posted May 12, 2010 12:37 PM            

What, are you nuts? You can't even read plain english.

Your own source already proved my points...that CO2 does not because it cannot trigger global warming since it lags temperature changes by up to 3000 years.

See acoustic. I know you can't read and comprehend english even a 10 year old would understand. You continue to be irrational, illogical and unreasonable in bitterly clinging to the religious hoax of man made global warming.

posted May 12, 2010 01:11 PM            

It does at least occur to you that you're not posting a thing that proves your point.

My source did NOT prove your point. My source, in fact, proved the opposite as I've pointed out. All science disproves your point. The lag does NOT indicate that CO2 doesn't enhance any warming that is going on.

quote:

---

You continue to be irrational, illogical and unreasonable in bitterly clinging to the religious hoax of man made global warming.

---

This looks like a rather plainly foolish thing for someone in your position to say. It's irrational and illogical to be completely UNABLE to prove your point using any of the myriad of scientific data available. "Bitterly clinging" can only describe the person that is denying science in preference of what can only be deemed ignorance. "Bitterly clinging" can only describe a person that has continually posted over the course of years utterly unscientific garbage as an attempt to disprove global warming. Everyone else has moved on with their understanding that the science is, in fact, settled.

quote:

---

But rising temperatures CAUSE rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Rising levels of CO2 DO NOT cause rising temperatures.

---

posted May 13, 2010 08:55 AM            

As a greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is 3.6% of total greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Of that 3.6%, the man made portion is 3.2%.

Of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the man made portion of CO2 is only 0.12%.

Further, both water vapor and methane..the other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere...are much more effective trappers of heat...being about 25 times more effective heat trappers than C02.

So, CO2 is not contributing to warming, not now, not in the past and it will not in the future.

Further, the man made portion of CO2 is so miniscule as to be statistically insignificant at only 0.12% in the atmosphere.

But, the civilazation destroyers on the left chose CO2 because they can't go after water vapor or mentane..and CO2 is tied to the burning of fossil fuels which is the engine of civilization and advancement of the human condition which leftists hate most of all.

Of course, don't expect these sniveling civilazation destroying hypocrites to cut back on their own carbon footprints. And, don't expect them to even act like they believe their own bullshiiit.

Algore says the oceans will rise 20 feet...yet Algore just bought a $9,000,000 house at the BEACH.

Algore also owns a personal jet...a G-2 in which he flies all over the world to harrange others about their carbon footprint. What a hypocrite. And that doesn't count his mansion in Tennessee which uses 20 times the electricity as the average home in America.

You lose acoustic. You never had a chance because of your fanatical belief in the fraud of man made global warming which can't be supported by scientific evidence.

We are supposed to believe that the 0.12% of man made contributions to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are going to warm the earth and destroy life on earth.

posted May 13, 2010 09:47 AM            

What day are we on now...of you denying science, and not bringing anything scientific to the table? Seriously.

Talking/Pretending that you know something about the science without a single link to any expert's corroborating work doesn't cut it. You've been asked to PROVE yourself, and you've failed at it repeatedly.

And even you must know what a line of bs that bit about going after oil is.

posted May 13, 2010 12:31 PM            

Of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the man made portion of CO2 is only 0.12%

this doesn't compute...can you explain it so it does?

and do you think carbon is the only villain in the piece on either side? how much water vapor does a big jet eject into the atmosphere as it contrails along?

posted May 13, 2010 01:50 PM            

That 3.2% of the man made CO2 content in the atmosphere represents only 0.12% of the total "greenhouse gasses"...which includes 96% water vapor and about..roughly 1% methane.

Now acoustic, you must be a fanatic to believe a theory which is disproved in numerous ways. To simply quote Algore or some self serving crackpots who are lined up at the government trough to get climate research money says everything which needs to be known about you. Lack of reasoning ability is at the top of that list.

