Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) We are talking about sharp drops in temperature despite climbing C02 levels. C02 didn't even act as a buffer in the dropping temps or we would have seen a bell curve. It simply is a minor player in climate. The only response that I have received from you guys on this fact is pure silence...chirp, chirp...chirp, chirp.I agree with 100%. I have even admitted in this very thread at least 2 times that CO2 can increase temps. I also said that it is a very negligible in the amount it increases. Because as we have learned and what you sated is "C02 didn't even act as a buffer in the dropping temps or we would have seen a bell curve. It simply is a minor player in climate". This whole thing is so over blown it really is pathetic. Edited April 13, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) I agree with 100%. I have even admitted in this very thread at least 2 times that CO2 can increase temps. I also said that it is a very negligible amount CFR About 80 million years ago the Earth was much warmer than it is today, but the sun was 4% weaker. How do you explain that? In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming, how do you explain that? Edited April 13, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
thesometimesaint Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) I agree with 100%. I have even admitted in this very thread at least 2 times that CO2 can increase temps. I also said that it is a very negligible in the amount it increases. Because as we have learned and what you sated is "C02 didn't even act as a buffer in the dropping temps or we would have seen a bell curve. It simply is a minor player in climate". This whole thing is so over blown it really is pathetic. SEE SEE Edited April 13, 2015 by thesometimesaint
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) SEE Edited April 13, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Zakuska Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 Absolutely incorrect.SEE http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108As nofear correctly noted the summary of your own article comes to a different conclusion than you do. CROPS. Ie A bunch of the same plant growing in a certain geographical area together do better under excess CO2. Than even the same plants growing together with a bunch of different plantS because of competition. You'd better read the conclusions of your source text a little more carefully in the future. 1
Zakuska Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 How did dino release more CO2 than burning fossil fuels? Yes, dino probably did contribute to the rise of CO2, but they were not the primary cause. Thanks for admitting that an increase in CO2 causes warming. Deglaciation was the result of warming caused by orbital cycles, which released more CO2, which caused the global temperatures to rise. Localised warming (increased insolation in the south) spread across the globe. So yes, you have a lot to disagree with the graph. CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone. CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet. So never mind? Here is another graph that proves CO2 (not the sun) today is causing the planet to get warmer. It is true that the acceleration of the surface temp has slowed down, but the planet as a whole keep getting warmer very fast. Why would I deny the greehouse effect? Even the mythbusters proved co2 and other gases act like a cozy blanket.What I deny is all the sky is falling al gore groupies running around claiming the heat is a bad thing. Its like they are anti-irish or something. I thiught green was good? 1
Zakuska Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 Thinking back to the botany classes I took low these many years ago. Yes slight increases in CO2 concentration do lead to greater biomass. Unfortunately later studies have pointed out that with that greater biomass also comes greater water use, and less uptake of essential minerals. A roughly analogous in animals would be a slight uptick in calories from added sugar does give a bigger biomass, but at the expense of other needed water, vitamins, minerals, and such.and yet theses aren't the conclusions echoed in your linked article. Which is the latest if your not mistaken. They show LESS water use AND more Biomass under elevated co2.
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 Why would I deny the greehouse effect? Even the mythbusters proved co2 and other gases act like a cozy blanket.What I deny is all the sky is falling al gore groupies running around claiming the heat is a bad thing. Its like they are anti-irish or something. I thiught green was good? I am glad you watch the mythbusters. Al gore is not important to the topic, I am not an apocalypse alarmist. GW is not going to destroy the world, it will even cause some benefits, but unfortunately there will be far more consequences than benefits. The consequences will be very serious http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earths-five-mass-extinction-events.html
Zakuska Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 The consequences will be very serious. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earths-five-mass-extinction-events.html I would add a disclaimer. Unless mitigated with enginuity. Lets not build million dollar homes on sanddunes. let build them on bedrock.
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 Why would I deny the greehouse effect? Even the mythbusters proved co2 and other gases act like a cozy blanket. So do you still agree with the graph?
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 Dr. Richard Alley one of the world's best climate scientists there is is a republican. What a great video, but many are going to say that it is a hoax
thesometimesaint Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 I know. I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't a political issue.
