Global warming discussion III

[Jrrarglblarg]

The El Niño is a large complex climate phenomenon that affects weather. It is not by itself "weather" on the localized phenomena sense of the term.

 

[aleCcowaN]

aleccowan, aleccowan.... you're unable to grasp that you brought up weather.

I was just bringing you back to reality.

No my dear Robinson, you're just in a posting spree that boils down to "neener, neener + <assorted debunked denialist trait>"

 

[Reality Check]

Does your eight year old realize we only contribute 1% of co2 maybe?

Is this the small number fallacy (a version of argument from incredibility - "the number is wee, tiny, small so cannot have any effect"), logger?

Here are some big numbers for you:
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Here's more truth for the foolish warmists!

"We are demonizing a chemical — a molecule essential to life... The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. This normal course is now taken to be evidence of doom. ‘Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have been vastly higher through most of Earth’s history."

Vastly higher? Lucky we weren't around to experience it then.

Effects of Increased CO2 levels on Adult Humans:-
- normal outdoor level: 350 - 450 ppm
- complaints of stiffness and odors: 600 - 1000 ppm
- general drowsiness: 1000 - 2500 ppm
- adverse health effects expected: 2500 - 5000 ppm
- unconscious, further exposure death: 100,000 ppm

If the current rate of increase is the 'normal course' then we can expect CO2 levels to exceed 600ppm early in the next century. Somehow I don't think future generations are going to be very happy with us...

 

[Mikemcc]

Google isn't actually using it yet. The denier cult really is dying on its feet.

Notice how much of their product is defensive, self-referential, and/or re-cycled. This is the behaviour of a cult in the process of encystment.

Citation please

It's the usual meme of 'our output is tiny compared to the output from natural sources', which convieniently neglects to mention the large flow into natural sinks.

Logger doesn't care that we are interested in how the equilibrium is affected and that we have increased the equilibrium value of the CO2 left in the atmosphere by approx 40%, or that we have actually added far more than that. Approx half of what we add disappears into those natural sinks.

 

[aleCcowaN]

lol
True

The People rest.

 

[macdoc]

logger face plants on his facts ( nothing new there)

. ‘Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have been vastly higher through most of Earth’s history."

Well here's 400,000 years of history never approaching where we are now at 400 ppm ....most often half.
Since Homo Sapiens is only near that figure.....our subspecies have never seen this level of CO2.

Climate Sensitivity Stunner: Last Time CO2 Levels Hit 400 Parts Per Million The Arctic Was 14°F Warmer!
BY JOE ROMM POSTED ON MAY 12, 2013 AT 12:00 PM

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...-parts-per-million-the-arctic-was-14f-warmer/

How long are you going to channel Alfred E with the "What me worry" schtick ?

 

[aleCcowaN]

It's summer in the southern hemisphere, ergo winter in the northern hemisphere can't possibly exist and the axial tilt theory of seasonal variation is falsified.

QED, bitches!

The seasons don't exist. It's just weather ... and the YHO (Yearly Hillbillian Oscillation)

 

[CapelDodger]

If the current rate of increase is the 'normal course' ...

... then, at ~2ppm per annum, the world is only ~200 years old if it started with zero CO₂ - which it can't have done because the first plants would have had nothing to live on. It's all very confusing ...

 

[aleCcowaN]

Where's bishop Ussher when one needs him?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

A closed system, lol. A few decent volcano eruptions throws your closed system into a tail spin.

This shows you have no concept of the carbon as being part of a cycle. As CO2 has increased, so does the sequestration to take up the excess. Primarily in the ocean and in terrestrial soils. That's how it should work.

But low and behold, what has mankind done? Dramatic harm the ocean ecosystems with pollution, reef deterioration and over fishing....and terrestrial ecosystems? Even worse! Massive world wide destruction of the terrestrial ecosystems responsible for sequestering carbon. Those cornfields and wheat fields as far as the eyes can see may look pretty and green, but they are not functioning as a carbon sink. That land used to be a buffer, but no longer is. Further many wetlands all over the world have been drained, or are dying due to other factors like pollution. Add even a relatively small % of fossil fuel CO2 (or from a volcano) to this now largely non functioning biosystem and easy to see why CO2 levels are rising steadily. AND it is OUR doing. Since we did it, it is our responsibility to fix it. Really is as simple as that.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by logger View Post
A closed system, lol. A few decent volcano eruptions throws your closed system into a tail spin.

wow - you have a very flawed concept of what volcanos do or don't do.

Do try and learn something about climage science if you are going to participate in a science forum

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by logger View Post
Human activity is what accounts for practically nothing and your whole hoax is based on that.

and some even larger numbers..

