Increases in CO2 - Causes Cooling

[jem]

I try to respect you most of the time because I know you are intelligent... I also know you were recently a bit confused by anomoly charts, so I wanted to see what you are talking about.

If you posted a chart I could see what you were referencing. Because frankly I have seen recent charts that seem to point to you being wrong.

 

[Ricter]

I try to respect you most of the time because I know you are intelligent... I also know you were recently a bit confused by anomoly charts, so I wanted to see what you are talking about.

If you posted a chart I could see what you were referencing. Because frankly I have seen recent charts that seem to point to you being wrong.

There are lots of anomaly charts at that link. Global, high latitude, mid latitude, low latitude, southern hemisphere, continental, etc. Take your pick.

 

[futurecurrents]

Antarctic sea ice at record levels
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-14/record-coverage-of-antarctic-sea-ice/5742668

Arctic sea ice loss is three times greater than Antarctic sea ice gain, and the amount of solar energy absorbed by the Earth is increasing as a result.

 

[jem]

go more granula with your chart's data... we see...
co2 lags change in ocean temps by 12 months ... and change in air over land temps... by 9 mos.

and we see the increase in the annual carbon matches up with naturally produced carbon... not man made carbon...
Which makes sense since as oceans warm they release co2.

so... oceans warm.. air warms... it can now hold more co2.

[/quote]

 

[futurecurrents]

You have no science. I present science and you present irrelevant troll bullshit. You can back to the adult table once you find some real science showing that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Until then STFU.

go more granula with your chart's data... we see...
co2 lags change in ocean temps by 12 months ... and change in air over land temps... by 9 mos.

and we see the increase in the annual carbon matches up with naturally produced carbon... not man made carbon...
Which makes sense since as oceans warm they release co2.

so... oceans warm.. air warms... it can now hold more co2.

[/quote]

 

[jem]

that is funny since I say that to you everyday... and then I present the science... like I just did in the post above.

but you have never once presented any science showing man made co2 causes warming.

If you did you would have a nobel prize.

You have no science. I present science and you present irrelevant troll bullshit. You can back to the adult table once you find some real science showing that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Until then STFU.

[/quote]

 

[k p]

that is funny since I say that to you everyday... and then I present the science... like I just did in the post above.

but you have never once presented any science showing man made co2 causes warming.

If you did you would have a nobel prize.

I find this topic a bit interesting because it seems to clear to me that global warming is a huge issue. Yes the carbon is absolutely warming the planet, but of course local weather can have anomalies. Now of course there are some benefits to global warming... like up here in Canada we might be able to grow more food year round! But without a doubt, given the rise in ocean levels, given the severe droughts in places that are used to more rain, this will all be tragic.

But I'm curious if I may ask Jem what your motives are. Often when a debate is presented, be it tobacco for example, most people know what the truth is, yet the fight continues because its in the best interests of certain business to keep the lie going. (ie. that smoking doesn't harm your lungs)

So I'm just curious to ask those people who fight this issue what you hope to gain if you don't mind. Perhaps you own stock in oil companies, perhaps you don't like your tax dollars going to support clean energy, etc. But given the strong push against what I think is an obvious correlation between CO2 levels and a warming planet, why are you fighting for the other camp? Knowing motives usually helps to see the issue more clearly. Thanks!

 

[Lucrum]

I find this topic a bit interesting because it seems to clear to me that global warming is a huge issue...

Not really. I saw a poll a few months ago indicating it's one of the least important issues to voters.

 

[futurecurrents]

I find this topic a bit interesting because it seems to clear to me that global warming is a huge issue. Yes the carbon is absolutely warming the planet, but of course local weather can have anomalies. Now of course there are some benefits to global warming... like up here in Canada we might be able to grow more food year round! But without a doubt, given the rise in ocean levels, given the severe droughts in places that are used to more rain, this will all be tragic.

But I'm curious if I may ask Jem what your motives are. Often when a debate is presented, be it tobacco for example, most people know what the truth is, yet the fight continues because its in the best interests of certain business to keep the lie going. (ie. that smoking doesn't harm your lungs)

So I'm just curious to ask those people who fight this issue what you hope to gain if you don't mind. Perhaps you own stock in oil companies, perhaps you don't like your tax dollars going to support clean energy, etc. But given the strong push against what I think is an obvious correlation between CO2 levels and a warming planet, why are you fighting for the other camp? Knowing motives usually helps to see the issue more clearly. Thanks!

He is an anti-govt, anti-tax, right wing extremist nutjob. Accent on the "nut".

 

[k p]

Not really. I saw a poll a few months ago indicating it's one of the least important issues to voters.

Yes, I can for sure understand this. I guess I should say that its a huge issue for the planet, but not a huge issue for most citizens.

I do believe that its a touchy subject. Its a case of big bucks being spent on stuff that most people cannot see, and yet things have to be done before most people see it, because by then its too late. Then of course you also have the fact that the environment isn't constrained by borders, so you gotta wonder why one government would want to spend big bucks to help make a dent in the problem when some other country pollutes at will and takes the cost savings of not going clean.