Twenty years of two and a half degrees of warming

[greatcloudlives]

There is no difference between the CO2 produced by nature and the CO2 produced by burning of fossil fuels. All of the CO2 produced is balanced out of the atmosphere by vegetation and the ocean. Co2 produced by man is no different.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no difference between the CO2 produced by nature and the CO2 produced by burning of fossil fuels. All of the CO2 produced is balanced out of the atmosphere by vegetation and the ocean. Co2 produced by man is no different.

Incorrect. And as soon as you admit that you failed to provide any evidence for your claims I will show you how we know.

Seriously, when you are arguing science it is almost always a mistake to assume that because you do not understand something that others do not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The mathmatics of leaf decay MIT is the name of the article.

Okay, I found the article. And you misunderstood it:

The mathematics of leaf decay

Why was that so hard to do?

Here is the quote from the article:

"In fact, the natural decay of organic carbon contributes more than 90 percent of the yearly carbon dioxide released into Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. "

That does not tell you that 90% or our present carbon dioxide is from leafs. Leaf carbon dioxide cycles. As much is as absorbed as is released every year. What we are discussing is the excessive carbon dioxide that is causing global warming. Do you understand the difference?

 

[greatcloudlives]

No carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide and is acted upon in the atmosphere the same as all of the carbon dioxide it's absorbed by vegetation and the ocean. The very small amount of CO2 emissions we produce is cancelled out by the ocean and vegetation.

The CO2 produced by nature is much more than that produced by man .

 

[greatcloudlives]

How are you saying that CO2 operates different from co2 produced by nature and I mankind. Nature is blind to the CO2 produced Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide. The carbon cycle operates on carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and plants and animals decomposing. How can the heat acted upon in co2 be hot after the four years it is holding CO2 in the atmosphere. The laws of thereodynamics and entropy go against this happening. The heat after four years must be less than the original figure according to the law of entropy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide and is acted upon in the atmosphere the same as all of the carbon dioxide it's absorbed by vegetation and the ocean. The very small amount of CO2 emissions we produce is cancelled out by the ocean and vegetation.

The CO2 produced by nature is much more than that produced by man .

Incorrect.

Do you know what an isotope is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How are you saying that CO2 operates different from co2 produced by nature and I mankind. Nature is blind to the CO2 produced Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide. The carbon cycle operates on carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and plants and animals decomposing. How can the heat acted upon in co2 be hot after the four years it is holding CO2 in the atmosphere. The laws of thereodynamics and entropy go against this happening. The heat after four years must be less than the original figure according to the law of entropy.

Wrong again. "Nature" does not treat all isotopes the same.

 

[Eshlyyy]

Climate change encompasses not only rising average temperatures but also extreme weather events, shifting wildlife populations and habitats, rising seas, and a range of other impacts. All of those changes are emerging as humans continue to add heat-trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, changing the rhythms of climate that all living things have come to rely on. Now i writting desertation on this topic and uk assignment help me because it so difficult to find real reason why climate is changing. The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization.

 

[lordjeff]

If they are scientists where are there peer reviewed papers? If one is not actively doing science one can hardly claim to be a scientist. The deniers are pretty much an anti-science bunch.

