Carbon-dioxide concentrations hit their highest level in 4m years

[RandomGuy]

AT NOON on May 4th the carbon-dioxide concentration in the atmosphere around the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii hit 400 parts per million (ppm). The average for the day was 399.73 and researchers at the observatory expect this figure, too, to exceed 400 in the next few days. The last time such values prevailed on Earth was in the Pliocene epoch, 4m years ago, when jungles covered northern Canada.

There have already been a few readings above 400ppm elsewhere—those taken over the Arctic Ocean in May 2012, for example—but they were exceptional. Mauna Loa is the benchmark for CO2 measurement (and has been since 1958, see chart) because Hawaii is so far from large concentrations of humanity. The Arctic, by contrast, gets a lot of polluted air from Europe and North America.

The concentration of CO2 peaks in May, falls until October as plant growth in the northern hemisphere’s summer absorbs the gas, and then goes up again during winter and spring. This year the average reading for the whole month will probably also reach 400ppm, according to Pieter Tans, who is in charge of monitoring at Mauna Loa, and the seasonally adjusted annual figure will reach 400ppm in the spring of 2014 or 2015.

Mauna Loa’s readings are one of the world’s longest-running measurement series. The first, made in March 1958, was 315ppm. That means they have risen by a quarter in 55 years. In the early 1960s they were going up by 0.7ppm a year. The rate of increase is now 2.1ppm—three times as fast—reflecting the relentless rise in greenhouse-gas emissions.

As a rule of thumb, CO2 concentrations will have to be restricted to about 450ppm if global warming is to be kept below 2°C (a level that might possibly be safe). Because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades, artificial emissions of the gas would have to be cut immediately, and then fall to zero by 2075, in order to achieve 450ppm. There seems no chance of that. Emissions are still going up. At current rates, the Mauna Loa reading will rise above 450ppm in 2037.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21577342-carbon-dioxide-concentrations-hit-their-highest-level-4m-years-measure

[boutons_deux]

BUT...

It was Barry and Hillary who led the attack on the Americans in Benghazi.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=12&p=4672783&viewfull=1#post4672783


There is ample evidence that CO2 levels wouldn't be much difference if we emitted no CO2. The AGW crowd completely ignores Henry's Law. I see only one factor that if we could keep all other factors equal, we would be able to see measurable results from. That is the particulate pollution we emit. Things like the sulfurs blocking sunlight, causing cooling. Black carbon causing warming. I honestly believe from everything I have seen, that CO2 is only a weak greenhouse gas. It causes some warming. However, if the oceans didn't warm from solar changes, there would be only a very small addition in the air from the extra CO2, as the oceans would sink about 98% of it. The same goes with other well mixed greenhouse gasses.

An oldy but a goody from 2010.

Given our CO2 emissions have been doubling every 15-20 years, the little curve seen in the OP...

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20130511_STC572_0.png

Makes a pretty fair amount of sense.

I have not seen any other alternate explanation for the rapid increase in concentration.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&page=12&p=4672783&viewfull=1#post4672783

An oldy but a goody from 2010.

Given our CO2 emissions have been doubling every 15-20 years, the little curve seen in the OP...

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20130511_STC572_0.png

Makes a pretty fair amount of sense.

I have not seen any other alternate explanation for the rapid increase in concentration.

Carbon-based energy really took off in the 19th century, coal + oil.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Global_Carbon_Emissions.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Industrial-Revolution-global-warming.htm

[DarrinS]

Scary shit

[rjv]

one has to wonder how methane levels in the permafrost will trend for the next decade

[boutons_deux]

one has to wonder how methane levels in the permafrost will trend for the next decade

yep, permafrost in Russia and Canada releasing Ms of tons of methane, plus the methane leaks from fracking fields, it all adds up. There Will Be (More) Consequences. (and no accountability for the perpetrators)

[101A]

Jungle in Canada instead of tundra????

The problem is WHAT exactly?

A warmer earth might be a different Earth, but it might very well be an Earth much more capable of supporting more life....

Not a denier; a proponent.

[BobaFett1]

BUT...

It was Barry and Hillary who led the attack on the Americans in Benghazi.

No they covered it up dipshit. Of course you want it to be covered so Hillary can run in next election.

:lol Boutons anti american
:lol Vote left no matter cost
:lol Plays Mooslim victim card

[George Gervin's Afro]

No they covered it up dipshit. Of course you want it to be covered so Hillary can run in next election.

