of years. The term "climate change" is an absurd term for an absurd theory. Your GW alarmists would have you believe that the slightest change in temperature, CO2, what have ya will damage our fragile planet, nothing could be further from the truth. If our planet didn't have the ability to self adjust, life would have been terminated long, long ago.
As far as addressing your 5 points, IF, you were to apply that same criteria to the GW theory (and it is, just a theory) this GW nonsense would easily be debunked. Read about the Vostok ice core studies. It gives a detailed climate time capsule for the past 450,000 years. It clearly shows we have had much higher temperatures, much higher CO2 levels and greater temperature increases over time. That one study alone should be enough to makes things crystal clear.
What one needs to understand, is that GW is a multi billion dollar industry and people are making a lot of money off this, that is a fact. This explains why NOAA has been caught multiple times adjusting temperature data to fit the hoax. Mike Brakey, an engineering physicist and heat transfer specialist said this about NOAA:

" It appears NOAA panicked and did a massive rewrite of Maine temperature history (they used the same algorithm for U.S. in general). The new official temperatures from Maine between 1895 and present were LOWERED by an accumulated 151.2"F between 1895 and 2012.
In my opinion, this is out-and-out fraud. Why did they corrupt national climate data? Global warming is a $27 billion business on an annual basis in the U.S alone.
Now NOAA data revised in 2015 indicate that 1904, 1919 and 1925 in Maine were much colder than anything we experience today. (See the scorecard above comparing the NOAA data that are 18 months apart). Note how for 1913 the NOAA lowered the annual temperature a whole 4"F!
For the balance of the years, as they get closer to the present, the NOAA tweaks less and less. They have corrupted Maine climate data between 1895 and present by a whopping accumulated 151.2"F."


In science, all theories and thought to be known facts are routinely challenged, studied and often revised. That is what science is, it's not done by a vote or consensus. There are countless examples of this from disproving the earth was flat to the discovery of plutonium. With GW there should be a healthy debate. Instead, folks that disagree are spun as having low IQ's, shill's for big oil, etc. If one is so confident in their scientific expertise on this issue, why is there such venom in some of the posts?
I appreciate your well thought out questions and comments. Seek, and ye shall find. When you do a little digging, research and study, you will begin to understand the scope of this fraud. It will also be a lesson on how things work in the world today, power and money. Follow the money and see who stands to gain from this.
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 11:13:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Stanford researchers' calculations reveal higher-than-expected global economic cost of climate change

http://news.stanford.edu...

A new study published in the journal Nature shows that the global economy will take a harder hit from rising temperatures than previously thought, with incomes falling in most countries by the year 2100 if climate change continues unchecked. Rich countries may experience a brief economic uptick, but growth will drop off sharply after temperatures pass a critical heat threshold.
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 11:16:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Abrupt changes in food chains predicted as Southern Ocean acidifies fast: study

http://www.smh.com.au...

The Southern Ocean is acidifying at such a rate because of rising carbon dioxide emissions that large regions may be inhospitable for key organisms in the food chain to survive as soon as 2030, new US research has found.

Tiny pteropods, snail-like creatures that play an important role in the food web, will lose their ability to form shells as oceans absorb more of the CO2 from the atmosphere, a process already observed over short periods in areas close to the Antarctic coast.
Ocean acidification is often dubbed the "evil twin" of climate change. As CO2 levels rise, more of it is absorbed by seawater, resulting in a lower pH level and reduced carbonate ion concentration. Marine organisms with skeletons and shells then struggle to develop and maintain their structures.
dee-em
Posts: 6,476
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 11:31:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 11:08:12 PM, tbone8 wrote:
A nice 5 min video interview with the father of climatology, Prof. Reid Bryson.

Reid Bryson: Stranded on the far side of the climate change paradigm shift

http://www.dailykos.com...

This seems to describe what has happened to Bryson. I prefer to remember him as a great teacher who was one of the people who first made me aware of the fragility of our planet's environment and how easily its delicate balance can be disturbed. It saddens me to see his reputation as "dean of U.S. climatologists" exploited by know-nothing global warming opponents.