Global Warming Hoax - Case Closed

Originally posted by melatonin
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

 

Nothing to do with 'grammar' mistakes. Purely contradictory statements.

Therefore, your next statement is incorrect ('...not vice versa'). The fact you don't understand the implications of your own statements shows you need to go do a bit more reading.

edit on 17-1-2011 by melatonin because: Don't you love farce? My fault, I fear. I thought that you'd want what I want - Sorry, my dear.

The scientists are telling you if you read what I posted that in the past CO2 did not cause a dramatic rise in temperature, therefore I am still correct and you are wrong and you need to do some more reading. Read the report then come back to me little child.

Can you show me evidence that manmade CO2 is causing increased current temperatures?[

I will show you some more evidence:

www.nature.com...

A high-resolution ice-core record of atmospheric CO2 concentration over the Holocene epoch shows that the global carbon cycle has not been in steady state during the past 11,000 years. Analysis of the CO2 concentration and carbon stable-isotope records, using a one-dimensional carbon-cycle model,uggests that changes in terrestrial biomass and sea surface temperature were largely responsible for the observed millennial-scale changes of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

There you have it: sea surface temperature is largely responsible for atmospheric CO2 concentrations, precisely what I stated earlier



SST = sea surface temperature

Some people will never learn or understand why Climate Change is natural, even with eveidence right in front their face, they still can't see, thats probably why we are in such the mess we are!

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by melatonin

 

It is a greenhouse gas but it does not cause the extent of warming being portrayed by the media. It has not done in the past as I clearly demonstrate.

Who cares about the media? I think the science is a bit more relevant.

Your statement was contradictory. Therefore wrong.

A better way to say it is earth temperatures are more dependent on solar activity than they are on CO2 and an even lesser extent on anthropogenic CO2.

I also go on to say that water is a bigger GHG than CO2:

Doesn't matter. You outline why CO2 is an important GHG - it doesn't rain out like water vapour. It accumulates.

So what are you doing to stop water vapor concentration in the air? Decreasing solar activity? Have you done that lately?

Irrelevant. Red-herring. Chewbacca defense.

You need to read the scientific reports after you get your head out of your anus. Did you read the report I posted?

lol

I am showing evidence that CO2 in the past did not cause global warming even though it is a greenhouse gas. Maybe you need to take reading comprehension classes.

edit on 17-1-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)

You just did it again. If CO2 is a GHG it causes warming. It doesn't matter if the cause of its increase is warming from elsewhere - that is, it can act as a positive feedback.

Currently, the CO2 is increasing due to human activity. As CO2 is a GHG, it will cause warming. Again - simples.

I don't think you're very good at this sciency-thing.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
The scientists are telling you if you read what I posted that in the past CO2 did not cause a dramatic rise in temperature, therefore I am still correct and you are wrong and you need to do some more reading. Read the report then come back to me little child.

Can you show me evidence that manmade CO2 is causing increased current temperatures?[

I will show you some more evidence:

www.nature.com...

A high-resolution ice-core record of atmospheric CO2 concentration over the Holocene epoch shows that the global carbon cycle has not been in steady state during the past 11,000 years. Analysis of the CO2 concentration and carbon stable-isotope records, using a one-dimensional carbon-cycle model,uggests that changes in terrestrial biomass and sea surface temperature were largely responsible for the observed millennial-scale changes of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

There you have it: sea surface temperature is largely responsible for atmospheric CO2 concentrations, precisely what I stated earlier.

Yeah, in the past recent geological past, the ecology of the earth didn't involve apes digging-up and burning old crusty fossil fuels locked out the carbon cycle for millions of years by the industrial shed-load, and releasing gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Duh!

No poop, Sherlock.

Your logical argument effectively works like this.

1. In the past, cardiac arrest-related death in humans was predominately due to natural effects.
2. Humans are dying from cardiac arrest in the modern era.
3. Therefore humans dying of cardiac arrest in the modern era are dying of natural effects.

But then we see the executor injecting the death-row inmate with KCl which causes cardiac arrest and death.

F

CO2 is increasing due to human activity.

No it's not, CO2 has risen before, many times and is now and will do so again in hundreds of years to come, even when we are all dead and gone, Co2 will keep rising and keep falling, please... do humanity a favour and stop reading in to this whole anthropogenic global warming poop because its total nonsense, even most scientists now are comming forward and saying its all false and the data they used to come to the conclusion that the rise is caused by humans is dodgy and cherrie picked information to make it look like its caused by us (they have purposely left out loads of very important data that would challenge their theory). do you even realise how little CO2 we as humanity release in to the atmosphear compared to nature?? I don't think you do, because if you did you sure as hell wouldn't be here defending anthropogenic global warming.
I give up, because people like you are too set in your ways and too ignorant to be bothered to acctually seek the truth.

Originally posted by Itop1

CO2 is increasing due to human activity.

No it's not, CO2 has risen before, many times and is now and will do so again in hundreds of years to come, even when we are all dead and gone

See logical fail I outlined above. Your comment also falls into its category.

It doesn't matter what happened before, many times, and will do again blah-de-blah.

Humans release more CO2 each year than is required to account for the yearly increases in atmospheric CO2. The biosphere is absorbing a proportion of our emissions, the rest remains to accumulate each year.

reply to post by melatonin

I don't think you're very good at this sciency-thing.

Actually I have a degree in physics, what do you have? HS diploma?

Who cares about the media? I think the science is a bit more relevant.

None of my reports are from the media you idiot. Where did I link to the media, and your cartoons that you are posting are for kids, This is an adult place. I showed you evidence. Scientific evidence that says that CO2 is not the cause of global warming.

If you care to read the report which I will post again for you:
www.scribd.com...

And this is not a media link. I posted this on my FIRST post, can you prove to me where I showed you what the media said?

You just did it again. If CO2 is a GHG it causes warming. It doesn't matter if the cause of its increase is warming from elsewhere - that is, it can act as a positive feedback.

Do you have scientific evidence that it can act as positive feedback? My evidence demonstrates that CO2 was not a cause of global warming in the past, you need to show me evidence to back up your statements. I am showing you evidence. Regardless of CO2 being a GHG or not, past evidence does NOT demonstrate it as a cause of global warming.

The whole point of the global warming discussion is if CO2 causes warming, and if it is attributed to CO2 or not.I have posted evidence if you care to read that shows that I am right and you are clearly wrong. You have provided no evidence of CO2 causing past or current global warming, or acting as a positive feedback.

reply to post by melatonin

Humans release more CO2 each year than is required to account for the yearly increases in atmospheric CO2. The biosphere is absorbing a proportion of our emissions, the rest remains to accumulate each year.

Your theory makes no sence, do you realise that its not static? its not like a cup where once its full it over fills, Did you ever think about how much extra CO2 gets released during a volcanic eruption??? if i followed your theory then we would have been #ed loooong loong time ago, over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere, one volcanic eruption could do what we do in 250 years in ONE DAY.... sorry but your theory is totally flawed.

Originally posted by Itop1
... sorry but your theory is totally flawed

Again, we release nearly 30 gigatonnes of CO2 every year. Over the industrial age the biosphere has been absorbing over half of it. The rest remains in the atmsophere.

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L21710, 5 PP., 2009
doi:10.1029/2009GL040613

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

Wolfgang Knorr
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

Simples. If you can't grasp the implications of that, I don't care to school you.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL

Actually I have a degree in physics, what do you have? HS diploma?

Are you, like, going for the worst ATS troll of 2011 award or something?

None of my reports are from the media you idiot. Where did I link to the media, and your cartoons that you are posting are for kids, This is an adult place. I showed you evidence. Scientific evidence that says that CO2 is not the cause of global warming.

Do you have scientific evidence that it can act as positive feedback?

It's inherent to your statements in the OP. CO2 is a GHG. In the past, warming from natural influences causes CO2 to be released from the biosphere. As CO2 is a GHG, it causes further warming.

All rather simple.

Not biting anymore. I'll leave you to troll someone else.

Ciao.

reply to post by melatonin


If you read my first post I mention the 30 gigatones, and tell you that half has been absorbed by the oceans. This is my very very first post! If you cared to read it. I also show that 15 gigatones of effective CO2 is nothing compared to the 200 gigatones naturally produced.

Read my first post from line to line!

reply to post by melatonin

It's inherent to your statements in the OP. CO2 is a GHG. In the past, warming from natural influences causes CO2 to be released from the biosphere. As CO2 is a GHG, it causes further warming.

Can you provide evidence that it causes FURTHER warming than natural influences, and this FURTHER warming causes detrimental impact on weather/climate. Can you show me some data supporting your claims.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by melatonin

 

If you read my first post I mention the 30 gigatones...

Uh-huh.

Well done. You might have noticed I wasn't replying to you.

Nada mas.

reply to post by melatonin


Dont you walk away from me little boy. You made the claim that CO2 causes further warming, now:

Can you provide evidence that it causes FURTHER warming than natural influences, and this FURTHER warming causes detrimental impact on weather/climate. Can you show me some data supporting your claims.

there is no CO2 balance in biomass input/output: CO2 is constantly being locked up/ released at varying rates so there is no dynamic equilibrium.
In (geologically)ancient times CO2 concentrations were as high as 6000ppm...for a long time high enough to preclude oxygen breathers evolving...until sufficent CO2 was locked up by plant life ( the oceans would have been more or less saturated) and O2 levels raised by algae and cyanobacteria.
There is no balance! Check out the Oxygen Cycle

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just as a bump to this thread since the above thread is pretty hot right now and it is being discussed.