Their papers are peer-reviewed. Many of these profs are associated with universities or institutes. The people who were not peer-reviewed were Oreskes & the thesis student. Just because they disagree with the politically-charged theory, does not make them anti-science. They understand the basic concepts in any earth science course plus the advanced math applied to it. People need not examine graphs all day or listen to left-wing media or Al Gore & assume they're God. That's about as bad as watching LBJ & his Gulf of Tonken story or Arlen Specter's magic bullet. Not every person is ready to be led to the slaughter by would-be politicians or their surrogates. Be it IPCC or WHO, none of these people do anything but distribute a propoganda. If you're asking about where the papers are, you have not looked? Myself on the other hand have watched the podcasts plus the debates between the differing scientists. An example of one way a claim gets distorted is the ocean. I've stated many times that the ocean is the largest global repository of co2 absorption & we are 72% ocean (not to mention seas, lakes, rivers, your basic pond). Some of this co2 will be used by the gazillions of plankton that we can't see plus all the algae. In shallow waters, esp in the Atlantic, there is bivalve uptake plus corals. Now the claim by Mann et al in his group is that it's warmer because the excess co2 is stepping down to a further depth. Sounds plausible? Well, per the marine geologists on the ocean floor we have lots of volcanos & seamounts & hydrothermal vents spurting out hot magma, hot steam, hot water, & hot acid type stuff circulating. And to add to that, co2 absorbs better in colder water. But this is the catch. People are assuming that sunlight is rapidly warming the ocean layers & enhancing co2 absorption of light. But they left out the part that the sun's radiation can only penetrate so far before it reaches the aphotic zone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Their papers are peer-reviewed. Many of these profs are associated with universities or institutes. The people who were not peer-reviewed were Oreskes & the thesis student. Just because they disagree with the politically-charged theory, does not make them anti-science. They understand the basic concepts in any earth science course plus the advanced math applied to it. People need not examine graphs all day or listen to left-wing media or Al Gore & assume they're God. That's about as bad as watching LBJ & his Gulf of Tonken story or Arlen Specter's magic bullet. Not every person is ready to be led to the slaughter by would-be politicians or their surrogates. Be it IPCC or WHO, none of these people do anything but distribute a propoganda. If you're asking about where the papers are, you have not looked? Myself on the other hand have watched the podcasts plus the debates between the differing scientists. An example of one way a claim gets distorted is the ocean. I've stated many times that the ocean is the largest global repository of co2 absorption & we are 72% ocean (not to mention seas, lakes, rivers, your basic pond). Some of this co2 will be used by the gazillions of plankton that we can't see plus all the algae. In shallow waters, esp in the Atlantic, there is bivalve uptake plus corals. Now the claim by Mann et al in his group is that it's warmer because the excess co2 is stepping down to a further depth. Sounds plausible? Well, per the marine geologists on the ocean floor we have lots of volcanos & seamounts & hydrothermal vents spurting out hot magma, hot steam, hot water, & hot acid type stuff circulating. And to add to that, co2 absorbs better in colder water. But this is the catch. People are assuming that sunlight is rapidly warming the ocean layers & enhancing co2 absorption of light. But they left out the part that the sun's radiation can only penetrate so far before it reaches the aphotic zone.

C!aims are worthless if you cannot support them


And no, scientists are not allowed to assume things like that.

And where are your answers to the questions that I asked you about isotopes?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Arlen Specter's magic bullet

Most people don't realize that Gov. Conolly was sitting in a jump seat that put him lower to the ground and not sitting directly in front of the President. It is perfectly reasonable that a single bullet passed thorough the President's neck, Governor's wrist, and lodged in his thigh. There are some misperceptions about the timing of the three shots relative to the film that eliminate any "hovering" issues. The book I would recommend is "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner.

 

[Hans Blaster]

C!aims are worthless if you cannot support them


And no, scientists are not allowed to assume things like that.

And where are your answers to the questions that I asked you about isotopes?

I doubt she knows, or at least understands why the question would be asked. Unfortunately, this post and too many in the last couple days are just conspiritorial rantings from a number of posters, particularly about the "hockey stick", "algore," etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I doubt she knows, or at least understands why the question would be asked. Unfortunately, this post and too many in the last couple days are just conspiritorial rantings from a number of posters, particularly about the "hockey stick", "algore," etc.

I know, the "hockey stick" rants especially drive me nuts. It only shows a lack of understanding of what the hockey stick was. And of course it was never refuted. It is very telling that all accurate historic plots of temperature look like the hockey stick. That should tell her that it was not refuted in the first place.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This particular graph was fudged-the infamous hockey stick.

No it's not. It doesn't even *look* like a hockey stick. This does:

File:T comp 61-90.pdf - Wikipedia

*THAT* is the Mann hockey stick diagram.

 

[lordjeff]

Most people don't realize that Gov. Conolly was sitting in a jump seat that put him lower to the ground and not sitting directly in front of the President. It is perfectly reasonable that a single bullet passed thorough the President's neck, Governor's wrist, and lodged in his thigh. There are some misperceptions about the timing of the three shots relative to the film that eliminate any "hovering" issues. The book I would recommend is "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner.

wrong

 

[Subduction Zone]

wrong

How is that wrong? What did he claim that was wrong and what is your evidence? He can support all of his claims with reliable evidence. Conspiracy theorists can only say "wrong".

 

[greatcloudlives]

As for isotopes, plants decomposing create isotopes too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As for isotopes, plants decomposing create isotopes too.

Nope.

Just admit that you do not know what isotopes are.

 

[sjastro]

As for isotopes, plants decomposing create isotopes too.

I'm afraid your attempts at being knowledgeable are seriously backfiring.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm afraid your attempts at being knowledgeable are seriously backfiring.

You know, if a person is honest and admits that he or she does not understand something I have no problem with helping them to understand, politely and without judgment. But to write such a post indicates that the person will never own up to the mistakes that he makes.