:lol Boutons anti american
:lol Vote left no matter cost
:lol Plays Mooslim victim card

lol sincerely,

the hyper partisan guy who thows a bunch shit against the wall hoping it sticks to Hillary

[BobaFett1]

There was global warming when the dinosaurs died. It is called mother nature. We cannot control it dipshits.

[elbamba]

BUT...

It was Barry and Hillary who led the attack on the Americans in Benghazi.

Can you not care about both issues?

[Wild Cobra]

AThe average for the day was 399.73 and researchers at the observatory expect this figure, too, to exceed 400 in the next few days. The last time such values prevailed on Earth was in the Pliocene epoch, 4m years ago, when jungles covered northern Canada.

LOL...

So?

Only 400 ppm, yet there was a jungle...

Think about what that means. Must I spell it out?

/thread.

[mouse]

When you say 4M years your not trying to say 4 Million years are you?

[boutons_deux]

The Coming GOP Civil War Over Climate Change

Science, storms, and demographics are starting to change minds among the rank and file.

http://cdn-media.nationaljournal.com/?controllerName=image&action=get&id=28381&format=homepage_fullwidth

Throughout the Republican presidential primaries, every candidate but one—former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who was knocked out of the race at the start—questioned, denied, or outright mocked the science of climate change.

Soon after his experience in South Carolina, Emanuel changed his lifelong Republican Party registration to independent. “The idea that you could look a huge amount of evidence straight in the face and, for purely ideological reasons, deny it, is anathema to me,” he says.

Emanuel predicts that many more voters like him, people who think of themselves as conservative or independent but are turned off by what they see as a willful denial of science and facts, will also abandon the GOP, unless the party comes to an honest reckoning about global warming.


And a quiet, but growing, number of other Republicans fear the same thing. Already, deep fissures are emerging between, on one side, a base of ideological voters and lawmakers with strong ties to powerful tea-party groups and super PACs funded by the fossil-fuel industry who see climate change as a false threat concocted by liberals to justify greater government control; and on the other side, a quiet group of moderates, younger voters, and leading conservative intellectuals who fear that if Republicans continue to dismiss or deny climate change, the party will become irrelevant.

“There is a divide within the party,” says Samuel Thernstrom, who served on President George W. Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality and is now a scholar of environmental policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. “The position that climate change is a hoax is untenable.”

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-coming-gop-civil-war-over-climate-change-20130509

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

So?

Only 400 ppm, yet there was a jungle...

Think about what that means. Must I spell it out?

/thread.

That the jungle is like a giant piece of velcro?

[boutons_deux]

Wall Street Journal's Idiocracy: CO2 Is What Plants Crave The Wall Street Journal once again published an op-ed disputing climate science by authors with no peer-reviewed papers on the topic and ties to groups funded by the oil industry. The op-ed argues that we should be "clamoring for more" carbon dioxide because it is a "boon to plant life," ignoring scientific research establishing that our excessive carbon dioxide emissions are rapidly changing the climate, which will have significant negative impacts for plants and humans

In an op-ed titled "In Defense of Carbon Dioxide," former astronaut and Republican Senator Harrison Schmitt and physics professor William Happer write that the "demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life" and thus "increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet." They add, "[t]here isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather" and conclude that "in an age of rising population and scarcities of food and water in some regions, it's a wonder that humanitarians aren't clamoring for more atmospheric carbon dioxide. Instead, some are denouncing it."

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/05/09/wall-street-journals-idiocracy-co2-is-what-plan/193986

Whores Say The Darndest Things (that money can buy)

[Wild Cobra]

Shazbot...

It doesn't take a peer review paper to see that increased CO2 levels haven't change the severity of natural climate changes.

[boutons_deux]

Military took the lead on de-segregation, equal pay for women, admitting gays, and taking the lead on sustainable energy

Army Steamrolls $7 Billion In Renewable Energy Projects, Sequester Or No Sequester
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/09/army-renewable-energy-gets-7-billion-boost/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

Army is fucked on soy or algae biosdiesel, corn/sugar ethanol, but the solar/wind initiatives are great

[MannyIsGod]

Shazbot...

It doesn't take a peer review paper to see that increased CO2 levels haven't change the severity of natural climate changes.

LOL.

[Jacob1983]

http://i.qkme.me/3oliuv.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

LOL.
I still haven't seen any storm here in Oregon worse than the Extratropical Cyclone we had in October of '62.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, well thanks for your scientific proof. I'm sure we will see WC's anecdotes cited in much future research.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh, well thanks for your scientific proof. I'm sure we will see WC's anecdotes cited in much future research.
My God...

