Another myth being debunked.

[Beeazlebub]

Re: I stand corrected

Originally posted by BigE23:

Originally posted by Noodle:

Originally posted by BigE23:

Originally posted by Noodle:
The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is around 0.04% (not 0.00384% as you claimed). But hey, don't let that stop you, enlightened one.

In the late evening, I inadvertently hit an additional zero, so sue me.

Now that we have ascertained that CO2 is waaaay up to .0384% of the atmosphere, it becomes much more apparent that that massive amount of CO2 is going to melt the planet. Really?? Go plant a tree.

Actually, even 0.0384% is not accurate. That figure is taken right out of the ASHRAE tables from 2009--which are based on even earlier data. The ASHRAE data is simply what folks in the HVAC industry use to define standard, "dry air" for purposes of their own calculations and the like. It is by no means something which accurately defines the amount of CO2 in the atomosphere--particularly 5+ years later.

If you would like a more accurate figure, they take daily readings at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii (for last month, the average was 395.28 ppm, or 0.039528%. But hey, you're the enlightened one around here.
http://co2now.org/

I'm also enlightened enough to know that it's not a fixed number and varies over time, both up and down, due to factors largely beyond our control. But that doesn't fit your narrative, does it?

So extracting fossilized carbon in the form of fossil fuels and burning them is not changing atmospheric composition? How did the rapid increase over the past 200 years occur?

For someone with such an inflated view of themselves, it's amazing how overwhelmingly wrong you are about the basic science. The assumption that everyone on this board has a Purdue degree is depressing.

 

[qazplm]

absolutely true

but even the side facing the Sun at midday on Mercury has a max temp of 700K, Venus has a mean temp of 737K.

 

[GMM]

Re: if you want to terraform any place

Earth is a planet. It doesn't "heal" itself because it's not alive and doesn't "Care" whether it's really hot, really icy, or what have you.

Exactly. Which is why all this crap about "destroying the planet" or "harming the environment" is pure propaganda designed to induce guilt.

 

[Noodle]

Re: I stand corrected


What narrative is that?

And yes, it does vary--quite a bit, in fact. If you look at a plot of CO2 data from Mauna Loa over the course of a year, it looks like a bell curve. CO2 peaks in May/June. But there's nothing magical about that variation. It's simply seasonal variation, no different than how the air temperature changes throughout the year. More importantly, that seasonal variation tells us nothing about trends year-over-year, or whether or not warming is taking place.

When you look at the data by comparing year-to-year, that's what matters with respect to the issues of GW/CC. That analysis demonstrates that, without a shadow of a doubt, atmospheric CO2 levels have been on a steady climb for quite some time now. Pre-industrial levels of CO2 were below 300 ppm, and it's been on an upward trajectory ever since.

Note: at no time in this thread have I provided any narrative, agenda or even opinion on GW or CC. None. You would be wise to do a better job reading posts to which you reply.

 

[beardownboiler]

Re: absolutely true

Originally posted by qazplm:
but even the side facing the Sun at midday on Mercury has a max temp of 700K, Venus has a mean temp of 737K.

This might be the dumbest GW thread yet. I thought gas being the reason behind Venus' temp was taught in 3rd grade (gr8 was just joking, as an aside). How are we having this discussion? I don't give a damn about global warming, but this thread is beyond stupid. How has this Venus + gas = heat thing gone beyond one post? Hell, how did it even get to one post?

I generally leave the other stuff up to the experts. . but c'mon, guys . .this is basic basic stuff.

 

[qazplm]

Probably the same reason

folks dont crap on the bed, or pee in their sink, or cough up a loogie onto their food.

 

[beardownboiler]

Re: if you want to terraform any place

Originally posted by GMM:
Earth is a planet. It doesn't "heal" itself because it's not alive and doesn't "Care" whether it's really hot, really icy, or what have you.

Exactly. Which is why all this crap about "destroying the planet" or "harming the environment" is pure propaganda designed to induce guilt.

It's not for love of the Earth that most people don't want to destroy the environment. It's love of species and self-preservation. This thread keeps getting worse.

 

[GMM]

Re: if you want to terraform any place

No, the environmentalist movement is motivated by hatred of the human species. Have you never heard them denounce "overpopulation"?

 

[qazplm]

yes

if you don't want the planet to be so populated by humans that there's not enough resources to go around, you must hate humans.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Question

Originally posted by Noodle:

What narrative is that?

And yes, it does vary--quite a bit, in fact. If you look at a plot of CO2 data from Mauna Loa over the course of a year, it looks like a bell curve. CO2 peaks in May/June. But there's nothing magical about that variation. It's simply seasonal variation, no different than how the air temperature changes throughout the year. More importantly, that seasonal variation tells us nothing about trends year-over-year, or whether or not warming is taking place.

When you look at the data by comparing year-to-year, that's what matters with respect to the issues of GW/CC. That analysis demonstrates that, without a shadow of a doubt, atmospheric CO2 levels have been on a steady climb for quite some time now. Pre-industrial levels of CO2 were below 300 ppm, and it's been on an upward trajectory ever since.

Note: at no time in this thread have I provided any narrative, agenda or even opinion on GW or CC. None. You would be wise to do a better job reading posts to which you reply.

If CO2 levels have been rising, as you stated, why has temperature stabilized over the last 18 years? If CO2 levels are directly related to temp, why hasn't the temp continued to trend upward, as CO2 levels have? Or should we nonbelievers just ignore that fact and drink the KoolAid?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by BigE23:

Originally posted by Noodle:

What narrative is that?

And yes, it does vary--quite a bit, in fact. If you look at a plot of CO2 data from Mauna Loa over the course of a year, it looks like a bell curve. CO2 peaks in May/June. But there's nothing magical about that variation. It's simply seasonal variation, no different than how the air temperature changes throughout the year. More importantly, that seasonal variation tells us nothing about trends year-over-year, or whether or not warming is taking place.

When you look at the data by comparing year-to-year, that's what matters with respect to the issues of GW/CC. That analysis demonstrates that, without a shadow of a doubt, atmospheric CO2 levels have been on a steady climb for quite some time now. Pre-industrial levels of CO2 were below 300 ppm, and it's been on an upward trajectory ever since.

Note: at no time in this thread have I provided any narrative, agenda or even opinion on GW or CC. None. You would be wise to do a better job reading posts to which you reply.

If CO2 levels have been rising, as you stated, why has temperature stabilized over the last 18 years? If CO2 levels are directly related to temp, why hasn't the temp continued to trend upward, as CO2 levels have? Or should we nonbelievers just ignore that fact and drink the KoolAid?

It was really GD hot in San Diego this summer. I am investing in air conditioning!

(I know... I am not helping.)
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[GMM]

Re: yes

If you're constantly demonizing humans for things that occur naturally, if you're constantly demonzing properous humans more than poor humans (even though prosperous societies have cleaner air and water), if you're constantly elevating animal rights above the needs of your fellow humans, if you're constantly promoting energy sources (green) that kills more animals and plants than fossil fuels, if you're constantly promoting energy sources (green) that will result in more poverty and therefore dirtier air and water, if you're constantly labeling humanity a "cancer", then, yes, you hate humans.

 

[Noodle]

Re: Question

Originally posted by BigE23:

If CO2 levels have been rising, as you stated, why has temperature stabilized over the last 18 years? If CO2 levels are directly related to temp, why hasn't the temp continued to trend upward, as CO2 levels have? Or should we nonbelievers just ignore that fact and drink the KoolAid?

I have no idea. But keep in mind that temperature and heat are not necessarily equivalent. In other words, an increase in retained heat is not necessarily reflected in an increase in temperature--particularly surface temperatures. For example, it takes heat to melt ice, but not all of that absorbed heat translates into a temperature increase.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: Question

Originally posted by BigE23:

Originally posted by Noodle:

What narrative is that?

And yes, it does vary--quite a bit, in fact. If you look at a plot of CO2 data from Mauna Loa over the course of a year, it looks like a bell curve. CO2 peaks in May/June. But there's nothing magical about that variation. It's simply seasonal variation, no different than how the air temperature changes throughout the year. More importantly, that seasonal variation tells us nothing about trends year-over-year, or whether or not warming is taking place.

When you look at the data by comparing year-to-year, that's what matters with respect to the issues of GW/CC. That analysis demonstrates that, without a shadow of a doubt, atmospheric CO2 levels have been on a steady climb for quite some time now. Pre-industrial levels of CO2 were below 300 ppm, and it's been on an upward trajectory ever since.

Note: at no time in this thread have I provided any narrative, agenda or even opinion on GW or CC. None. You would be wise to do a better job reading posts to which you reply.

If CO2 levels have been rising, as you stated, why has temperature stabilized over the last 18 years? If CO2 levels are directly related to temp, why hasn't the temp continued to trend upward, as CO2 levels have? Or should we nonbelievers just ignore that fact and drink the KoolAid?

If you really do want to understand more about the processes of climate, take some time to read this post from today.

 

[qazplm]

I'm pretty sure

humans are responsible for human procreation. I'd like to think babies with my DNA don't issue forth but for me having a role in it.

Overpopulation is a problem more for "poor" humans than "prosperous" ones both in cause AND in effect. For GW, all humans are responsible for, both the developed nations and the underdeveloped/developing nations. Few say otherwise, so not sure what you are talking about.

I wasn't aware of all the animals a solar panel kills, or water power, but my concern is a wee bit more for peeps. If someone considers humans "a cancer" then they'd welcome GW, it's gonna thin the herd. Of course, as an extremist yourself, all you look at our extremist positions on the other side.

 

[threeeputtt]

Global Warming on Mars. In Science News, April 7, 2007, page 214 there was a report on evidence that Mars is also going through global warming. The announcement has brought a lot of interesting discussion about what is real and what is not in global warming. Mars has an atmosphere that is 95 percent carbon dioxide, so one cannot attribute the warming to greenhouse gas increases. If the Sun is causing Mar's global warming, then it should also be causing the Earth to have global warming, and even more so since we are closer to the Sun than Mars. The fact is that global warming has many causes, and we know that what is happening on Mars is different from what is happening on Earth

Are we all going to die?

 

[qazplm]

Mars has a tiny atmosphere

no liquid water on the surface, no clouds.

From the article:

"The brightness of an object is characterized by its albedo, the
percentage of light that's reflected from its surface. Because dark
objects in general absorb more solar radiation and get hotter than light
ones do, albedo changes on Earth in arctic regions may be playing a part
in climate change (SN: 11/12/05, p. 312).



Viking orbiters, which circled Mars in the late 1970s, measured the
planet's albedo at latitudes up to about 60[degrees] in both
hemispheres, says Paul E. Geissler, a planetary geologist with the U.S.
Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Ariz. However, data gathered in 1999 and
2000 by another probe, the Mars Global Surveyor, reveal that albedo for
much of that area has changed, he notes.



As much as one-third of the Martian landscape had either
darkened or lightened by 10 percent or more between the two sets of
observations.
Many scientists presume that winds blow light-colored dust from one part
of the planet to another, exposing the darker rocks beneath, Geissler
notes. On balance, the planet grew darker between the late 197Os and the
turn of the millennium."

Albedo changes made the planet darker which increased the retained heat. When you are a planet with no clouds, little atmosphere, and no liquid water, there isn't much left to cause seasonal changes in temperature once you x out distance changes to the Sun during rotation.

When you have a thick atmosphere, filled with water and greenhouse gases, clouds, liquid water on the surface that retains heat, then other factors come into play (like CO2).

 

[GMM]

Of course you intentionally left out.........

.......the hundreds of thousands of birds and bats killed by windmills. The greenies are quite silent on that. Shouldn't surprise anybody. You also left out their hostility towards hydroelectric dams. At their insistence they're being torn down all over the country. So much for supporting clean, renewable energy. Same goes for their silence on birds being killed by solar energy. Why? Because they don't care about protecting animals.

Overpopulation is a problem more for "poor" humans than "prosperous" ones both in cause AND in effect.

Yet its only prosperous (usually white) Westerners that imbibe the guilt and decide not to procreate to "save the planet". If any societies need fewer humans its poor ones. If world hunger is your concern then you need to insist on more white people--they've proven they can produce surplus food. But that's pretty much the opposite of what greenies do. They target majority white societies for blame.

Of course, as an extremist yourself, all you look at our extremist positions on the other side.

Its the "extremist" positions that are dictating policy decisions. After decades of propaganda through the news, entertainment, and education industries what was once "extreme" is now considered mainstream environmental thought.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: Of course you intentionally left out.........

"Yet its only prosperous (usually white) Westerners that
imbibe the guilt and decide not to procreate to "save the planet". If
any societies need fewer humans its poor ones. If world hunger is your
concern then you need to insist on more white people--they've proven
they can produce surplus food. But that's pretty much the opposite of
what greenies do. They target majority white societies for blame."


The fact that you think the color of someone's skin has anything to do with ability speaks volumes about the load of bullshit you invariably leave with each post.

 

[ecouch]

Re: Of course you intentionally left out.........

Did you take the time to read up on water vapor in the atmosphere? Positive feedback? The difference between feedback and forcing? You seem to ignore science in favor of talking points. Are you actually interested in this topic?

Or, are you going to continue your disinformation campaign and look like a fool to anyone with an ounce of intellect?

Yeah, yeah...stupid questions.

 

[ecouch]

Oh my. Did you copy/paste from this website?

Copy Paste

 

[qazplm]

its not "my" theory

Its stuff most people learn in grade school...most people.

 

[ecouch]

Re: Question

This question was answered for you the last time you posted a link you saw on Drudge in the morning. Did you not read it? Did you forget you read it? Did you read it and not understand what you read? What gives?

 

[GMM]

Re: Of course you intentionally left out.........

The fact that you deny reality speaks volumes about your BS. Its a proven fact that majority white, Western societies produce surplus food. Its non-white, non-Western societies that face serious hunger problems on a regular basis.

No, it doesn't have anything to do with skin color. But I understand why you have to distort.

 

[GMM]

Re: Of course you intentionally left out.........

Are you going to explain why the "experts" got it spectacularly wrong?

 

[ecouch]

Re: Of course you intentionally left out.........

What is it? Water vapor's role in climate?

 

[GMM]

Re: Of course you intentionally left out.........

No, the "science is settled" certainty that we were told years ago: the earth will warm and we must act NOW!!! to stop it.

Well, the earth didn't warm. Their predictions were dead wrong. We were told we had to drastically change the way we lived or else doom was imminent. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

How do you explain that?

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: Of course you intentionally left out.........

Originally posted by GMM:
The fact that you deny reality speaks volumes about your BS. Its a proven fact that majority white, Western societies produce surplus food. Its non-white, non-Western societies that face serious hunger problems on a regular basis.

No, it doesn't have anything to do with skin color. But I understand why you have to distort.

Given your track record of promoting white supremacy and this direct quote:

If world hunger is your concern then you need to insist on more white people--they've proven they can produce surplus food.

Why would I need to distort?

 

[ecouch]

Re: Of course you intentionally left out.........

Lets stay on target. Your ability to obfuscate is well know. Your use of buzzwords and phrases is also well noted. Nonetheless, it is time to be an adult.

Did you read any information on the topic of water vapor, feedback, or forcing? I'm addressing a claim you have made.

Man up.

 

[GMM]

Re: Of course you intentionally left out.........

Stay on target? I guess you don't want to talk about the subject in the original post. I can see why.

To answer your question: No.

 

[GMM]

Re: Of course you intentionally left out.........

If you don't know the difference between race and skin color then you're a moron.

My quote is accurate. Which is why you have to distort and namecall. I guess the truth just hurts too much for you to acknowledge it.

 

[ecouch]

Re: Of course you intentionally left out.........

Why aren't you interested in learning about a topic about which you speak with so much passion and certainty?

I don't understand this willfully ignorant mindset. Please explain.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: Of course you intentionally left out.........

Originally posted by GMM:
If you don't know the difference between race and skin color then you're a moron.

My quote is accurate. Which is why you have to distort and namecall. I guess the truth just hurts too much for you to acknowledge it.

Your version of truth is quite amusing. Talking to you about race is like using a laser pointer on a cat.

Why don't you define the term for everyone on the board. How does GMM define "race"? I'm laying odds on something with the word "tribe".

 

[GMM]

Re: Of course you intentionally left out.........

Why are you interested in learning why the "experts" you trusted got it wrong? I understand why you'd have a willfully ignorant mindset.

This is not a scientific issue. It is a political issue. I'm more interested in the political angle to this political issue. Until the "experts" can get it right we shouldn't re-orient society around their demands.

 

[GMM]

Re: Of course you intentionally left out.........

Figures. You don't want to admit that my quote is accurate and you'd rather not admit the idiocy of your "skin color" remark. Now you want to go off on a tangent about race.

Enjoy your lack of global warming.

 

[ecouch]

Re: Of course you intentionally left out.........

How can you know if you are on the right side of an issue if you refuse to do any research?

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: Of course you intentionally left out.........

Originally posted by GMM:
Why are you interested in learning why the "experts" you trusted got it wrong? I understand why you'd have a willfully ignorant mindset.

This is not a scientific issue. It is a political issue. I'm more interested in the political angle to this political issue. Until the "experts" can get it right we shouldn't re-orient society around their demands.

Let me translate this for those who don't speak GMM:

Why are you interested in learning why the "experts" you trusted got it
wrong? I understand why you'd have a willfully ignorant mindset.

Translation: I don't want to answer your question because I don't have a clue about this, or any, scientific principle.

This is not a scientific issue. It is a political issue. I'm more
interested in the political angle to this political issue. Until the
"experts" can get it right we shouldn't re-orient society around their
demands.

Translation: Because I have no understanding of the science, I'll continue to "distort" this scientific fact by deploying my go-to political talking points. I've been using the same playbook for years on this board, and many here consider me to be a right-wing superstar. Someday, I'll run for office.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: Of course you intentionally left out.........

Originally posted by GMM:
Figures. You don't want to admit that my quote is accurate and you'd rather not admit the idiocy of your "skin color" remark. Now you want to go off on a tangent about race.

Enjoy your lack of global warming.

The only thing accurate about your quote is that it further supports your agenda of white supremacy. You are a clown, and everyone who has been here long enough knows it.

Stop embarrassing yourself and go hang out in the friendly confines of a right-wing blog.

 

[TheCainer]

If I am not mistaken, you are a military veteran, correct? If that is so, what do you make of the recent Dept. of Defense report which states that climate change is a major national security issue? I am guessing that your response may be something along the lines that they are strictly in it for the money as well because once again it is in their interest to request governmental funding to fight this new enemy. Am I right?

I have linked to their report for your perusal.

DOD Report. Seems they take CC seriously.

 

[qazplm]

it amazes me

How someone can mock when holding a position most eight years know is dead wrong. I mean the reason for Venus' high temps has been known since before anyone even thought about climate change here on Earth.