What Do We Think About Climate Change

this is the funniest thing I have seen on here yet

they guy who continually posts from the heartland industry rag can with a straight face say this

and then goes on to fail to comprehend the in depth explanation for why we can identify co2, how much of it is anthropomorphic and now much is not
wants to claim the banner of scientific credibility

outrageous
absolutely outrageous

no wonder I can never get enough of this comedy
I try to stay away
but its like fate
every time I could use a good laugh my mail chimes me and there it is
**** I think I just dropped my popcorn and drink Im laughing so hard

heartland institute guy spouting off about credibility
to much

is there anyone here who understands the term agnotology

this description fits perfectly what the heartland institute and many of the other sources often listed by the deniers are all about

thanks for the laughs guys
it was priceless

 

I have yet to read all the responses to this post. I affirm it is on global warming? Tcubed, cool questions. I’ve often pondered the same. If you could quantify the volume of carbon dioxide expelled (as with the humans on the earth, nowadays, in a controlled environment!) then scientists can indeed argue the increase…. Do you remember when all the airplanes and jets were grounded in the day of 911? Do you remember the atmospheric conditions then? #2, Fossil fuels? FOSSIL? Hello? A somewhat no brainer proven over and over as the composition of the fuels on the molecular level. I Will not tell you where I think the Carbon atoms are from. (…Star Stuff, whoops, sorry!)
I’m thinking there are a fewer chemists/physicist/ scientists? Not in a bad way, but the culmination of true science throughout I’ve obtained is indeed still current.There is a difference with “philosophical” and "scientific." However much philosophical lead to the scientific fyi., and thanks to the philosophical people!

 

Yes , were did those carbon atoms come from originally. I know it is all star stuff, that's why i said not all the way back to 'birth' of the earth.

 

c mon its an easy one
Ild think Guillermo would have guessed it right off

 

Here's the latest data on where the CO2 comes from:




"The diagram shows that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 from burning of
fossil fuels cannot be the reason for the increase in atmospheric CO2. "



"Left: reservoirs found to be in carbon isotopic equilibrium. Burning of
biospheric fossil fuel adds 12C (low δ13C) to the air. δ13C of air in 1988
shows ~4% anthropogenic CO2 in air (right scale shows % mixing).
Not 21% as asserted by the IPCC, which would have given air δ13C ≈ -11"



"Some of the trace gasses in air can absorb heat, making the Earth habitable (~ +15°C vs. minus 18°C) by the “Greenhouse Effect”, 146 W/m² of cloud-free air, ~98% dominated by water vapor. Anthropogenic CO2 is less than ½ W/m², less than 0.1%, judged from the C isotopes. Clouds are the real thermostat, with far more temperature regulating power than CO2."


This is the part where "He Who Believes He Knows All" sticks his fingers in his ears and sayd "La, LA, LA, I can't hear you, realclimat, realclimate, Inconvenient Truth, Evil Exxon, La, La La,...."



Jimbo

 

I'm still waiting for your answers to my questions 1 and 2 in post 2363.

You can answer them, right?

You skirted around my previous questions, don't make us think you're avoiding an examination of your global climate model.

 

I'm not in the habit of skirting relevant questions. COMPLETELY IRRELEVAT questions are another matter....

Jimbo

 

Maybe you are not in the habit of doing so but you are doing so right now.

Please justify why those questions are completely irrelevant.

Because they are very relevant.

The first question addresses how and why we actually have the atmosphere that we do.

The second question addresses the carbon cycle which is fundamental to any reasonable discussion on atmospheric evolution.

 

Besides if they are completely irrelevant you should answer them just for fun as they will obviously be of no threat to your climate theories.

 

CO2 lasts 5 or at most maybe 10 years in the atmosphere. It's 'origin' is therefore irrelevant to the discussion as any molecule of CO2 in the air at any given moment will have been recycled many times. The question is therefore arcane and irrelevant, unless of course you believe in such myths as a 200 year half-life of atmospheric CO2.

Jimbo

 

If it only 'lasts' 5 or ten years then where does it go or what does it become? Before our carbon inputs where did more come from to replenish the supplies?


Ok , and now what about question 1 ?

It was ; 1- What would happen to the earth's atmospheric composition if all life where to suddenly vanish, and why?

 

Who Cares????

 

" Who cares??? "

Well that is an admirably scientific approach.

I thought i was giving you an opportunity to demonstrate your understanding.

It turns out you either do not understand the most important fundamentals, or you would rather not go there as it may show some of your other assertions to be flawed.

" Who Cares???? "

I'll tell you who cares ; many millions of people who have opened their eyes and wonder what is in store for us.

 

You have, the floor; Oh do tell! Show us how the long ago past has any relevance to the significance of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and attribution thereof to the state of the current climate, which emissions are all of 60 years old! I'd simply love to hear!



Jimbo