There has been bad weather for all of history, and so much worse than anything we have experienced in decades. CO2 is not the cause of worse weather.

My point is that history is known. Just because we have more channels on the TV telling us of more disasters that they didn't previously cover, doesn't mean we have more disasters.

But... believe as you want, student from the University of Indoctrination.

I suppose you have scientific proof that weather patterns are worse due to CO2...

[RandomGuy]

Jungle in Canada instead of tundra????

The problem is WHAT exactly?

A warmer earth might be a different Earth, but it might very well be an Earth much more capable of supporting more life....

Not a denier; a proponent.

Might.

Not sure I want to bet my children's lives and livlihoods on "might".

I would prefer not effing with things until we were a bit more certain about the ultimate effects.

[RandomGuy]

[redacted]


Your quote didn't say who "Emanuel" was.

Kerry Emanuel registered as a Republican as soon he turned 18, in 1973. The aspiring scientist was turned off by what he saw as the Left’s blind ideology. “I had friends who denied Pol Pot was killing people in Cambodia,” he says. “I reacted very badly to the triumph of ideology over reason.”

Back then, Emanuel saw the Republican Party as the political fit for a data-driven scientist. Today, the professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is considered one of the United States’ foremost authorities on climate change—particularly on how rising carbon pollution will increase the intensity of hurricanes.

In January 2012, just before South Carolina’s Republican presidential primary, the Charleston-based Christian Coalition of America, one of the most influential advocacy groups in conservative politics, flew Emanuel down to meet with the GOP presidential candidates. Perhaps an unlikely prophet of doom where global warming is concerned, the coalition has begun to push Republicans to take action on climate change, out of worry that coming catastrophes could hit the next generation hard, especially the world’s poor.

The meetings didn’t take. “[Newt] Gingrich and [Mitt] Romney understood, … and I think they even believed the evidence and understood the risk,” Emanuel says. “But they were so terrified by the extremists in their party that in the primaries they felt compelled to deny it. Which is not good leadership, good integrity. I got a low impression of them as leaders.” Throughout the Republican presidential primaries, every candidate but one—former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who was knocked out of the race at the start—questioned, denied, or outright mocked the science of climate change.

Soon after his experience in South Carolina, Emanuel changed his lifelong Republican Party registration to independent. “The idea that you could look a huge amount of evidence straight in the face and, for purely ideological reasons, deny it, is anathema to me,” he says.

[RandomGuy]

Inglis, who left Congress in 2011, recalls the challenge his son, Rob, threw down to him a decade ago before he was to vote in his first election. He said, “I’ll vote for you, Dad, but you’ve got to clean up your act on the environment.’ ”

Inglis had never given much thought to the issue of climate change. As a by-the-books conservative, he says, “I accepted that if Al Gore was for it, I was against it, until my son challenged my ignorance on the subject.” Inglis spent the next few years educating himself on climate issues. He joined the House Science Committee and accompanied climate scientists on research trips to Antarctica and the Great Barrier Reef, where he saw firsthand the damages wrought by rising carbon pollution and warming temperatures. “I got convinced of the science,” he says, and, in 2009, Inglis cosponsored climate-change legislation with Republican Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona. The bill proposed an idea that had strong backing from environmentalists, including Gore, as well as prominent conservative economists. It would create a tax on carbon pollution but use the revenue to cut payroll or income taxes.

Inglis would pay dearly for his support of the so-called carbon-tax swap. The following year, he lost his primary election to a tea-party candidate, Trey Gowdy. And Inglis knows his position on the climate was the reason. “The most enduring heresy was saying, ‘Climate change is real and we should do something about it.’ That was seen as a statement against the tribal orthodoxy.”

[RandomGuy]

When you say 4M years your not trying to say 4 Million years are you?

Indeed I am.

This thread is primirily about the kinds of people who simply reject science outright.

You fit right in.

[RandomGuy]

Last month, 21-year-old Republican Kevin Croswhite, a senior at Carthage College in Kenosha, Wis., who grew up in nearby Salem (both towns lie within in the district of Rep. Paul Ryan, the 2012 GOP vice presidential candidate) attended one of Inglis’s events—and was sold.

Croswhite has considered himself a conservative Republican since high school. As an economics major, he is a big believer in data: scientific, economic, and demographic. He is persuaded that his party’s rejection of the data on climate change will damage it politically.

“The country’s going to become more educated, and that’s not going to break our way, as a party, if we are denying what 90 out of 100 scientists say,” Croswhite argues. “If the scientific community is generally accepting of something, you need to trust that.”

