Twenty years of two and a half degrees of warming

[Hans Blaster]

Trillions of dollars are being spent world wide on a theroy that is in doubt. Why are we wasting all this money. World hunger and diseases should be our main focus.

And so this pointless discussion goes on because various people refuse to accept the evidence presented to them and keep listening to people who lie to them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

CO2 cannot account for the recent temperature changes we have had in the past. The Roman warming, the medieval warming , the Holocene maximums and five other warmings we have had in the past 100,000 years. We must first separate the natural causes of warming then determine what warming man has caused. 90 percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from decomposisition of plants and animals. The oceans certainly contribute a large amount of CO2. Change in these factors need to be considered before we look at CO2 produced by man. Definitely before we spend any more money for a problem that may not even exist.

Repeating it does not make it true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Climategate proved that there is no science behind the agw theroy. It's politics and green religion. Also climate gate proved colution and corrupted science.

The 1500 year cycle of warming clearly shows that there were numerous occasions when it was warmer globally then modern times. The medival warming, the Roman warm period, the two Holocene maximums and five other warmings we have had during the last 100,000 years. This is just another warming like the previous ones and natural in occurance.

The proxy data shows the world wide warmings we have had in the past this is undisputed.

All the previous warmings we have had were nature caused. A combination of the malankovich cycles is the best explanation of the 1,500 year warmings we have had. Otherwise what else is the cause of the exact cycle time of the warmings we have had, all nine of them.

Agw theroy needs to be challenged especially the math behind the greenhouse effect.

No, it only "proved" that deniers cannot do science. No one of any note takes that seriously at all today.

 

[greatcloudlives]

All eight of the investigations .

1 never interviewed outside sources

2 never even read all of the emails

3 were biased and did not ask for opposite side view points

4 there were no public hearings

5 there was no call for evidence

6 only 11 papers were examined all vetted by Phil Jones ( a suspect)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Agw theroy needs to be challenged especially the math behind the greenhouse effect.

This is a really poor hill to die on. The physics (math is only the handmaiden of science) of the greenhouse effect is *very* well established and not questioned by those with even a modicum of knowledge. If it weren't for the greenhouse effect this planet would be a frozen wasteland.

 

[greatcloudlives]

We have had nine warmings in the recent past 100,000 years. Once every 1,500 years, the medieval warm period, the Roman warming period, two Holocene maximums and others including this modern warming period. How much of this modern warming is natural needs to be addressed.

The mathmatics of CO2 warming effect needs to be addressed because it's not very persuasive.

If you look at the satellite graphs, except for a large el nino year in 1998 the temperature is remarkably stable. Pre ious to satellite data we find temperatures in the 1930' s warmer than now.

 

[greatcloudlives]

This is a really poor hill to die on. The physics (math is only the handmaiden of science) of the greenhouse effect is *very* well established and not questioned by those with even a modicum of knowledge. If it weren't for the greenhouse effect this planet would be a frozen wasteland.

The frozen wasteland you are referring to is from water vapor not CO2.

 

[greatcloudlives]

The temperature in the thirties and forties was warmer than now.

 

[Shemjaza]

The temperature in the thirties and forties was warmer than now.

Is this from the satellite data?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The frozen wasteland you are referring to is from water vapor not CO2.

Greenhouse effect is greenhouse effect. You challenged the greenhouse effect not CO2 in the statement I replied to. Stop while you're behind.

 

[greatcloudlives]

The greenhouse effect is mostly from water vapor.

Ninety percent of the CO2 produced in the atmosphere is from nature.

In the thirties and forties when we did not produce much CO2 , temperatures were as high as today.

There is a pause in the rising temperature we are experiencing of two and a half degrees. This has been the case for sixteen years. Then NASA and NOAA changed their data and poof goes the pause. The US Congress has asked both agencies to release thier data and they have refused to do it.

The climate models are way off they are not reflecting the actual temperatures that are observed. Other than the large El Nino year in 1998, the temperature is very stable. Only two and a half degrees above normal.

So what is all the fuss about ?

 

[Shemjaza]

The greenhouse effect is mostly from water vapor.

Ninety percent of the CO2 produced in the atmosphere is from nature.

In the thirties and forties when we did not produce much CO2 , temperatures were as high as today.

There is a pause in the rising temperature we are experiencing of two and a half degrees. This has been the case for sixteen years. Then NASA and NOAA changed their data and poof goes the pause. The US Congress has asked both agencies to release thier data and they have refused to do it.

The climate models are way off they are not reflecting the actual temperatures that are observed. Other than the large El Nino year in 1998, the temperature is very stable. Only two and a half degrees above normal.

So what is all the fuss about ?

That it isn't true? That's the biggest problem.

People pointed out that this statement was false last time it was presented on this thread... repetition doesn't make false things true.

 

[greatcloudlives]

The statement that plant and animal decay cause ninety percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere per year , is not false. Type in your search engine: the mathmatics of leaf decay MIT News.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The statement that plant and animal decay cause ninety percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere per year , is not false. Type in your search engine: the mathmatics of leaf decay MIT News.

Or you could read back in this thread to see why this is not only misleading, but irrelevant. Please don't recycle arguments that have already been discredited in this very thread.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Type in your search engine - "The mathmatics of leaf decay MIT News"




You assume that the statement, "plant and animal decay is responsible for ninety percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere per year" was discredited, it was not.

 

[Hans Blaster]

pages.science-skeptical.de this site is dedicated to showing the global extent of CO2 levels and temperatures during the medieval warm period.

Oh, and before continue posting recycled nonsense, how about posting a functional link to this outstanding claim.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Type in your search engine- the mathmatics of leaf decay MIT News.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The mathmatics of leaf decay MIT News




You assume that the statement, "plant and animal decay is responsible for ninety percent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere per year" was discredited, it was not.

Read our previous replies to this claim and try to comprehend what was written in response to you this time.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Type in your search engine- the mathmatics of leaf decay MIT News.

Your claim, your link. I'm not here to do your scut work.

 

[greatcloudlives]

The basic biology of plant decay is that when they decay they release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The mathmatics of leaf decay

The percentage of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is ninety percent per year of the carbon dioxide .