Climate Change? (Bonus: George Carlin Comments) lol


#61

There are thousands of “sources” for this. Look 'em up yourself.

Your “chart” at the bottom is TITLED “Estimate”… Don’t you read your OWN posts?


#62

Like you said, you are entitled to your opinion, but if you posted to make an argument, you need to do your own work and cite your own evidence. I’m not convincing myself of your position, that’s your job.

Because there is a window of uncertainty when analyzing the data. Sort of like the cone of uncertainty when predicting the path of a hurricane. It is an estimate within the “cone of uncertainty”.


#63

In other words, it’s a guess. Yet you members of the Church of “Climate Change” think of them as FACTUAL and denigrate those of us who just don’t buy “guesses” as FACTS, and that’s ALL that this “global warming” hoopla has been about from the outset. GUESSES.


#64

Do you think that what meteorologists do when predicting the path of a hurricane? It’s just a guess? They have no idea, they put these up and hope they are right?

Those are just guesses based on nothing?

Wow, this was pretty accurate considering it was just a guess.

No, they aren’t guesses, they are known, like the prediction of hurricanes using predictable elements of the natural world with a known predictable deviation. That’s not a guess.

Hurricanes are harder to predict than past conditions on the earth are to figure out given the information is locked in ice, trees, rocks, and other methods…


#65

No, that’s wrong again! The CO2 exhaled by living creature is the same amount than the plants (they eat) had taken up before. If animals would not eat the plants, plants would rot and release the same amount of CO2 (by decomposing) they had taken up before. So the net effect of all living creature is about zero!

Example
Corn consists of carbohydrate (C-Atoms + H-Atoms). If you (or an animal) would eat and digest corn you would exhale CO2. But this is the same amount of CO2 cereals had taken up before.
You can not exhale a single carbon atom into the atmosphere that wasn’t taken up by a (corn-) plant from the atmosphere before. So the net effect of all living creature is about zero!

That there are other sources of CO2 like volcanism does not refute that humans are involved too.

I alleged: “You say that global warming is caused by men.” And you deny it.
Why do you? You claim CO2, argon and vapor are greenhouse gases and we know that human emit CO2.

Which point did I miss?


#66

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 vapor varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapor 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.

Said another way:

It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.

Simply put, more CO2 in a system where other variables stay the same means more water vapor. Conversely, less CO2 means less water vapor.


#67

Don’t forget that, like the food balance you spoke of, volcano’s addCO2 they also cause cooling in the particulates that block shortwave radiation of the sun back into space causing short-term cooling. The other fact about Volcanos, they emit a tiny fraction of the CO2 that burning fossil fuels emit. We know this because scientists have sampled the CO2 of 33 volcanos and taken into account other sources of outgassing from the ocean bottom, volcanic lakes etc…

Visual Comparison. On the left volcanic activity (low and high estimates) and on the right human activity.


#68

LOL. Warming means it gets warmer? What idiocy is that? Fact: Water vapor in the atmosphere IS the greatest volume of “greenhouse gasses.” Fact: CO2 is being CONSTANTLY reduced BY green vegetation which uses it for photosynthesis–including oceanic plankton, by the way. Fact: Vulcanism is in NO WAY the responsibility of human activity. 2000 years ago, one of the major problems faced by Rome was how to get rid of all that black, gunky stuff that kept bubbling up in various parts of their empire…CRUDE OIL.


#69

No, (assuming ceteris paribus) increasing CO2 increases the temperature, which in turn (as a consequence) increases water vapor. Decreasing CO2 decreases temp and decreases water vapor.

And the amount of water vapor is the result of temperature which is affected by (among other things) the quantity of CO2. In other words. removing water vapor from the atmosphere, were it possible, wouldn’t change anything as water would just evaporate and take its place, but if it were possible to lower concentrations of CO2, the amount of water vapor would decrease (again, assuming ceteris paribus)

Sure, but more CO2 doesn’t mean plants and plankton will respond by consuming proportionally more. There is a belief (I’ll source it if you’d like) that shows that rainforest growth is slowing as the temperature is rising.

Not sure why you put this in here. Volcanoes, by volume, produce a tiny fraction of the amount of CO2 humans create. There would have to be a Mt. St. Helens and Mt Pinatubo eruption every day to equal the amount of CO2 humans create via the burning of fossil fuels.

Neat trivia, but I’m not sure how that’s relevant?


#70

Evaporation is not driven ONLY by heat. Ever noticed that ice cubes left in your freezer SHRINK in size? It’s called sublimation and “evaporation” takes place in the absence of “heat.”

Insofar as volcanism is concerned, we only have YOUR word about how much CO2 eruptions produce, based on “studies” by the SAME “scientists” who claim burning fossil fuels are causing non-existent “Global Warming.” It’s a matter of adjusting the “studies” to reflect their pre-conceived notions by fiddling with the “data.” They’ve been CAUGHT numerous times doing that very thing…fudging the numbers. The end result is: Global Warming is (and always was) a gigantic hoax.

BTW, the coldest temperature ever recorded on the Earth’s surface occurred within the past DECADE!


#71

Oh, really?


#72

Yep…


#73

First, who said that evaporation only occurs in the presence of heat? But what does sublimation have to do with anything in the context of this conversation?

How does your reply refute what I said?

And can you prove that?

It’s not my word, there are actual papers with the measurements, I don’t always post sources for you because I doubt you’d read them and if you did read them, you’d dismiss them out of hand like you do a lot of other things. For example, AS soundly proved you wrong, repeatedly with respect to the fact that we’ve known the world was round since the Greeks. He explained why, gave links to methods and even produced some of the original writings and you steadfastly refused to believe something that so well understood and accepted.

