jeff f
New Member
about as much as a good forest fire, thats it.
not nearly as much as a single hurricane or a earth fart, ie volcano.
man is astoundingly powerless compaired to good ole mother nature.
New NASA Data Blows Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
- Thread starter MuyLocoNC
- Start date
not nearly as much as a single hurricane or a earth fart, ie volcano.
man is astoundingly powerless compaired to good ole mother nature.
jeff f
New Member
no seriously, you dont. you have no idea what is causing the co2 rise. neither do the scientists.
face it, you libs lost the argument. not because you didnt try, but because we are smart enough to realize you were full of shit.
greenland ice, iceland green, not enough human co2 to affect shit, nuff said.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Umm, the earths temperature increasing is EXACTLY what is causing CO2 levels to increase. Always has, always will. For decades, the graph that Fat Al reversed in his little propaganda film, has been printed in textbooks and science journals. And it has ALWAYS shown that temperature increases precede CO2 increases.
Why, because the oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. When temperatures increase it heats the ocean, when the ocean is warmer, it releases more C02. There is a lag effect because the ocean doesn't just heat up over night, which is why the graph that Fat Al reversed, showed about a 7 year lag between temperature increases and C02 increases. Ain't revisionist science grand?
I guess that settles it after all. Douche.
Why, because the oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. When temperatures increase it heats the ocean, when the ocean is warmer, it releases more C02. There is a lag effect because the ocean doesn't just heat up over night, which is why the graph that Fat Al reversed, showed about a 7 year lag between temperature increases and C02 increases. Ain't revisionist science grand?
I guess that settles it after all. Douche.
jeff f
New Member
didnt you mean touche? nope, just reread it, you meant douche
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
lol nice copy and paste heres mine
What the science says...
Select a level...
Intermediate The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.
Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.
As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).
Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).
But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.
Rebuttal written by gpwayne. Last updated on 29 August 2010.
Printable Version | Link to this page
Further reading
Both graphs from this page are taken from Chapter 2 of the IPCC AR4 report.
Real Climate goes in-depth into the science and history of C13/C12 measurements.
It's not particularly relevant to this argument but World Resources Institute have posted such a great resource, I had to put it somewhere. It's the World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, a visual summary of what's contributing to manmade CO2 (eg - electricity, cars, planes, deforestation, etc):
UPDATE: Human CO2 emissions in 2008, from fossil fuel burning and cement production, was around 32 gigatoones of CO2 (UEA).
jeff f
New Member
yep, you found it. another one of the bullshit charts.lol nice copy and paste heres mine
What the science says...
Select a level...Basic
The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.
Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.
As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).
Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).
But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.
Rebuttal written by gpwayne. Last updated on 29 August 2010.
Printable Version | Link to this page
Further reading
Both graphs from this page are taken from Chapter 2 of the IPCC AR4 report.
Real Climate goes in-depth into the science and history of C13/C12 measurements.
It's not particularly relevant to this argument but World Resources Institute have posted such a great resource, I had to put it somewhere. It's the World GHG Emissions Flow Chart, a visual summary of what's contributing to manmade CO2 (eg - electricity, cars, planes, deforestation, etc):
UPDATE: Human CO2 emissions in 2008, from fossil fuel burning and cement production, was around 32 gigatoones of CO2 (UEA).
you and mame are the same person arent you? cuz you guys have access to all the bullshit made up govt charts. very pretty colors.
not a lick of truth in them, but very pretty.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
when your excitement fades and your senses return you'l be able to look back at that propaganda ridden blog and realize the fool you been taken for
yet not today me thinks
jeff f
New Member
speaking of fools, i forgot to shut my truck off last night and its 10 degrees hotter here already.
whats another word for gullible?
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
you'd probably save yourself time burning money you get co2 from that too you know
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
same old conspiracy bla bla bla.
the coop is for ducklings that just hatched... https://www.rollitup.org/toke-n-talk/450677-my-chicken-just-hatched-duck.html
we will use them for entertainment (they imprinted on a chicken, so they will follow her around) as well as eggs once they get older (hoping they are both female).
i will let you off easy. if you read the thread, you will see that the mother of whoever muses about consuming our chickens will suffer a cruel consequence.
if your mother is dead, i will reanimate her to complete my plan.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
is the man with 50,000+ posts still criticizing us for spending time on this website?you all still winning?
nope, just laughing at the same dozen people arguing the same dick measuring contest for the past how many years?
none of you ever prove anything other then you all cry and insult each other when people don't agree with you. don't you all ever get tired? sooooooooo redundant.
it would be cool if anything ever came from any of this, but it doesn't.
i just don't get the point. do you really need the satisfaction of "being right"? how much "time" do you spend on being right? seems like you all could be doing better things.
at least my posts offer something for others. i have no reason to prove anything. i come here to help.
WillyBagseed
Active Member
I am not pro or anti global warming, however, if you are going to post something make sure you let everyone know who wrote the paper and who the "peers" were who verified it... lol
The first author of this work is Roy Spencer — one of the extremely few climate scientists who denies human-caused climate change and his work has been shown to be thoroughly wrong by mainstream climate scientists.
Stephanie Pappas at LiveScience contacted several climate scientists about Spencer’s paper, and their conclusions were quite harsh. They say Spencer’s model is "unrealistic", "flawed", and "incorrect". It has been shown that Spencer’s models are irretrievably flawed, "don’t make any physical sense", and that Spencer has a track record in using such flawed analysis to draw any conclusion he wants.
My opinion....... too many indoor growers using CO2 in their grow............ =)
The first author of this work is Roy Spencer — one of the extremely few climate scientists who denies human-caused climate change and his work has been shown to be thoroughly wrong by mainstream climate scientists.
Stephanie Pappas at LiveScience contacted several climate scientists about Spencer’s paper, and their conclusions were quite harsh. They say Spencer’s model is "unrealistic", "flawed", and "incorrect". It has been shown that Spencer’s models are irretrievably flawed, "don’t make any physical sense", and that Spencer has a track record in using such flawed analysis to draw any conclusion he wants.
My opinion....... too many indoor growers using CO2 in their grow............ =)
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
well, that would explain the styx videoi come here to help.
not that i mind, that is a good tune which i am listening to as i type this out.
some people like to argue about whether soil or hydro is better, some people like to debate the merits of anal sex, some people like to argue politics, religion, and science.
are you the grand arbiter of who gets to argue over what? or which discussion is worthy and which is not?
everyone has their own interests. some people like to post threads about blowing glass, others like to post threads about political figures worthy of mockery.
it is what it is. live and let live.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
how do yo know this?
you have no more evidence for this assertion than the people who you claim are orchestrating a magnificent hoax under the guise of taking your money.
what if we convert more rapidly to sustainable, renewable, non-polluting energies? what is the harm?
it is the smart, cost-effective thing to do anyway. why impede progress towards this improvement with your holier-than-science, anti-intellectual attitude?
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Bad politics can and should be separated from the actual science.
The evidence is that we are warming very fast, on the order of decades rather than centuries and that we are dumping vast amounts of a known GHG into our atmosphere. The evidence is all around as we lose tons of glacial ice at staggering rates.