OK, I'll take the bait. WTF does rectum know?
16 years 9 months, crazy fast global warming
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
Good grief, why does his nonsense warrant a reply? Seriously. "Wtf" does he know, for that matter?
My nonsense? Please. YOUR nonsense warrants nothing but ridicule.
A lot more than you, shit-for-brains rectum. Which is why you were too cowardly to address this, for example:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vB/showthread.php?p=3988144#post3988144
Your brain is uncoupled from anything remotely resembling intelligence. And, once again, you seem to think the scientists are as stupid as you are.
1/25000th is irrelevant dipstick. CO2 largely controls the temperature of the earth with that concentration.
Wow you are dumb. Only a righty (and whatever piehole is) can be that stupid.
Spare us your propaganda from skepticalscience. Here's how objective they are:Your brain is uncoupled from anything remotely resembling intelligence. And, once again, you seem to think the scientists are as stupid as you are.
1/25000th is irrelevant dipstick. CO2 largely controls the temperature of the earth with that concentration.
Wow you are dumb. Only a righty (and whatever piehole is) can be that stupid.
71 new papers reported in 2013 demonstrating the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2
These papers don't exist according to paid climate propagandist John Cook of SS
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/01/71-new-papers-reported-in-2013.html
Serious studies have shown temps can lag CO2 by 800 years or longer, so your shill chart is misleading. Instead of simply acting as a post-office box for skepticalscience, explain how a gas that's only 1/2500th of the atmosphere, which leads and lags temperatures and has been uncoupled from temperatures for centuries at a time, trumps ALL other physical, chemical and biological processes that govern the planet and "controls the temps." You can't and neither can "climate scientists, " not even the ones at the AMA.
That chart when presenting the data accurately has been viewed by real scientists and even agw nutters with their frequently squishy science degrees. Every single one who has ever commented on that chart states that the data shows temperature change precedes change in co2 by 200 to 800 years.
You know about the ice core records? why are you misrepresenting science?
You know about the ice core records? why are you misrepresenting science?
Your brain is uncoupled from anything remotely resembling intelligence. And, once again, you seem to think the scientists are as stupid as you are.
1/25000th is irrelevant dipstick. CO2 largely controls the temperature of the earth with that concentration.
Wow you are dumb. Only a righty (and whatever piehole is) can be that stupid.
CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.
During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.
This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earthâs orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earthâs surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.
During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.
This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earthâs orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earthâs surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.
Guess why CO2 increase can lead temperatures higher?
Do the dumb righties give up?
Answer: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
LOL
You right wing idiots have to be pulling my leg. You can't really be this stupid.
Answer: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
LOL
You right wing idiots have to be pulling my leg. You can't really be this stupid.