ERayR Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 I know. I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't a political issue. You seem to have forgotten the 1970's scientific consensus that we were entering a new ice age and all the catastrophes that was going to bring. http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 You seem to have forgotten the 1970's scientific consensus that we were entering a new ice age and all the catastrophes that was going to bring. http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htmAs far as I have seen it has always been political. We are killing the planet, (too hot or too cold) Better raise your taxes. Raising taxes is not a solution to almost all problems.
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) please read the papers Edited April 14, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) You seem to have forgotten the 1970's scientific consensus that we were entering a new ice age and all the catastrophes that was going to bring. The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.Here is a list of scientific papers Global Air Pollution and Climate Change (Kellogg & Schneider, 1978)Planetary Radiation Balance as a Function of Atmospheric Dust: Climatological Consequences (Idso 1977)Climate and energy: A scenario to a 21st century problem (Flohn, 1977)Economic Growth and Climate: The Carbon Dioxide Problem (Nordhaus 1977)Energy and Climate: Studies in Geophysics (NAS 1977)On present-day climatic changes (Budyko 1977)An Overview of Climatic Variability and Its Causal Mechanisms (Mitchell 1976)Global Cooling? (Damon & Kunen, 1976)On the Carbon Dioxide-Climate Confusion (Schneider 1975)Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? (Broecker, 1975)The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the Climate of a General Circulation Model (Manabe 1975)The natural breakdown of the present interglacial and its possible intervention by human activities (Mitchell 1972)Man-made Carbon Dioxide and the 'Greenhouse' Effect (Sawyer 1972)Mauna Loa and global trends in air quality (Machta 1972)The Effect of Atmospheric Aerosols on Climate with Special Reference to Temperature near the Earth's surface (Mitchell 1971) Edited April 14, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 Except the GW hoaxers get a fortune that could be used to do some real good. Are you saying that climate researchers are hoaxers? They use sophisticated methods, advance math, and expensive lab equipment to study the climate. Do you know who Tim Ball is? Tim Ball has been represented in the media as a climatologist, but in fact he was a professor of geography with a focus in historical climate who retired in 1996, he is not a scientific researcher. Here is a real conspiracy, see how the Tobacco institute denied that smoking causes cancer.
ERayR Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 Are you saying that climate researchers are hoaxers? They use sophisticated methods, advance math, and expensive lab equipment to study the climate. Do you know who Tim Ball is? Tim Ball has been represented in the media as a climatologist, but in fact he was a professor of geography with a focus in historical climate who retired in 1996, he is not a scientific researcher. Here is a real conspiracy, see how the Tobacco institute denied that smoking causes cancer. Of course smoking doesn't cause cancer. I once knew this old guy who smoked from age 10. He died at age 95 when his horse bucked him off and broke his neck.
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) Of course smoking doesn't cause cancer. I once knew this old guy who smoked from age 10. He died at age 95 when his horse bucked him off and broke his neck. you've got to be kidding me, why are humans so selfish? God help us and may God help the poor living in less-developed countries Edited April 14, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
ERayR Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) you've got to be kidding me, why are humans so selfish? God help us and may God help the poor living in less-developed countries Of course I was jerking your chain. What does your inane video have to do with GW? And may God save us from the well intentioned and gullible. Edited April 14, 2015 by ERayR
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) Of course I was jerking your chain. What does your inane video have to do with GW?e. You did not see the video. Please watch the video before asking, it has a lot of old video clips And may God save us from the well intentioned and gullible. I agree, but all you say is "it is an assumption" "it is an interpretation" "it is a hoax" Where is the evidence that challenges the consensus? You never answer my questions . Edited April 14, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 14, 2015 Posted April 14, 2015 (edited) watch the video, it will shock you, it has many new and old video clips. The video shows a link between the opposition to climate science and cancer deniers. Edited April 14, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 (edited) Thought you might like this. Nice video, with better observations the evidences for GW theory get stronger, but ERayR and pogi are going to dismiss it as a hoax. ERayR doesn't watch our videos What does your inane video have to do with GW? It is a shocking video that shows a connection between GW skeptics and cancer deniers. It shows a lot of old video clips, please watch it. Edited April 15, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
ERayR Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 Nice video, with better observations the evidences for GW theory get stronger, but ERayR and pogi are going to dismiss it as a hoax. ERayR doesn't watch our videos Here is one that is at least entertaining. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x111ume_woody-woodpecker-cartoon-well-oiled-hd_fun
Recommended Posts