Global Warming at 4 Hiroshima Atomic Bombs Per Second
https://4hiroshimas.com/

Our climate is absorbing a lot of heat. When scientists add up all of the heat warming the oceans, land, and atmosphere and melting the ice, they find our climate is accumulating 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs worth of heat every second.

This warming is due to more heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels means we are emitting billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This is the main contributor to global warming.

Our climate has accumulated
2,203,356,492
Hiroshima atomic bombs
of heat since 1998.

you can watch them accumulate

http://sks.to/heat

https://4hiroshimas.com

Your argument of no human impact is factually incorrect.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

This shows you have no concept of the carbon as being part of a cycle. As CO2 has increased, so does the sequestration to take up the excess. Primarily in the ocean and in terrestrial soils. That's how it should work.

But low and behold, what has mankind done? Dramatic harm the ocean ecosystems with pollution, reef deterioration and over fishing....and terrestrial ecosystems? Even worse! Massive world wide destruction of the terrestrial ecosystems responsible for sequestering carbon. Those cornfields and wheat fields as far as the eyes can see may look pretty and green, but they are not functioning as a carbon sink. That land used to be a buffer, but no longer is. Further many wetlands all over the world have been drained, or are dying due to other factors like pollution. Add even a relatively small % of fossil fuel CO2 (or from a volcano) to this now largely non functioning biosystem and easy to see why CO2 levels are rising steadily. AND it is OUR doing. Since we did it, it is our responsibility to fix it. Really is as simple as that.

Noooo!!!!

Don't you watch Fox News?

CO2 is just an itsy-bitsy little molecule. We have nothing to fear from it.

ISIS and Ebola and Liberals are what we need to fear!

 

[Arnold Martin]

.

-- Blind River , Ontario Canada , population 3549 , had been paying attention to provincial initiatives to encourage green energy

-- The town already had its own small hydro dam and a wind turbine

-- they took out a $49.5-million loan to build a massive solar farm that would create jobs – much needed in the area – and give its people low-cost, renewable and clean energy. All very admirable.

-- they also invested $18-million in another green energy initiative – an ambitious plan to turn the city of Ottawa’s garbage into energy.

-- what could possibly go wrong ?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-plans-fall-apart/article23347503/?cmpid=rss1


.

 

[tsig]

.

-- Blind River , Ontario Canada , population 3549 , had been paying attention to provincial initiatives to encourage green energy

-- The town already had its own small hydro dam and a wind turbine

-- they took out a $49.5-million loan to build a massive solar farm that would create jobs – much needed in the area – and give its people low-cost, renewable and clean energy. All very admirable.

-- they also invested $18-million in another green energy initiative – an ambitious plan to turn the city of Ottawa’s garbage into energy.

-- what could possibly go wrong ?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-plans-fall-apart/article23347503/?cmpid=rss1


.

Small town makes bad decisions, thereby refuting climate change?

 

[Arnold Martin]

.

Whats with Switzerland lately ??

Once considered some of the clearest thinking people in the world .... 92% of Swiss voters have rejected the Carbon Tax referendum and only a meager 8% supported it

http://www.thegwpf.com/92-of-swiss-voters-reject-carbon-tax-in-referendum/

Propaganda just doesn't go as far as it used to .... or maybe The Koch Bros & Exxon managed to pay off 92% of the voters

How can this be ?

 

[aleCcowaN]

.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-plans-fall-apart/article23347503/?cmpid=rss1


.

I can link here half a dozen equally disturbing stories which are very similar, and they concern hydro, nuclear, coal, wind, oil and gas.

For instance, one of them in my country involving coal end up having an ecological twist as some coal shipped ended in the bottom of the Pacific Ocean (and not by accident) instead of being burned.

Those stories only show that politicians, business people and similar breeds are alike all around the world. And it also shows you not only lack arguments regarding AGW but also you don't have the faintest idea what a proper argument regarding AGW looks like.

 

[Arnold Martin]

Small town makes bad decisions, thereby refuting climate change?

.


Good point .... I bet if it had been big towns or big cities , or big countries , or big governments the outcome would have been different

The planet would feel so intimidated by now we would likely see a pause in the warming trends.

We need big government to get even bigger and all our problems would magically disappear

And if the big big governments would simply follow the reports for Policy Makers handed out by the united Nations we could live in a cool paradise

Just ask them if they agree , I am sure they will not deny it.

.


.

 

[beelzebub]

Arnold Martin,

So some investment goes south..............Therefore AGW is false!
So some voters vote..............................Therefore AGW is false!
Big government is bad (in your opinion)...Therefore AGW is false!
My cup of tea has gone cold!! oh noes!!!..Therefore AGW is false!

Hmmm...