You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is God causing Global Warming and is Obama a conspirator in the act?
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Quote from Ricter:
But you said Obama is an atheist. No, wait, you said Obama is a Muslim. No, wait...
But wait, you said you sailed into port, then went to the "Orlando Beach," then later had sex in a swamp with a local FL gal. Those of us who live here knows NO ONE gets in a FL swamp for ANY reason. The beach is over an hour away from Orlando, and no dick head, there is no port in Orlando.
ORLANDO IS ON THE MIDDLE OF THE STATE!!!!! LOL!!!!!! Care to apologize for your blatant lie(s)?
Quote from jem:
That entire skeptical science article is a mis direction and a fraudulent joke.
Net emissions?
The whole point of the speech was that net emissions are irrelevant if there is no science or statistics showing that co2 is forcing temps.
Arguing for net emissions is like arguing for net ice cream sales.
For the purpose of the debate about climate change, we care about what makes temperature go up... not net emissions.
It is beyond my comprehension, why the simple arithmetic equasion:
1) En - Un = C' - Ea
2) the principle of conservation of mass
altogether understood by primary school kids;
are being denied by contrarians like Salby, who confuses the issue by taking about correlations, instead.
The only explanation is: Salby hopes that people are less likely to know about correlations, or specifically about their irrelevance to the subject question. In other words: his hopes are to confuse the simple issue rather than to explain it, because contrarians are interested in spreading disinformation and confusion only. The case of prof Salby here is a classic one.
For those of you who have not watched the video.
Let me give you the take away.
The models failed. Therefore the models can not be used to show co2 causes warming on earth.
co2 is only 1% of the green house gas effect.
man made co2 is only percent of that CO2.
Some of the accumulation of the co2 may have been causes by natural causes.
Therefore man made co2 is could be responsible for a fraction of a 1 % of the greenhouse effect. n co2 may be natural.
Also note... the warming we see in the chart is only due to two periods in which the warming cycle had not been canceled out by the cooling cycle.
The rest of the time the data has no correlation with co2.
So to answer nitro... if there is warming we have no evidence co2 had anything to do with it.
Let me give you the take away.
The models failed. Therefore the models can not be used to show co2 causes warming on earth.
co2 is only 1% of the green house gas effect.
man made co2 is only percent of that CO2.
Some of the accumulation of the co2 may have been causes by natural causes.
Therefore man made co2 is could be responsible for a fraction of a 1 % of the greenhouse effect. n co2 may be natural.
Also note... the warming we see in the chart is only due to two periods in which the warming cycle had not been canceled out by the cooling cycle.
The rest of the time the data has no correlation with co2.
So to answer nitro... if there is warming we have no evidence co2 had anything to do with it.
first of all that is irrelevant to the point he makes in the last 20 minutes. we dont really care about net emissions with respect ot warming if co2 only accounts for a fraction of 1 percent of the effect of green house gasses... even if he were to "conserve the mass of co2."
by the way salby did not deny the principle of conservation of mass.
your skeptical science guy makes specious assumptions and conclusions.
its a complete red herring.
Explain to us why it matters.
by the way salby did not deny the principle of conservation of mass.
your skeptical science guy makes specious assumptions and conclusions.
its a complete red herring.
Explain to us why it matters.
Quote from futurecurrents:
It is beyond my comprehension, why the simple arithmetic equasion:
1) En - Un = C' - Ea
2) the principle of conservation of mass
altogether understood by primary school kids;
are being denied by contrarians like Salby, who confuses the issue by taking about correlations, instead.
The only explanation is: Salby hopes that people are less likely to know about correlations, or specifically about their irrelevance to the subject question. In other words: his hopes are to confuse the simple issue rather than to explain it, because contrarians are interested in spreading disinformation and confusion only. The case of prof Salby here is a classic one.
Quote from jem:
first of all that is irrelevant to the point he makes in the last 20 minutes. we dont really care about net emissions with respect ot warming if co2 only accounts for a fraction of 1 percent of the effect of green house gasses... even if he were to "conserve the mass of co2."
by the way salby did not deny the principle of conservation of mass.
your skeptical science guy makes specious assumptions and conclusions.
its a complete red herring.
Explain to us why it matters.
I think the single biggest nail in this whole coffin is that human emissions have extracted 337 Gt of carbon from the ground and turned it into CO2.
So any "natural source" argument must both
(a) come up with a comparable source of carbon (which would be utterly huge, and unheard of in the past 800,000 years where atmospheric levels have never topped 300 ppm)
and
(b) a sink to absorb and completely hide the human emissions.
As well as some rationale which explains why the sink works on human emissions but not natural emissions, so that the atmospheric and ocean CO2 increases are "entirely natural" while human emissions magically disappear into thin air and have no effect on anything.
This, to me is complete and total denial in a nutshell. To make this sort of twisted, impossible, Alice-in-Wonderland argument work requires such a Lewis-Carrollian pretzel that it clearly demonstrates a mind in utter and complete denial of reality.
I don't Dr Scheister - I mean Salby - has had this work published in a peer reviewed journal yet. There's a reason for that. It's because it's shit psuedo-science.
ok interesting argument... but why does it matter.
net emission doe not matter if co2 can not be shown to cause warming. That was not a lecture about the cause of net emissions.
that was all the warm up for the points he made during the lat 20 minutes... when he starting showing the co2 line and the temperature lines the models and the discussion that water vapor was responsible for almost all of the greenhouse effect.
net emission doe not matter if co2 can not be shown to cause warming. That was not a lecture about the cause of net emissions.
that was all the warm up for the points he made during the lat 20 minutes... when he starting showing the co2 line and the temperature lines the models and the discussion that water vapor was responsible for almost all of the greenhouse effect.
Quote from futurecurrents:
I think the single biggest nail in this whole coffin is that human emissions have extracted 337 Gt of carbon from the ground and turned it into CO2.
So any "natural source" argument must both
(a) come up with a comparable source of carbon (which would be utterly huge, and unheard of in the past 800,000 years where atmospheric levels have never topped 300 ppm)
and
(b) a sink to absorb and completely hide the human emissions.
As well as some rationale which explains why the sink works on human emissions but not natural emissions, so that the atmospheric and ocean CO2 increases are "entirely natural" while human emissions magically disappear into thin air and have no effect on anything.
This, to me is complete and total denial in a nutshell. To make this sort of twisted, impossible, Alice-in-Wonderland argument work requires such a Lewis-Carrollian pretzel that it clearly demonstrates a mind in utter and complete denial of reality.
<img src=http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/attachments/all-things-boats-and-boating/9991d1162691785-global-warming-humans-blame-image270b.gif>
It's elementary my dear Watson.
âThe influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.â
~ Richard Lindzen, MIT Atmospheric Physicist
It's elementary my dear Watson.
âThe influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.â
~ Richard Lindzen, MIT Atmospheric Physicist
About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years . A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.
Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring. The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.
Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97â98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.
Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring. The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.
Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97â98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.