You’re confusing weather with climate. In some isolated incidents warmer global temps can change weather patterns so areas experience colder than normal temps. Science can explain this too.


#74

But “global warming” can’t explain it.
I KNOW there’s a difference between “climate” and “weather.” Apparently members of the church of global warming can’t however.


#75

But Dave, that isn’t the point.

The globe is getting Warmer, there’s no room to deny it. Water levels are close to a meter higher than they were a century ago, Alaska now has consistent access to the North West passage because of it, and Australia, on the other side of the world, is reporting the same trends we are.

There’s no harm in admitting that the planet has gotten warmer; you’re fighting the wrong battle.


#76

The “battle” I’m fighting is the hoax that anything happening world-wide HAS to be the responsibility of humans–especially the humans in the U.S. NOBODY in most of the rest of the world stopped using CFCs for refrigeration, except us. For awhile, THE most smuggled substance brought into the US (other than cocaine) was FREON, meaning that it was available elsewhere, despite government edicts against it here. It’s replacement is more expensive (and less efficient) than Freon was. Why? No one EVER proved that Freon had ever “destroyed” a single Ozone molecule anywhere. Certainly not under lab conditions. The same hoaxes were tried with nitrites, cyclamates, Oestra, “acid rain,” the lumber industry, Alar etc. etc. etc. All where eventually shown to be pure BS,


#77

We know it is, because :

  1. The Isotope of Carbon being released.
    Isotopes are defined by the number of neutrons in an atom.

Carbon-13 is what the atmosphere typically has, but the lighter Carbon-12 is what were finding larger and larger percentage of in the composition-- the carbon trapped in mummified plant matter, put there by us burning it.

  1. The rate of the temperature increase.
    Again, we have been this hot before, but the temperature has never increased this quickly. You usually get a 1 degree increase (or decrease) across 4 or 5 centuries, not just one and a half.

  2. Where in atmosphere the temperature increase is occurring.
    Most of the warming is occurring in the lower segments of the atmosphere. If this were a case of, say, the Sun protracting our warming, we should see the Thermosphere and Mesosphere getting warmer ahead of the lower layers, but instead, we see the reverse.

Aerosols actually cool the Earth (so do airplanes by the way). A hole in Ozone is a separate problem from the greenhouse effect.

So Dave? It’s not bad at all to admit that we’re contributing to this. That’s still the wrong battle.

Bjorn Lomborg, I’d recommend, offers guidance as to the real battle we face in counteracting the extreme environmentalists, and the socialists who ride on their coattails.


#78

You are just pretending that you are an expert. But you don’t have a deeper understanding.
Your argumentation strategy is to bring in irrelevant data that have nothing to do with the actual issue (and which are partially wrong). Examples:

a This has nothing to do with CO2’s warming effect.

b That fact that volcanoes emit CO2 does not refute that humans are involved too.

b You yourself said: Amount of vapor is constant. So it does not influence temperature changes. But CO2 does because its amount is changing.

d Do know that every plant is emitting the same amount of CO2 when it rots and decomposes then it took up form the atmosphere in its whole lifetime? Plants do NOT have a CO2 reducing NET effect.

Another problem is that you accept science if it supports your positions but you reject it, if it supports opposite standpoints:

vs.

AND

vs.

So we should rely on your word?

Then you are making a lot of logical errors:

This proves that you really have no idea what you are actually taking about.
The amount of Oxygen is always the same: It can occur in pure form OXYGEN or as part of CO2 (the O2 in CO2 means OXYGEN). So if there is more CO2 there can’t be more OXYGEN at the same time. Oh my God…
AND
Remember the logic error regarding the CO2 ratio, we discussed recently.

And in general you are not fully aware of your own positions:
You claim CO2, argon and vapor are greenhouse gases. O.K. good. But at the same time you say that global warming is NOT caused by men although we know that men emit CO2.


#79

You can’t POSSIBLY be as ignorant as this post indicates…then again, maybe you can. CO2 consists of one Carbon atom united with 2 oxygen atoms. By YOUR “logic” then, breathing CO2 should be fine because you’re getting 2 oxygen atoms with every CO2 molecule. The TRUTH is, however, that breathing CO2 will KILL YOU, assuming that you don’t inhale oxygen in it’s pure form at the same time. Don’t believe it? Remove all the air from a sealed chamber and then fill it with CO2. Now, walk into that chamber and shut the door. In about 30 seconds, you’ll be dead as the proverbial mackerel.

Argon, methane, CO2 and WATER vapor are considered “greenhouse gasses.” They also include trace amounts of xenon and radon and even CFCs in the atmosphere. All of these are NATURAL components of Earth’s atmosphere and have been present in it for billions of years. CFC’s, by the way, ARE “natural” in that they are also spewed into the atmosphere by volcanic eruptions. Ever hear of Mt. Erebus? Look it up.


#80

So now you are teaching me, what I told YOU before? Why are you doing this? To disguise your own logic error?
I said in my last post: “Oxygen can occur in pure form OXYGEN or as part of CO2 (the O2 in CO2 means OXYGEN).” I think it is clear that I meant 2 oxygen atoms.

What are you talking about?

You always accuse me of saying things I never said.
When did I say that breathing pure CO2 will be fine?
Why are you pretending that I would not know that pure CO2 will kill you?


I spotlighted that there is a contradiction when:
You claim that CO2, argon and vapor are greenhouse gases - and at the same time say that global warming is NOT caused by men although we know that men emit CO2.

Your response to this is:

So now you are telling me irrelevant facts that have nothing to do with the actual topic – just to disguise your contradiction? I’ve got your number, man…