So and so says....is not an argument. I notice you haven't put forth ANY argument of your own for why the crackpots are right.

posted May 13, 2010 03:31 PM            

quote:

---

To simply quote Algore or some self serving crackpots who are lined up at the government trough to get climate research money says everything which needs to be known about you.

---

Talk about "lack of reasoning."

Once again (how many times is this?), I remind you that you haven't brought any scientist to the table government paid or otherwise that agrees with your position. Government-funded and university-funded scientists trump lack of scientists always.

quote:

---

So and so says....is not an argument. I notice you haven't put forth ANY argument of your own for why the crackpots are right.

---

That's true. Logic dictates finding out what the experts have to say on the subject. They've spent their careers studying this subject. Far more than either you or I. No one should pay your belief an ounce of attention if it contradicts what the scientists at the forefront of the science say.

quote:

---

Do you have an argument of your own acoustic or is your argument going to continue to be...so and so says?

---

Absolutely!

Maybe this will help you understand your position versus my position.

We are in a restaurant, and we're both servers. The climate is the items on the menu. When customers (our audience) ask you questions about the menu, based on your performance here, you just make stuff up. When they ask me about what's on the menu, I bring out the people that actually prepared the food. They are infinitely more versed on the subject than either of us could be, because we don't live in their world. Understand?

posted May 13, 2010 10:14 PM            

I ask you if you have any arguments of your own to substantiate your religious belief in man made global warming...AND...

you talk about restaurants.

Is there any intelligent life on the left?

posted May 13, 2010 11:13 PM            

That's really weird, because I keep insisting you find some science, while you keep believing that an unfounded belief or opinion trumps science. Sounds to me like you're the religious one.

You'd be better served being embarrassed for yourself for your lack of rational argument or scientific evidence.

posted May 14, 2010 08:19 AM            

I know acoustic MUST have a favorite argument, his very own argument, in his very own words as to why man made global warming is going to turn earth into a burned out cinder and exterminate all life on earth.

I know acoustic MUST have a favorite argument he could make on the subject...but, I haven't seen it.

posted May 14, 2010 09:58 AM            

Which part do you not understand?

AND I've gotta point out how utterly ridiculous this notion of me not being able to find an argument is. Everyone, and I mean everyone knows that virtually all of your political opinions including your opinion on global warming come not from yourself, but from something you read. Typically from something you read wrong, or that was factually incorrect in the first place. I've noted several times in this thread your unwillingness to post where you got your opinion from, because it's obviously NOT from any credible scientific source.

Logic always wins jwhop.

You failed on the science.
You failed with the links to scientific work and people.
You failed in making a rational argument that hasn't already been scrutinized and disproven.

The picture of your rather ill-conceived notion is crystal clear. No amount of trying to make this about me is going to change the reality of what's taking place in this thread.

posted May 14, 2010 10:17 AM            

I suspect you don't know enough about CO2, greenhouse gasses in general, Sunspot activity as the regulator of climate and earth's climate history to even begin to form a rational, logical argument about earth's climate...or changes thereto.

posted May 14, 2010 11:13 AM            

Yes, I'll continue to use experts in the field to make all relevant points whether they're from RealClimate, Pew, NASA, NOAA, NAS, University of East Anglia, etc. The fact that you can't use any of these sources is damning to the pathetic notion which is your "argument".

quote:

---

I suspect you don't know enough about CO2, greenhouse gasses in general, Sunspot activity as the regulator of climate and earth's climate history to even begin to form a rational, logical argument about earth's climate...or changes thereto.

---

That IS funny, because I suspect the same of you...and based on what the experts say, my suspicion of your lack of knowledge seems quite well founded.

quote:

---

However acoustic, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and wait right here, (patiently) for you to tell me HOW and WHEN CO2 is going to turn Earth into a burned out cinder and exterminate all life on Earth.

---

You need not wait on me, Jwhop. I've already shown you where you can find all the information you need.

Once again, logic is the name of the game, Jwhop. If you can't disprove global warming/climate change, then you're the one with nothing.

posted May 14, 2010 11:39 AM            

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/causes.htm#solarcause
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_04.php
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SORCE/sorce_05.php

posted May 14, 2010 02:05 PM            

I'm still waiting, (patiently), for you to put forth your favorite argument for why the 3.2% which is the man made component of CO2 is going to turn the Earth into a burned out cinder and exterminate all life on earth.

While you're working on your favorite argument acoustic, perhaps you'll think of a reason why the 96% of all greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.."water vapor" and the 3.6% of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere..CO2 of which only 3.2% of that 3.6% have a human connection ARE NOT the cause of global warming...but the 3.2% of human contribution of the 3.6% CO2 in the atmosphere IS going to destroy the earth.

Perhaps you'll also find a way to explain why the man made contribution of total greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere...which is 0.12% of the total IS the component which is going to destroy the earth.

posted May 14, 2010 03:07 PM            

quote:

---

Posting more blither, blather and bloviation from realclimate and other ministers of the fanatical religion of man made global warming IS YOUR argument acoustic? More realclimate says...

---

Do I need to repeat myself?

Anti-science = religious = you
Anti-science = your argument

Yes, more Real Climate says. They're actually scientists in the field. And you? What are you exactly?

quote:

---

I'm still waiting, (patiently), for you to put forth your favorite argument for why the 3.2% which is the man made component of CO2 is going to turn the Earth into a burned out cinder and exterminate all life on earth.

---

I've already posted plenty of places for you to find information about global warming. I'm still waiting for you to go there, and understand what you're reading.

quote:

---

While you're working on your favorite argument acoustic, perhaps you'll think of a reason why the 96% of all greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.."water vapor" and the 3.6% of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere..CO2 of which only 3.2% of that 3.6% have a human connection ARE NOT the cause of global warming...but the 3.2% of human contribution of the 3.6% CO2 in the atmosphere IS going to destroy the earth.

---

quote:

---

Still standing by.."patiently" for you to explain your favorite argument for man made global warming.

---

posted May 14, 2010 03:26 PM            

Knock yourself out.

Greenhouse Gases

Human activities result in emissions of four principal greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and the halocarbons (a group of gases containing fluorine, chlorine and bromine). These gases accumulate in the atmosphere, causing concentrations to increase with time. Significant increases in all of these gases have occurred in the industrial era (see Figure 1). All of these increases are attributable to human activities.

Carbon dioxide has increased from fossil fuel use in transportation, building heating and cooling and the manufacture of cement and other goods. Deforestation releases CO2 and reduces its uptake by plants. Carbon dioxide is also released in natural processes such as the decay of plant matter.

Methane has increased as a result of human activities related to agriculture, natural gas distribution and landfills. Methane is also released from natural processes that occur, for example, in wetlands. Methane concentrations are not currently increasing in the atmosphere because growth rates decreased over the last two decades.

Nitrous oxide is also emitted by human activities such as fertilizer use and fossil fuel burning. Natural processes in soils and the oceans also release N2O.
Halocarbon gas concentrations have increased primarily due to human activities. Natural processes are also a small source. Principal halocarbons include the chlorofluorocarbons (e.g., CFC-11 and CFC-12), which were used extensively as refrigeration agents and in other industrial processes before their presence in the atmosphere was found to cause stratospheric ozone depletion. The abundance of chlorofluorocarbon gases is decreasing as a result of international regulations designed to protect the ozone layer. Ozone is a greenhouse gas that is continually produced and destroyed in the atmosphere by chemical reactions. In the troposphere, human activities have increased ozone through the release of gases such as carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide, which chemically react to produce ozone. As mentioned above, halocarbons released by human activities destroy ozone in the stratosphere and have caused the ozone hole over Antarctica.

Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour. Indirectly, humans have the potential to affect water vapour substantially by changing climate. For example, a warmer atmosphere contains more water vapour. Human activities also influence water vapour through CH4 emissions, because CH4 undergoes chemical destruction in the stratosphere, producing a small amount of water vapour. Aerosols are small particles present in the atmosphere with widely varying size, concentration and chemical composition. Some aerosols are emitted directly into the atmosphere while others are formed from emitted compounds. Aerosols contain both naturally occurring compounds and those emitted as a result of human activities. Fossil fuel and biomass burning have increased aerosols containing sulphur compounds, organic compounds and black carbon (soot). Human activities such as surface mining and industrial processes have increased dust in the atmosphere. Natural aerosols include mineral dust released from the surface, sea salt aerosols, biogenic emissions from the land and oceans and sulphate and dust aerosols produced by volcanic eruptions.

Radiative Forcing of Factors Affected by Human Activities

The contributions to radiative forcing from some of the factors influenced by human activities are shown in Figure 2. The values reflect the total forcing relative to the start of the industrial era (about 1750). The forcings for all greenhouse gas increases, which are the best understood of those due to human activities, are positive because each gas absorbs outgoing infrared radiation in the atmosphere. Among the greenhouse gases, CO2 increases have caused the largest forcing over this period. Tropospheric ozone increases have also contributed to warming, while stratospheric ozone decreases have contributed to cooling.

Aerosol particles influence radiative forcing directly through reflection and absorption of solar and infrared radiation in the atmosphere. Some aerosols cause a positive forcing while others cause a negative forcing. The direct radiative forcing summed over all aerosol types is negative. Aerosols also cause a negative radiative forcing indirectly through the changes they cause in cloud properties.

Human activities since the industrial era have altered the nature of land cover over the globe, principally through changes in croplands, pastures and forests. They have also modified the reflective properties of ice and snow. Overall, it is likely that more solar radiation is now being reflected from Earth’s surface as a result of human activities. This change results in a negative forcing.

Aircraft produce persistent linear trails of condensation (‘contrails’) in regions that have suitably low temperatures and high humidity. Contrails are a form of cirrus cloud that reflect solar radiation and absorb infrared radiation. Linear contrails from global aircraft operations have increased Earth’s cloudiness and are estimated to cause a small positive radiative forcing.

Radiative Forcing from Natural Changes
Natural forcings arise due to solar changes and explosive volcanic eruptions. Solar output has increased gradually in the industrial era, causing a small positive radiative forcing (see Figure 2). This is in addition to the cyclic changes in solar radiation that follow an 11-year cycle. Solar energy directly heats the climate system and can also affect the atmospheric abundance of some greenhouse gases, such as stratospheric ozone. Explosive volcanic eruptions can create a short-lived (2 to 3 years) negative forcing through the temporary increases that occur in sulphate aerosol in the stratosphere. The stratosphere is currently free of volcanic aerosol, since the last major eruption was in 1991 (Mt. Pinatubo).

The differences in radiative forcing estimates between the present day and the start of the industrial era for solar irradiance changes and volcanoes are both very small compared to the differences in radiative forcing estimated to have resulted from human activities. As a result, in today’s atmosphere, the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes.

_____________________

Unfortunately, I know you can't handle reading anything remotely complex with any reasonable amount of comprehension. CO2 is not the only greehouse gas we've contributed to, but it is the one with the most effect, which is why explaining how it makes up a small amount of the entire atmosphere is a moot point. In fact, the warming caused by gases humans have contributed will contribute to increased water vapor. It's a domino effect.

posted May 14, 2010 03:51 PM            

the man made contribution of carbon dioxide which is 0.12%, (twelve hundredths of ONE percent), IS the problem which is going to destroy the earth.

I'm still waiting, patiently, to hear your very own argument.

Btw, don't attempt to pull the other very minor greenhouse gasses into your argument. They represent only .4 of total greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

posted May 14, 2010 04:10 PM            

I'm sitting here wondering to myself why I'm still posting science while you're still not. How is it that you think you've got the upper hand, when all you've provided at best is an illusion of knowing what the hell you're talking about? You're position is completely defenseless. You haven't provided any proof that human increases in greenhouse gases won't cause chaos in our climate, now have you?

quote:

---

I'm still waiting, patiently, to hear your very own argument.

---

I'm still waiting for your very own scientifically proven argument. I'm still waiting for word from your experts in the field. When exactly can I expect them?

quote:

---

Btw, don't attempt to pull the other very minor greenhouse gasses into your argument. They represent only .4 of total greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

---

By the way, don't tell me what to do, number one. Number two, you don't have an argument against CO2, so you sure as hell don't have an argument against the other greenhouse gases.

quote:

---

Time for you to getaroundtoit acoustic.

---

posted May 15, 2010 09:25 AM            

99.88% of atmospheric greenhouse gasses..which occur naturally...and which man made global warming nuts can't do anything about certainly ARE NOT a problem..if one listens to the crackpot scientists of the man made global warming religion.

However, eliminating the 0.12% of CO2 which is the man made contribution to total greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere IS the solution to the problem the crackpots attack.

acoustic, there is no intelligent life in the man made global warming movement. Pull your head out of your butt and admit:

1. The earth has been cooling since year 1998.

2. If all the man made contribution of greenhouse gas, the 0.12% of man made CO2 in the atmosphere were eliminated, it wouldn't move the temperature needle a single degree.

3. Global warming nuts have manipulated the temperature data to include only the HOT reporting stations.

4. Global warming nuts have cut all the COOLER reporting stations from their input data.

5. Global warming nuts got caught manipulating the temperature data.

6. Global warming nuts got caught manipulating their computer models.

7. Global warming nuts got caught attempting to pass off the infamous "Hockey Stick" graph as the graph of 1000 years of earth's temperature.

There are not merely mistakes acoustic. These are deliberate, intentional and wilful attempts to hoodwink the public into accepting the man made global warming religion.

No Sale.

Now acoustic, see if you can extend yourself and focus for even a moment.

If every conceivable fix was applied to the 0.12% contribution of man made atmospheric greenhouse gasses, how much could be eliminated? Yes acoustic, I said "EVERY CONCEIVABLE FIX".

OK acoustic, if "IF EVERY CONCEIVABLE FIX" was applied....

Would humanity be thrown back to a pre-industrial revolution existence?

Would humanity be thrown back to a Bronze Age existence?

Would humanity be thrown back to a Stone Age existence?

Would humanity be thrown back to the Age when man could not make FIRE?

I know this is beyond your ability to conceptualize acoustic; but, there are others here whose intellectual acuity is sufficiently developed to understand the implications of eliminating the man made contribution to atmospheric greenhouse gasses.

posted May 15, 2010 01:13 PM            

unfortunately they do not include massive profits for GE or the miners/oilmen - and some of them cannot even be neatly patented and controlled by anyone. what's a capitalist to do but withold this information?? a clean, efficient, BETTER-POWERED civilization? not ideologically correct my man, and there you have it.

posted May 15, 2010 06:22 PM            

It is a scientific fact the man made contribution to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is 0.12% of the total....that's 12/100ths of 1 (one) percent. Not even the insane global warming crackpots and hoaxers would suggest the whole 0.12% could be eliminated.

Katatonic, you keep floating these pie in the sky ideas but where is the substaniation for any of them?

Besides, Tesla's so called energy breakthrough depended on
megawatts of electricity from existing plants.

Further, there is no replacement for carbon based energy sources now or even on the horizon.

So, technology is not capable of moving America and the world forward with any other fuel source than carbon based fuels.

The two clean energy sources which are available are also fought by the global warming nuts and crackpots; hydroelectric and nuclear power plants.

There is insufficient areas in the US to generate any reliable wind powered electricity and/or solar.

Even if there were sufficient areas available, the sun doesn't shine at night and the wind doesn't blow reliably...SO there would still need to be carbon based energy used to power electricity producing power plants.

The crackpots have been exposed as frauds and hoaxers and their issue of man made global warming is exposed as a crock of crap.