Nature says global warming is real

No news here, earth has been warming since the last ice age, yaaaawn.

 

Guess again robby:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...erence-palestine-global-warming_n_872582.html

http://www.economist.com/node/14447171

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/glo...ions-demand-help-to-fight-climate-change/8367

It is you who are in denial robby, money for corrupt despots like Pakistan, Egypt, Palestine, and on and on and on.

 

Translation, I refused to read the facts and instead am sticking with the percentage value instead of the comprehensive scientific explanation.

 

Well not exactly true.

New evidence from a long term study shows that the earth was actually cooling before the recent heat spike so often referred to as "global warming"

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/world/world-climate-change/index.html

 

No , I read the COMPLETE CONJECTURE that you confuse as "facts", in typical Warmist fashion, and conclude that the chemical properties of CO2 are FINITE.

 

Oh really?
Let us know when solid ice sheets a mile thick are receding at a rate of miles per day,and the Great Lakes are being formed,as happened about 12,000 years ago, in the MASSIVE WARMING that FAR EXCEEDS anything going on ANYHWERE ON EARTH TODAY, with ZERO human input, ok?

Get back to us when the "New Great Lakes" are being formed , willya?

Now, hurry up and post some more complete nonsense,and call it "facts"....

 

I'm guessing your understanding of basic science is minimal at best. If we stopped all carbon emissions tomorrow, the oceans, forests and soil would eventually draw out all the added CO2 in the atmosphere,reducing the greenhouse effect.

 

Let us know when solid ice sheets a mile thick are receding at a rate of miles per day,and the Great Lakes are being formed,as happened about 12,000 years ago, in the MASSIVE WARMING that FAR EXCEEDS anything going on ANYHWERE ON EARTH TODAY, with ZERO human input, ok?

Get back to us when the "New Great Lakes" are being formed , willya? Or (*)(*)(*)(*).

Now, hurry up and post some more complete nonsense,and call it "facts"....

 

There are those that question your absolute. If we can reverse or repair our atmosphere without giving $billions to corrupt despots I am all for it, but history says that won't happen.

http://www.nl-aid.org/domain/environment/ozone-layer-repair-research-maybe-necessary/

One study published last week, linked storms to ozone layer depletion over the States. The study pointed to water vapor, sent into the stratosphere by storms, as a catalyst to ozone destroying reactions by chlorofluorocarbon. This possibility puts the ozone layer at the edge of depletion by future storms, in regions inhabited by humans. Contrary to Arctic and Antarctica, where ozone hole reoccurs and just researchers stay.

To repair the ozone layer, we must stop releasing ozone-depleting compounds into the atmosphere. Scientists hope that the ozone layer will return to normal within fifty years of completely stopping the release of these compounds.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/question778.htm

 

Let me know when you find an incident like anything described that happened at a rate anywhere near as fast as the current warming we are encountering that didn't involve a global disaster. Kk?

 

As a matter of fact, thats an excellent point, except increased CO2 increases plant growth by 52%.

Earth automatically compensates for higher levels of CO2.

Lets take a look... Seeing is Believing]
[video=youtube;P2qVNK6zFgE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE[/video]

 

I already did. The end of the Last Great Ice Age. Gonna post some MADEUP BULLCRAP about that, too?

So you found the "New Great Lakes" forming?

Got the minutes of the chemical/thermal test, utilizing Scientific Method, PROVING the thermal properties of less than 400ppm CO2?

Didn't think so;


Welcome to your latest public pimp slappin'. Enjoying it?

 

Then you be the first to give up using all fossil energy and we will see if any of your other science minded compadres follow suit.

BTW, box man, I never claimed to have scientific acumen, but I do have the ability to smell a con of global proportions. I don't question the science, I question your political agenda

 

Ok, how about we put it this way. If there was no CO2 in the atmosphere what would the temperature of earth be? An average of 0 degrees F,or very (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) cold.( http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html) So obviously, the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a pretty significant effect on the temperature of the planet.

So I don't see why it's so hard for you to understand that a 40% increase in CO2 would indeed add to the greenhouse effect and change the temp of the earth.

 

The little ice age was a glitch too but we have been warming since the last ice age and will continue to warm until we start going into the next ice age, it is the normal cycle of earth climate.

 

More madeup bullcrap. WATER VAPOR is the greenhouse gas that protects the planet.

Once again:So you found the "New Great Lakes" forming?

Got the minutes of the chemical/thermal test, utilizing Scientific Method, PROVING the thermal properties of less than 400ppm CO2?

Didn't think so;

 

First of all, I am not a man. Nor am I a politician, nor am I trying to force some sort of "political agenda" related to climate change. I do advocate for cleaner energy,but I hardly see that as a "political agenda" and more as caring about the future of the planet, like a sane person would.