[boutons_deux]

Unreliable Sources: How the Media Help the Kochs and ExxonMobil Spread Climate Disinformation
This six-part series, "Unreliable Sources: How the Media Help the Kochs and ExxonMobil Spread Climate Disinformation," documents that the press routinely cites climate contrarian think tanks without reporting their ties to the fossil fuel industry.

Part 1: A Glaring Lapse in Climate and Energy Coverage

One of my morning rituals is half-listening to NPR's "Morning Edition" while I'm getting ready for work. But on January 3, when a story came on about the fate of the wind industry's production tax credit, I snapped to attention. It was good news. Congress's eleventh hour "fiscal cliff" agreement had left the tax credit in place for at least one more year.

The NPR story (http://www.npr.org/2013/01/03/168515103/wind-power-changes-landscape-in-multiple-ways)featured a spokesman for a small Iowa wind project who explained how the tax credit benefits rural communities. For balance, it also included a naysayer: Thomas Pyle from the American Energy Alliance, who wanted Congress to kill the subsidy.

"It's not that the subsidies for the wind industry in and of themselves are bad, but it is part-and-parcel of a larger problem, and that is, is that the federal government is notoriously bad at energy policy," Pyle said. "They have been for decades, and we think it's time for them to step aside."

But who is Thomas Pyle and what is the American Energy Alliance? The story didn't say.

It turns out that the American Energy Alliance is a front organization for the oil and gas industry. Pyle, AEA's president, is a former lobbyist for the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association and Koch Industries, the Wichita, Kansas-based coal, oil and gas conglomerate owned by the billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch (pronounced "coke"). Koch Industries is the second largest privately held company in the country.

Digging a little deeper, I learned that AEA is the political arm of the Institute for Energy Research, where Pyle also serves as president. From 2006 to 2010, IRE received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the oil and gas industry's trade association, the American Petroleum Institute; ExxonMobil; and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, a philanthropy controlled by Charles Koch.

OK, but didn't Pyle say the federal government should stop subsidizing all energy? That sounds pretty evenhanded, right? In fact, as aggressive as Pyle and his benefactors are about undermining their competition, they are even more vehement about protecting themselves--and they know full well their friends in Congress wouldn't dare touch oil and gas subsidies. Indeed, legislation introduced last May to pull the plug on the billions in annual tax breaks and subsidies the oil, gas and coal industries enjoy died a quick death.

Obviously there wasn't enough time to explain all that in a four-minute news segment. But at the very least the reporter should have identified Pyle as an oil and gas industry spokesman. I emailed the reporter later that day to point that out. I got no response.

Why Don't Reporters Follow the Money?

Twenty-five years after NASA scientist James Hansen testified at a Senate hearing that scientists know with a 99 percent certainty that burning fossil fuels--not natural climate variations--is warming the planet, there are many reasons why Congress has yet to take significant steps to curb U.S. carbon emissions. The hundreds of millions of dollars oil, coal, auto and manufacturing industries have donated to federal candidates is certainly a factor. So are the hundreds of millions of dollars they've spent to lobby them once they're elected.

etc

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/unreliable-sources-how-th_b_3255192.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

[MannyIsGod]

My God...

There has been bad weather for all of history, and so much worse than anything we have experienced in decades. CO2 is not the cause of worse weather.

My point is that history is known. Just because we have more channels on the TV telling us of more disasters that they didn't previously cover, doesn't mean we have more disasters.

But... believe as you want, student from the University of Indoctrination.

I suppose you have scientific proof that weather patterns are worse due to CO2...

I have plenty of scientific proof CO2 has significantly changed climate patterns and continues to significantly changed climate patterns. You know this.

[TeyshaBlue]

My God....

Are you a scientist or something?






:p:

[DarrinS]

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/i_survived_400ppm_tshirt.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You understand that Y2K was overcome by massive amounts of code being rewritten in the late 90's right?

That the point was we did something about it rather then pretend like its not a problem. That's what you do for a living so you should understand that.

[TeyshaBlue]

You understand that Y2K was overcome by massive amounts of code being rewritten in the late 90's right?

That the point was we did something about it rather then pretend like its not a problem. That's what you do for a living so you should understand that.

I don't understand the ins and outs of coding vis a vis Y2k, but we didn't rewrite jack shit at the company I worked for. Zero problems. IT did camp out at the server annex that night tho.:lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't understand the ins and outs of coding vis a vis Y2k, but we didn't rewrite jack shit at the company I worked for. Zero problems. IT did camp out at the server annex that night tho.:lol

It depended on the code that was written from place to place. The need for it differed from place to place. At USAA and other financial institutions, they had a massive undertaking to correct it.

My point was that the problem did not just go away. There was a lot of effort put into it not becoming a problem. Memes and t-shirts serve to obfuscate.

[DarrinS]

You understand that Y2K was overcome by massive amounts of code being rewritten in the late 90's right?

That the point was we did something about it rather then pretend like its not a problem. That's what you do for a living so you should understand that.


It was the most overblown scare ever.

[TeyshaBlue]

I told you I didn't understand the ins and outs! Smarty McSmartypants.:flipoff

[DarrinS]

But the killer bees are coming, so there's that.

[TeyshaBlue]

It was the most overblown scare ever.

Don't tell the survivalists. That shit could still come in handy.

[MannyIsGod]

Do you think Y2k and CO2 concentrations are comparable?

[DarrinS]

Do you think Y2k and CO2 concentrations are comparable?

In terms of exaggerated threat, yes.

[RandomGuy]

In terms of exaggerated threat, yes.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&p=4668020&viewfull=1#post4668020

Do tell us what you have concluded on the subject and why.

[MannyIsGod]

In terms of exaggerated threat, yes.

Anthropogenic climate change due to CO2 has already larger price tag in damages than anything Y2K so how can you make this claim? I'm not even bringing up the worst that is yet to come but if you simply look at individual aspects you can't even compare them.

This goes without even mentioning the fact hat Y2K had no where near the type of scientific backing that CO2 related climate change does. There was no physical science basis for Y2K.

I'm interested if what you are basing this comparison off of. Care to share?

[Homeland Security]

The white jeebotard male in America has entered his Spenglerian winter. He has no energy left to do anything but deny and pretend.

[Homeland Security]

I won't live to see 2150, but I'll bet the 500 million or so people alive then will be on average much happier subjectively even though their world is somewhat less hospitable.

Of course the math is wrong in that statement because it fails to take into account the 6 billion or so dead people who are unable to be happy or unhappy about their being dead.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In terms of exaggerated threat, yes.

This is completely unfounded. The entire banking industry recoded their databases as did most every other major industry. Just because nothing happened does not mean that it was overblown. Perhaps the effort put into migrating to uncompromising code over several years worked?

This is akin to us curbing world CO2 emissions and then when the cycle returns to it's natural oscillation, you saying that it was overblown.

We identified a problem and acted on it. That is proper decision making.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I told you I didn't understand the ins and outs! Smarty McSmartypants.:flipoff

Don't make me channel boutox!!!!

[Wild Cobra]

Might.

Not sure I want to bet my children's lives and livlihoods on "might".

I would prefer not effing with things until we were a bit more certain about the ultimate effects.

LOL...

Oh m7y God.

We had such hotter temperatures back then, with no industrialization. Just how do you think man is going to control Mother Nature?

[Wild Cobra]

I have plenty of scientific proof CO2 has significantly changed climate patterns and continues to significantly changed climate patterns. You know this.

Yes Manny, I know about your proof. Your proof is on the lines of Correlation equals Causation.

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

You have to do better than that.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you think Y2k and CO2 concentrations are comparable?
They are both for fruits like you. However, apples still do not taste like oranges. maybe in your world, but not mine.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637&p=4668020&viewfull=1#post4668020

Do tell us what you have concluded on the subject and why.
Random, you are one disgusting individual, keeping data on all of us.

[Wild Cobra]

Anthropogenic climate change due to CO2 has already larger price tag in damages than anything Y2K so how can you make this claim? I'm not even bringing up the worst that is yet to come but if you simply look at individual aspects you can't even compare them.

This goes without even mentioning the fact hat Y2K had no where near the type of scientific backing that CO2 related climate change does. There was no physical science basis for Y2K.

I'm interested if what you are basing this comparison off of. Care to share?
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

[MannyIsGod]

Yes Manny, I know about your proof. Your proof is on the lines of Correlation equals Causation.

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

You have to do better than that.

Yes the radiative properties of CO2 are merely correlation meaning causation. :tu

[Wild Cobra]

Yes the radiative properties of CO2 are merely correlation meaning causation. :tu

That is bad science, because solar factors have better causality.

[MannyIsGod]

Well I'm not going to do the dance of stupid with you. If you think Solar is causing things, there's a Nobel prize awaiting your science that proves it. Of course, that would involve actually proving it and its pretty hard to prove something you don't even understand. Good luck! :tu

[Wild Cobra]

Well I'm not going to do the dance of stupid with you. If you think Solar is causing things, there's a Nobel prize awaiting your science that proves it. Of course, that would involve actually proving it and its pretty hard to prove something you don't even understand. Good luck! :tu
I understand it far better than a college educated indoctrinate as yourself. CO2 simply doesn't have the warming you alarmists claim. Solar is the clear answer when considering percentages of change in any energy balance calculation. The full impact of solar changes also take decades to see.

I hope it isn't you who is in debt $500k in student loans, because when the sciences are better understood, your indoctrination will be obsolete.

[velik_m]

I don't understand the ins and outs of coding vis a vis Y2k, but we didn't rewrite jack shit at the company I worked for. Zero problems. IT did camp out at the server annex that night tho.:lol

2038 might be a bigger problem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem

[RandomGuy]

LOL...

Oh m7y God.

We had such hotter temperatures back then, with no industrialization. Just how do you think man is going to control Mother Nature?

Wow, you are working at breakneck speed. 2 LFPP in a three sentence post.

[TeyshaBlue]

Well, when they made WC, they threw away the mold.


























Some of it grew back, tho.

[RandomGuy]

Random, you are one disgusting individual, keeping data on all of us.

My theory is that people like you who claim we are not affecting our overall global climate through burning of fossil fuels think illogically. The null hypothesis would be that y'all do not think about this topic illogically. The data gathered were your own arguments, no few of which turned out to be irrational logical fallacies.

The conclusion was worth the data. Once I had enough data, I stopped bothering.

YThe fact that your arguments, and especially Darrins' mindless parroting, turned out to be consistantly flawed, does not seem to have caused you to examine your underlying assumptions.
You have only yourself to blame for that.

If so many "skeptical" lines of thinking regarding climate science are shown to be logically flawed, should one require more or less evidence from people who demonstrate such flawed thinking when they make assertions?

[RandomGuy]

I understand it far better than a college educated indoctrinate as yourself. CO2 simply doesn't have the warming you alarmists claim. Solar is the clear answer when considering percentages of change in any energy balance calculation. The full impact of solar changes also take decades to see.

I hope it isn't you who is in debt $500k in student loans, because when the sciences are better understood, your indoctrination will be obsolete.

Are you really listening to yourself? "college .... indoctrinate"?

[RandomGuy]

Yes Manny, I know about your proof. Your proof is on the lines of Correlation equals Causation.

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

You have to do better than that.

Science fail.

Is correlation required for causation to exist?

[mouse]

Indeed I am.

This thread is primirily about the kinds of people who simply reject science outright.


Post a link where I say I reject science outright. I have no problem with Science mixing vinegar with baking soda a coming up with cool inventions.

I have a problem with science lying and trying to say the earth is 4.6 billion years old when they have no clue how Stonehenge was built or how gravity works.

If your reading skills were at least up to 8th grade level you would know this as I repeat it in almost every scientific debate.


You fit right in.


and I'm not alone.

8 Simple Questions You Won't Believe Science Can't Answer


http://www.cracked.com/article_19442_8-simple-questions-you-wont-believe-science-cant-answer_p2.html

[DarrinS]

AT NOON on May 4th the carbon-dioxide concentration in the atmosphere around the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii hit 400 parts per million (ppm).



It was very conventient that it hit 400 ppm at noon. Nice, tidy, precise.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-carbon-dioxide-400-20130513,0,7196126.story

[Wild Cobra]

My theory is that people like you who claim we are not affecting our overall global climate through burning of fossil fuels think illogically.

My theory is people like you, who lie about people like me by being intellectually dishonest with others have little or no morals.

WTF is wrong with you?

Can't you see a winning solution without lying?

Why must I repeatedly restate my position. Are you too fucking stupid to understand?

I do not claim we have no effect!

You complain about strawman building to tear down, but you do it all the time asshole.

Get the facts strait about what people say, else continue to look foolish.


The null hypothesis...

Yes, your intellectual dishonesty makes the rest of your words null and void.

[RandomGuy]

and I'm not alone.

8 Simple Questions You Won't Believe Science Can't Answer


http://www.cracked.com/article_19442_8-simple-questions-you-wont-believe-science-cant-answer_p2.html


#4. How to Beat Solitaire

Troll fail... funny win. Comedy relief.

[RandomGuy]

Post a link where I say I reject science outright.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213955&page=3&p=6562244&viewfull=1#post6562244

That was easy.






You don't get to question the age of the earth. That is more than settled. A rejection of that is a rejection of more science than you can ever hope to understand, and I won't waste my time explaining to you.

[RandomGuy]

My theory is people like you, who lie about people like me by being intellectually dishonest with others have little or no morals.

WTF is wrong with you?

Can't you see a winning solution without lying?

Why must I repeatedly restate my position. Are you too fucking stupid to understand?

I do not claim we have no effect!

You complain about strawman building to tear down, but you do it all the time asshole.

Get the facts strait about what people say, else continue to look foolish.

Yes, your intellectual dishonesty makes the rest of your words null and void.

Your claim is that our effect is so small as to be neglible. Vanishingly small and "no effect" are functionally synonymous, and it is more than fair.

Unless you have walked back that assertion that I don't know about?

[DarrinS]

Now, if temperature would just cooperate

[Wild Cobra]

Your claim is that our effect is so small as to be neglible.
Link please.

Since you log people's posts, this should be easy for you.

Link please.

[RandomGuy]

Link please.

Since you log people's posts, this should be easy for you.

Link please.

ah jeez, you want me to sift through your thousands of posts on the subject? Icky. But my responsibility. I will do so when I have the time over lunch.

[TeyshaBlue]

Alternately, WC, are you saying that our impact is not small, but rather, significant?

[Wild Cobra]

Alternately, WC, are you saying that our impact is not small, but rather, significant?
I have simply never claimed our activities have no effect. It is small, if any on the climate.

I'll bet windmills have more effect on changing the climate than CO2 does...

[TeyshaBlue]

Your claim is that our effect is so small as to be neglible. Vanishingly small and "no effect" are functionally synonymous, and it is more than fair.

Unless you have walked back that assertion that I don't know about?



Link please.

Since you log people's posts, this should be easy for you.

Link please.



I have simply never claimed our activities have no effect. It is small, if any on the climate.

I'll bet windmills have more effect on changing the climate than CO2 does...




smh

[TeyshaBlue]

Now you dont have to slog thru page after page of mind-numbing obfuscation, RG.

You owe me a beer.:p:

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are you really listening to yourself? "college .... indoctrinate"?

He is insecure about his intelligence. He complains about the engineers he works with who tell him what parts to change. Complains about them thinking they know more than he does.

I keep asking him to tell me where he works. I have experience with several 16 and 32 bit controllers.

I don't know why he won't tell me.

[Winehole23]

I'll bet windmills have more effect on changing the climate than CO2 does...:rollin

[Wild Cobra]

smh
"If any" is not saying none. My whole point of clarifying this is simple. I have never said we have no effect, and I will not allow Random Propaganda Guy to misrepresent my position. Next, he will claim he has proof to call me a denier. That, I believe is his goal.

I believe CO2 has a small effect on temperature. I acknowledge I could be wrong. Temperature has an effect on climate, but now it would probably be impossible to ascertain the extent that CO2 plays. The "if" is because I keep an open mind that some say CO2 has no effect, and others even claim it has a cooling effect.

My mind is open. Is yours?

[Wild Cobra]

I'll bet windmills have more effect on changing the climate than CO2 does... :rollin

You think I'm joking?

I found one study that quantified the effects of the reduction of wind force on the downstream land. It said that the warming effect was 1/6th as much as the fossil fuel it replaced. This study was using CO2 sensitivity levels that I think are bogus.

What if this study was correct in the degree that reducing the power of the wind has on climate, but was wrong in using the alarmist levels for CO2? I will contend it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could.

[boutons_deux]

Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/15/2014211/study-finds-97-consensus-on-human-caused-global-warming-in-the-peer-reviewed-literature/)
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/C01-TCP-social-media-image-97-300x300.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Powell-Science-Pie-Chart-e1368657243996.png

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Figure_3_col1-e1368655855333.jpg
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/consensus_gap-e1368656121209.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Attribution50-65-e1368656324334.jpg

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/15/2014211/study-finds-97-consensus-on-human-caused-global-warming-in-the-peer-reviewed-literature/

[RandomGuy]

it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could.

:lmao

It is possible that the twin towers were brought down in a controlled demolition.

It is possible that the reptillian overlords are getting ready to eat us.



You go with your bad self trying to prove that.

It is going to replace my siggy, as one of the most monumentally stupid things you have ever posted.

[RandomGuy]

Link please.

Since you log people's posts, this should be easy for you.

Link please.

HOnestly, I couldn't find it.

It is lost to the thousands of similar posts out of the 36,000+ you have made here.

My memory of it is that you said there was something akin to a one in a billion chance that humans were having a noticable affect on warming trends.

[TeyshaBlue]

"Small, if any" seems to suffice.

[Wild Cobra]

HOnestly, I couldn't find it.

