What Do We Think About Climate Change

we could accept the distraction
or
we could begin that conversation on glaring inconsistencies by chewing up a few found in post 2471

that way we kinda kill two planets with one huge fossil fuels burning event




the actual quote reads as follows G

but
I did like the humor involved
way to keep a sense humor alive
best B

 

Studies have been posted which do not support that. In fact they suggest just before pre-industrial times concentration was higher than 400 ppm. See some dozen of pages back.

Once again: "....This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels."

Cheers.

 

those would be the studies found in the oil and gas industry rags often referred to as agnotism by people in the know
defined as
an effort to disseminate deliberately misleading or false information distributed and disguised as science to the public in pseudo scientific self refereed self funded periodicals in an effort to stall legislation that would inhibit those companies from continuing to make unprecedented profits from unprecedented pollution

or do you mean the studies done by the scientific community

 

Guillermo, intentionally misquoting someone as you did in post #2484 is decidedly low, as I'm sure you realize. It's the sort of thing losers do out of desperation. It's a sure indication that this discussion is not about learning, but about winning. You provide sophistry and eristic devoid of content.

 

We are releasing into the atmosphere EACH year a quantity of CO2 which is more than double the yearly accumulation observed.

"natural variability" is far outstripped by our emissions.

 

More sophistry and eristic devoid of content: Probable strong correlation of Oceans' temperature and atmospheric CO2 content


Cheers.

P.S
Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte...20001/art00008;jsessionid=1k9alnlpdhr7c.alice

Abstract:

Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of −0.35 (±0.2) × 1022 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years.

 

The data provided by the observatory:


http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png

 

Thanks, Boston, friend.
Aren't you being somewhat sophistic and eristic by keeping such a healthy sense of humour?

Best.

P.S.
Thomas: Mauna Loa rate of change.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/21/recent-ocean-heat-and-mlo-co2-trends/

 

The dissenters against Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW) have long desired an open and honest debate with Al Gore. But Mr. Gore has never consented.

Here’s the next best thing: a video presentation of edited arguments from 7 renown climate scientists that demolish the rationalizations presented in Gore's movie “An Inconvenient Truth."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/al_gore_vs_7_climate_scientist.html

 

MIT news: Levels of the greenhouse gas methane begin to increase again

"The amount of methane in Earth's atmosphere shot up in 2007, bringing to an end a period of about a decade in which atmospheric levels of the potent greenhouse gas were essentially stable, according to a team led by MIT researchers.

Methane levels in the atmosphere have more than tripled since pre-industrial times, accounting for around one-fifth of the human contribution to greenhouse gas-driven global warming. Until recently, the leveling off of methane levels had suggested that the rate of its emission from the Earth's surface was approximately balanced by the rate of its destruction in the atmosphere."

More at:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/methane-tt1029.html

 

NEWS FLASH!!!!THIS JUST IN!!!:

THE UNIVERSITY OF NORWAY IN OSLO IS NOW AN "OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY RAG" Persons 'In The Know' are advised to keep clear as their commentary on the subject of "Global Warming" is likeley to be slanted according to unnamed 'experts'

That's all for this hour........





Jimbo

 

Try this:

http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/

Someone should tell anthony to correct the labels on those graphs he makes...

 

I'm wondering why don't you do it yourself. He doesn't look to me like an opponent's jugular biter....

Cheers.

 

na I was just thinkin we could keep it friendly but still throw in our two cents
for the most part the hole thing is kinda fun and infuriating at the same time