Second, your strawman argument doesn't change that you were wrong, it just unsucssesfully deflects and exposes your lack of knowledge on the subject. Perhaps next time you should research before saying things that are not true.

Unlike you, I live, learn and work in the scientific community. If you seriously think that thousands of scientists world wide are spending huge portions of their lives to become accredited scientists just so they can preform fake research with falsified results all for some "global political scam" or whatever it is that you think they are doing, you need to seriously think about how bat (*)(*)(*)(*) (*)(*)(*)(*)ing crazy that sounds.

 

Thousands of scientists have ALREADY performed CONTRIVED "research" ,as well as CONSPIRED to SILENCE any other scientists refusing to walk in lockstep with them, in the name of the Warmi$t Income Redi$tribution $cam.

 

Europe is frozen today.

That tree in the picture is several years old and because the liberal/progressive horde condones massive voter fraud to get their America hating illegal immigrant into the White House I wonder if they would lie about this picture.

 

Oh sweet buttery jesus, seriously? You deny the greenhouse effect of CO2 entirely? Well then you obviously have no interest in established science would prefer to live in a la la denier land where things are hunky dory and pumping massive amounts of pollutants into the air does jack diddly to the atmosphere.

I know this is falling on the absolute deafest of ears,but here she goes anyway.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

- - - Updated - - -

Oh sweet buttery jesus, seriously? You deny the greenhouse effect of CO2 entirely? Well then you obviously have no interest in established science would prefer to live in a la la denier land where things are hunky dory and pumping massive amounts of pollutants into the air does jack diddly to the atmosphere.

I know this is falling on the absolute deafest of ears,but here she goes anyway.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm

- - - Updated - - -

That's a bunch of unfounded bull(*)(*)(*)(*) conspiracy crazy right there. If you can't see how absolutely insane that sounds, then there is just no hope. You have superglued the tin foil hat on and it's not coming off.

 

CO2 has a VERY limited role in the Earth's "greenhouse" effect. Sorry that the people who spoonfeed you their Warmist nonsense haven't been honest with you about it.

Find the "New Great Lakes" yet?

Got the lab test PROVING the thermal effects that you so erroneaously keep trying to attribute to less than 400ppm CO2?

Fail much?

 

Take your great lakes red herring to someone who gives a flying (*)(*)(*)(*).

Produce some factual evidence, not just your ramblings, that CO2 has a very limited effect on the greenhouse effect and the global temperature maybe you will start having an ounce of credibility.

I have shown the vastly, vastly accepted science in the scientific community that even small amounts of CO2 can have a dramatic impact on the climate and global temperature. You have shown jack (*)(*)(*)(*) accept "nuh uh! prove my specific experiement I made up in my head! oh great lakes! Maybe all my red herrings will distract you from the fact that I have not shown a single piece of scientific evidence for my claims"

Science says that CO2 has an enhanced greenhouse effect. Even small amounts can have a drastic effect.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/emp...2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-intermediate.htm



No where is your evidence that the mountains of data here is wrong?

 

And we are going to rule them.

 

It doesn't. It proves that there is warming when there shouldn't be warming. We're supposed to be in a cooling period, instead we just had the hottest decade in 11,000 years after having the coldest only 100 years ago. What unnatural things have occurred since 1900 that could have an affect on climate? Increased human GHG emissions? Factually proven. Increased human deforestation? Factually proven. What besides human interference has happened since 1900 that is proven to have caused spikes in temperature and atmospheric CO2?

 

"Science" says NO SUCH THING.

There is not a SHRED of PROOF regarding the ACTUAL effects of the miniscule levels of CO2 in our atmosphere, in terms of thermal retention, in any of the complete speculation you keep pretending = proof.

The Warmists only show Co2 compared ot other, even MORE miniscule greenhouse gases, while ALWAYS IGNORING WATER VAPOR?

Why? Same reason they NEVER go back 12,000-15,000 thousand years in their diatribe of bullcrap: it would SHOOT DOWN ALL OF THEIR NONSENSE.

Try to drop your Warmist Spoonfeeding,and absorb some OBJECTIVE, ACTUAL CHEMICAL FACTS about the Earth's greenhouse gas effects:

As illustrated in this chart of the data in Table 3, the combined greenhouse contributions of CO2, methane, N2O and misc. gases are small compared to water vapor!

Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect-- a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (5). Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is "customary" to do so!


http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

IOW, Warmist ROUTINELY EXCLUDE tha FACT that WATER VAPOR DWARFS ALL OTHER GREENHOUSE GASES, but exploit your basic ingorance of the Earth, by stating that "CO2 is the most effective greenhouse gas" ...UNLESS WE INCLUDE WATER VAPOR.

CO2 is responsible for LESS THAN 4% of the greenhouse effect. Sorry.

See chart below: