When most of the coastline is erased, people are zipping around NYC in bass boats, and the South Pole is an exotic vacation spot, blame yourself
A climate change preview: Trees at the South Pole, 60 feet of sea-level rise.
Trees growing near the South Pole, sea levels 20 meters higher than now, and global temperatures 3 to 4 degrees Celsius warmer. That is the world scientists are uncovering as they look back in time to when the planet last had as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as it does today.
Using sedimentary records and plant fossils, researchers have found that temperatures near the South Pole were about 20C higher than now in the Pliocene epoch, from 5.3 million to 2.6 million years ago.
Many scientists use sophisticated computer models to predict the impacts of human-caused climate change, but looking back in time for real-world examples can give new insights.
The Pliocene was a “proper analogy†and offered important lessons about the road ahead, said Martin Siegert, a geophysicist and climate-change scientist at Imperial College London. “The headline news is the temperatures are 3-4C higher and sea levels are 15-20 meters higher than they are today. The indication is that there is no Greenland ice sheet any more, no West Antarctic ice sheet, and big chunks of East Antarctic [ice sheet] taken,†he said.
Fossil fuel burning was pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere extremely rapidly, he said, though it took time for the atmosphere and oceans to respond fully. “If you put your oven on at home and set it to 200C the temperature does not get to that immediately, it takes a bit of time, and it is the same with climate,†Siegert said, at a Royal Meteorological Society meeting on the climate of the Pliocene.
Wait, what? Who was pumping fossil fuels into the atmosphere back then? Is this saying that someone was using fossil fuels as an energy source millions of years ago, or just shoddy writing? Because we all know that the climate was fully natural all those millions of years ago. So, why can’t it be mostly/solely natural now?
About 100 million years ago an even more extreme climate occurred. In the Cretaceous period, carbon dioxide levels were 1,000 ppm. Antarctica still sat over the South Pole, but the region was warm and covered in great forests, the stumps and soil of which have been preserved as fossils in places like Alexander Island.
“If we keep carbon emissions going at the current rate, by the end of the century we will have 1,000 ppm,†said Siegert. The low 280 ppm level of carbon dioxide in the run-up to the industrial revolution was rooted in carbon being removed from the air by plants and animals and then buried. “It formed coal seams, gas and oil fields. And what we have been doing for the last 150 years is digging it all up and putting it back into the atmosphere, it’s crazy.â€
First, it is unscientific language. “carbon emissions” is a political advocacy phrase. Second, what caused the CO2 rise 100 million years ago? Did dinosaurs drive pickup trucks? Then never really explain why everything is different now in their attempt to provide a bit of scaremongering.
“Your Burger And Fossil Fuels Addiction Could Make Trees Grow At South Pole And Seas Rise 60 Feet”
One of Porter Good’s favorite tactic is to make a blatantly false claim about what someone else has said, and then ridicule them for what they did not say. Anyone reading the article Good linked to can see that he is lying outright about what the article said.
“Who was pumping fossil fuels into the atmosphere back then?”
No one was. The writer of the article phrased that sentence poorly. If Porter Good had bothered to review the actual presentation at he conference, he would know this. But once Good has lied, he is not likely to back off from that lie.
“So, why can’t it be mostly/solely natural now?”
Because we know that the added CO2 in the atmosphere is due to the burning of fossil fuels. Porter Good should try a bit harder to keep up with the science.
““carbon emissions†is a political advocacy phrase.”
Another lie. “Carbon emissions” is exactly the correct scientific language to discuss carbon emissions.
Quoting Skeptical Science?
That’s sooooo 2009.
LOL.
Just citing facts. I know that deniers hate when that happens.
Get back to us when you comprehend that term facts.
Bill Bear is just citing lies.
The facts never support socialism or its ideas like ‘global warming’.
589,
So you admit basing your positions on ideology rather than facts.
We’re not surprised, as this is diagnostic of the dogmatic right.
No, jeff. That is not what he said. It is beyond clear that we have a climate hoax just like the Russia hoax.
david,
Conservatives deny all events, facts, ideas and truths that conflict with their ideology. In addition you also fabricate “facts”, conspiracies and hoaxes. Global warming is not a hoax. The Trump administration had dozens of contacts with Russian spies and the Russian gov’t leading up to and after the election, so that’s clearly not a hoax.