It is lost to the thousands of similar posts out of the 36,000+ you have made here.

My memory of it is that you said there was something akin to a one in a billion chance that humans were having a noticable affect on warming trends.
LOL...

The way you log peoples posts for future use, you couldn't find it.

That's because it doesn't exist asshole!

Please don't attribute words or ideas to be that I didn't say. That probably pisses me off more than other types of personal attacks you guys do to me.

[Wild Cobra]

"Small, if any" seems to suffice.
Small does not = none.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

'if any' implies that 'not any' is the assumed option ie you default to the negative being true.

[RandomGuy]

LOL...

The way you log peoples posts for future use, you couldn't find it.

That's because it doesn't exist asshole!

Please don't attribute words or ideas to be that I didn't say. That probably pisses me off more than other types of personal attacks you guys do to me.

My memory of that is pretty solid. That I can't find it, by no means is conclusive for you to claim you didn't say something like it.

But, hey, let's be fair then:

State your position then, so I can bookmark it and not make the error in the future. I would far prefer to fairly represent your views than not, despite what you seem to think.

[TeyshaBlue]

'if any' implies that 'not any' is the assumed option ie you default to the negative being true.

Logic? Seriously? You're going to try logic with WC?

[spursncowboys]

I wonder if they have the pictures of 4 million years ago. Because liberals have showed us that they are more interested in factual data than abusing their position to push their views/position.

[RandomGuy]

Now you dont have to slog thru page after page of mind-numbing obfuscation, RG.

You owe me a beer.:p:

That would indeed do it. Thank you, and I will be in San Antone next friday, and austin most of this week. PM me. :)

[RandomGuy]

'if any' implies that 'not any' is the assumed option ie you default to the negative being true.

That is pretty much it.

Let's try restating that "if any" and see if the implication is a bit clearer.

"The number of women in the world willing to have sex with Wild Cobra is small, if any."

"if any" would appear to indeed impart the "it is probably zero, but maybe could be a small number" idea.

OTOH, it could just be one of the "i said that, but mean something else" bits.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Logic? Seriously? You're going to try logic with WC?

:lol He has me on ignore again. Does that mean I won?

It's for everyone else's reading pleasure.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I wonder if they have the pictures of 4 million years ago. Because liberals have showed us that they are more interested in factual data than abusing their position to push their views/position.

Depends on what you consider a picture. They use very stratified objects to take samples from older times. Ice cores, tree rings, sedimentary rocks, etc. They take the various samples, cross check them and they are consistent across mediums. If you want to say that the same cosmic monkey that put fossils in the earth did tree rings and ice too then you can join the biblical literalist types.

If they find a piece of amber with air pockets in it that carbon dates its formation to 4 million years ago then I think its compelling evidence of air composition from 4 million years ago.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/brilliant.jpg (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/brilliant.jpg.html)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/brilliant.jpg (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/brilliant.jpg.html)

The new guiness commercials are far inferior methinks. You still have your thing for jar jar binks?

[TeyshaBlue]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/Bush_Mission_Accomplished_Banner_Ja.jpg (http://s3.photobucket.com/user/teyshablue/media/Bush_Mission_Accomplished_Banner_Ja.jpg.html)

That's what I was originally looking for. I've got too many gifs to look through them now. lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol well played sir

[MannyIsGod]

I wonder if they have the pictures of 4 million years ago. Because liberals have showed us that they are more interested in factual data than abusing their position to push their views/position.

Care to make your point? I'm guessing that it has to do with changing climates in the past being natural, correct? I'll put it to you the simplest way possible. Natural fire occurs, correct? What does a natural fire started by lightning have to say about the possibility of another fire being arson?

[spursncowboys]

My point is anytime, you use 4 million years ago, you lose all credibility. :toast

That has been the standing view for 5 million years to now.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh I see what your point was. Yes, we do have reasonable proxies for CO2 levels in the past. They're not as accurate as today's readings for the most part but saying this is the first time in 4 millions years that we've seen CO2 levels that high is an accurate statement. The CO2 record is well documented in the peer reviewed literature. Scientists aren't just making things up.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh I see what your point was. Yes, we do have reasonable proxies for CO2 levels in the past. They're not as accurate as today's readings for the most part but saying this is the first time in 4 millions years that we've seen CO2 levels that high is an accurate statement. The CO2 record is well documented in the peer reviewed literature. Scientists aren't just making things up.
Wow...

I actually agree with you for once.


So tell me. Why hasn't temperature followed CO2 concentrations from 11,000 years ago, to 200 years ago, but by you alarmists, they do in the last 200 years?