The global warming hoax explained for dummies.

[Greatcloud]

The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies - YouTube

In just 12 min it brings up so many problems with AGW, it is very entertaining. My favorite is that 30,000 parts per million in co2 is needed to start to make you feel a little woozey. 365 parts per million is not dangerous and is benefishal to life on earth.

Thank you I feel so much better now.

 

[Nabobalis]

In just 12 min it brings up so many problems with AGW, it is very entertaining. My favorite is that 30,000 parts per million in co2 is needed to start to make you feel a little woozey. 365 parts per million is not dangerous and is benefishal to life on earth.

Thank you I feel so much better now.

I do love that argument, it implies that poisons don't work.

 

[RickG]

Global warming a hoax? Then explain the graph below.

Source: NASA/GISS

Or this one showing ten different sources all showing the same warming. That's all real instrumental data Greatcloud, it's not a hoax. But the real nail in that coffin is the recent Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study that verified those temperatures as real and accurate. The study was performed by some very well known and outspoken climate change skeptics including, Judith Curry, and Richard Muller, et al.

Never mind that absurd statement concerning the well known physics of CO2 which has been known for 150 years. I'll get into the video when I have time.

 

[gattaca]

global warming is not hoax

 

[AV1611VET]

Global warming a hoax? Then explain the graph below.

Rick, have you seen the Glenn Morton vs. Thaumaturgy thread here, where Glenn showed pictures to Thaumaturgy of those ... I forget what they're called ... fancy thermometers sitting right next to air conditioning units, or sitting on asphalt, giving exaggerated readings?

 

[AV1611VET]

global warming is not hoax

Ya -- neither was Y2K, was it?

 

[Psudopod]

Ya -- neither was Y2K, was it?

Nope. Y2K was a real problem that was fixed before most people noticed any effects (though there were some). It might have been exaggerated by some, but that doesn't mean there wasn't an issue that needed rectifying.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. Y2K was a real problem that was fixed before most people noticed any effects (though there were some). It might have been exaggerated by some, but that doesn't mean there wasn't an issue that needed rectifying.

-- 'Might have been exaggerated by some'?

My toaster wasn't even going to work.

 

[Psudopod]

-- 'Might have been exaggerated by some'?

My toaster wasn't even going to work.

If you were told that, it wasn't by someone who understood the problem. The fact that there are idiots out there spouting off about things they don't understand (or do understand but are either trolling or trying to sell papers with sensationism etc) doesn't change the nature of the problem itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you were told that, it wasn't by someone who understood the problem.

And science did?

Only because they are the ones who gave us this problem in the first place.

 

[Nabobalis]

Rick, have you seen the Glenn Morton vs. Thaumaturgy thread here, where Glenn showed pictures to Thaumaturgy of those ... I forget what they're called ... fancy thermometers sitting right next to air conditioning units, or sitting on asphalt, giving exaggerated readings?

When those stations are removed from the temperature data the trend is still the same.

 

[AV1611VET]

When those stations are removed from the temperature data the trend is still the same.

So why did they remove them then?

 

[Nabobalis]

So why did they remove them then?

People criticised the use of some temperature stations and so the analysis was redone to check to see the effect of said stations, it had no effect.

 

[Psudopod]

And science did?

Only because they are the ones who gave us this problem in the first place.

No, not scientists, developers. Really not the same thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

People criticised the use of some temperature stations and so the analysis was redone to check to see the effect of said stations, it had no effect.

So why did they remove them?

 

[acropolis]

The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies - YouTube

In just 12 min it brings up so many problems with AGW, it is very entertaining. My favorite is that 30,000 parts per million in co2 is needed to start to make you feel a little woozey. 365 parts per million is not dangerous and is benefishal to life on earth.

Thank you I feel so much better now.

The issue isn't that CO2 will poison anyone, since it won't do that directly, but that it is a greenhouse has and will therefore raise the average temperature of earth if there is a higher concentration of it in the atmosphere.

 

[DaisyDay]

In just 12 min it brings up so many problems with AGW, it is very entertaining. My favorite is that 30,000 parts per million in co2 is needed to start to make you feel a little woozey. 365 parts per million is not dangerous and is benefishal to life on earth.

Thank you I feel so much better now.

Lost me at "No, you ignorant [here, the filter kicks in]".

I know that is from SNL Dan Ackroyd/Jane Curtin, but I found that offensive then as I do now.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is rather simple. The more CO2 you have in the atmosphere the more heat that is trapped in the atmosphere. This is physics. There is no getting around it. Also, CO2 has a residence time of 15 years or so. Compare that to water vapor which has a residence time of just 7 days. This means that increases in CO2 can and will drive longer term changes in the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere.

It is not a question of will higher concentrations of CO2 increase global temperatures, it is a matter of how much.

 

[AV1611VET]

The more CO2 you have in the atmosphere the more heat that is trapped in the atmosphere.

Are you for banning CO[sub]2[/sub] extinguishers?

 

[Nabobalis]

So why did they remove them?

Some people thought that certain stations should be excluded because they happen to be in a bad position.