So, given that the levels of the dominant greenhouse gas has gone up 35% - mostly from the burning of fossil fuels - in the last 150 years what do expect should happen? Come on. I know even you can figure it out.
Fox News Distorts Climate Science, In other news, the Pope is Catholic.
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
So, given that the levels of the dominant greenhouse gas has gone up 35% - mostly from the burning of fossil fuels - in the last 150 years what do expect should happen? Come on. I know even you can figure it out.
It's like trying to teach a pig to dance. It irritates the pig and wastes one's time.
But you don't even qualify as a pig. You're more like a pile of manure.
It isn't "given that" CO2 has gone up 35% mostly from the burning of fossil fuels in the last 150 years. That is a hugely contended point and I've read that the natural variation of atmospheric CO2 from various ice core and biological test sources does not show anything unnatural occurring in the span of time that includes the period that we began to industrialize to the present.
The assumption in your question is incorrect so it is not possible to supply an answer. It is akin to asking "what time precisely will the sun rise in the West?" Since the premise of the question is fundamentally flawed it is futile to supply any answer.
Since the present levels of CO2 and the present rates of change of those levels do not exceed the levels or rates of change seen in the historic records of CO2 content and variation it is impossible to determine the extent of CO2 produced by man.
So there is nothing abnormal about our current atmospheric CO2 content and it is impossible to know how much human industrial activity has contributed to the current levels. It simply isn't knowable and those who insist that mankind is having a huge impact are acting on internal beliefs and not any compelling science.
There is a trading analogy for what the climate guys are doing and its an extrapolation of price data with an extremely high order polynomial fit curve. Everyone knows it doesn't predict price and everyone knows that it is going to do something weird immediately into the extrapolation. While it may fit the previous data nearly perfectly it does not have any sort of predictive nature and indeed cannot be trusted for even a moment outside of the extant data.
Please provide links to the three studies that show 97% among Climatologists. Not just some article that pushes global warming with fabricated information but the direct studies themselves. (BTW - they do not exist!)
The study **YOU** posted earlier is a survey of "Climate Scientists" (which is the same thing as Climatologists in my opinion) shows that only 82% of climate scientists (who work for institutions funded by global warming dollars) believe that man has anything to do with the warming of the earth.
Do you have a problem with understanding the difference between 97% and 82% ???
Which reminds me that 79.6% of the statistics FC quotes are made up on the spot.
Annnd you are wrong. It's like saying black is white.
Get back to me if you ever become rational again.
I did earlier. I'm not doing it again. You denier morons just reject any info that conflicts with your delusions anyway.
You did earlier? Please provide a link to your post(s) on ET with the links to the studies showing 97% of climate scientists believe in man-made global warming.
Let's me be clear. I just ran a search - you never posted any links on ET with these studies.