Much of what conservatives believe to be true, isn’t.
It’s an endless (and thankless!) chore to continually have to correct the mis- and disinformation spread by conservatives.
Trump has emboldened you all. (or y’all, as we say in the Ozarks). He lies and you believe him.
Jeff,
As Bill says that is a lie.
One of Porter Good’s favorite tactic is to make a blatantly false claim about what someone else has said, and then ridicule them for what they did not say. Anyone reading the article Good linked to can see that he is lying outright about what the article said.
It’s the article that talks about trees.
You need to stay home nights and drink tea if you’re going to sound better than this.
The article does not state that “Your Burger And Fossil Fuels Addiction Could Make Trees Grow At South Pole And Seas Rise 60 Feet”.
Porter Good lies, and formwiz supports Good’s mendacity.
So, what caused the rise of CO2 back then, Bill?
Nope. Porter Good doesn’t get off that easy.
First he explains why he lies — persistently and repeatedly — about what the articles that he ridicules (but does not understand) have actually said.
Nope. He asked you first.
What DID cause that rise in CO2 back then? Unfettered capitalism?
No, it’s yet another weasel word that can mean anything the Lefties want it to mean at any time.
Just like climate change.
Teach typed: Who was pumping fossil fuels into the atmosphere back then? Is this saying that someone was using fossil fuels as an energy source millions of years ago, or just shoddy writing? Because we all know that the climate was fully natural all those millions of years ago. So, why can’t it be mostly/solely natural now?
The current bout of rapid and significant global warming can be mostly/solely natural! But it just isn’t. Since magic is not real, even “natural” global warming must have a physical basis – phenomena such as changes in the Earth’s orbit/tilt, greenhouse gases, albedo, major ocean currents, continental drift, vulcanism/aerosols, insolation… Evidence supports that the current warming results from the “unnatural” injection of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
What “natural” physical mechanism is causing the Earth to warm?
Evidence supports that the current warming results from the “unnatural†injection of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Uh not really, but if that makes you feel better stick with it.
Too bad it’s not comparatively “rapid†as J keeps falsely asserting and has been shown so many times. But I’d be more than happy to prove him wrong yet again
Paraphrasing Voltaire:
“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.â€
Something the dark little fella refuses to do.
Lil,
Be a man and stop using euphemisms like “dark”. You know what you want to say. Be brave for once.
By all means, try again.
“Uh not really”
Uh, yes, really. But stick with the lie if it makes you feel better.
The best argument, distilled to its essence, against climate change caused by small changes in carbon dioxide is this:
The self-styled “Climate consensus†define themselves as the only legitimate voice in climate science.
They say:
* Climate change means man-made change, because 90% of modern climate change is man-made.
* This climate change is mainly due to increasing emissions of greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Made by burning fossil fuel.
* This greenhouse gas warms earth because it causes less outgoing radiation to be emitted to space, so warming earth due to the consequent energy imbalance.
In the real world, satellites show:
* More OLR leaving planet over last 33 years. By a big margin too, of about 2W/m².
* Satellite data diametrically contradicts the “climate consensus†greenhouse gas model which explains how greenhouse gases warm the climate.
It follows that either the satellites are wrong, or the self-styled “climate consensus†are wrong.
Could you explain this conundrum?
Show your work.
Someone needs to first explain why he demands that others “show [their] work” when he himself does not.
Random (alleged) quotes from an unknown source, citing unspecified data, do not an argument make.
Jeffery does it all the time, tossing in some Lefty propaganda that runs pages.
Shoulda stuck with videos, kid.
Because you call everybody else liars?
Lame. You must hate it when you’re dismissed out of hand.
Your hubris is as impressive as it is unearned!!
But keep patting yourself on the back young man!
I’m patting myself on the back?
I’m just noting that nobody falls for your phony “data”.
That’s a shonda on you, sweetheart. I take no credit for it.
Greenhouse theory:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BEy879JdDBg/XJuZ8jdUwSI/AAAAAAAABZg/04mqY_prB-wwpb3se_rwGRlTxtydW9xoACLcBGAs/s1600/OLR-Hansen-cited-2011.png
Satellite data:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9nZBB2e1A1U/XJuaIXKeyoI/AAAAAAAABZk/mVFfUfe36G8ajbwZ_9aQWrezV7XquB6GACLcBGAs/s1600/OLR-1985-2018.png
Deflect much?
Reality. Lie through your teeth much?
Have American Thinker disproven global warming?
American Thinker have published an article The AGW Smoking Gunby Gary Thompson who claims to disprove a key component of anthropogenic global warming. The article begins by stating “…it seems that the only way to disprove the AGW hypothesis is to address problems with the science”. This is a fair statement and a return to an emphasis on science in the climate debate is most welcome. So have American Thinker discovered a flaw in climate science that has escaped the attention of the world’s climate scientists? Let’s examine Thompson’s article to find out.
Thompson looks at several peer-reviewed analyses examining satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation. As greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere, they should trap more outgoing longwave radiation. This leads to a build-up of heat in our climate. It also means less longwave radiation escaping to space. The idea is explored in An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009) . Imagine this simplified thought experiment. The earth is in energy balance – incoming sunlight equals Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR). There’s a sudden increase in CO2. OLR suddenly drops and the planet is in positive energy imbalance. The planet accumulates heat. A hotter object radiates more energy so OLR increases. Eventually OLR increases to the point where it again matches incoming sunlight and the planet is in equilibrium.
Thompson looks at the several papers that compare satellite measurements from the 1970s to 1996 and later. The first paper that performed this analysis was Harries 2001. Thompson posts a graph from that paper that compares outgoing longwave radiation over the central Pacific from the 1970s to 1996. The black line is the outgoing longwave spectrum in 1970. The grey line is the outgoing spectrum in 1996.
IMG vs IRIS satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation
Figure 1: Observed IRIS and IMG clear sky brightness temperature spectra for the central Pacific (Harries 2001).
Thompson concludes “After analyzing this graph, the following conclusion can be drawn: The 1997 OLR associated with CO2 is identical to that in 1970”. By “analyzing this graph”, he presumably means eyeballing the graph as he provides no actual data analysis. This is a shame because in Harries 2001 directly below this graph is data analysis of the calculated difference between the IMG and IRIS satellite data as well as a comparison with modelled results. What do models predict will happen with rising greenhouse gases? Less longwave radiation will escape at the absorptive wavelengths of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. As the atmosphere warms, it will emit more radiation over the whole longwave spectrum. So we expect to see an increase in outgoing radiation over some of the longwave spectrum with sharp drops at certain wavelengths. This is indeed what is observed, consistent with model simulations.
Figure 2: Observed difference between 1970 to 1996 over the central Pacific (top). Simulated difference over the central Pacific (middle). Observed difference for ‘near-global’ – 60°N to 60°S (bottom) (Harries 2001).
The top curve in Figure 2 is the observed difference between 1970 and 1996 over the central Pacific. This shows strong agreement with the middle curve which is the modelled results. The bottom curve is the observed difference for a near-global area. Observations are consistent with our theoretical expectations of how the greenhouse effect should behave. The close match between observation and simulation lead the paper’s authors to conclude “Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate”. One wonders how Gary Thompson missed this conclusion as it’s stated both in the paper’s abstract and in the concluding paragraph.
There is much else that can be gleaned from Figure 2. Interestingly, the near-global observations show a greater drop in outgoing longwave radiation at the CO2 wavelengths around 700 cm-1compared to the change over tropical regions. Does this indicate the change in greenhouse effect is greater at higher latitudes? It’s also worth noting that the data doesn’t cover the entire longwave spectrum as CO2 absorption below 700 cm-1 is not shown.
So what do we learn from the American Thinker article. Thompson cites peer-reviewed papers but his analysis consists of eyeballing graphs while spurning the peer-reviewed data analysis. This approach leads to the opposite conclusion of the papers’ authors. I first encountered Harries 2001 when documenting the empirical evidence for an enhanced greenhouse effect. After reading the paper, I had many questions. Rather than let the gaps in my understanding lead me to think I knew more than the authors, I emailed my questions to the lead author John Harries, an approachable scientist who was forthcoming with prompt and detailed replies. The American Thinker article does not disprove the enhanced greenhouse effect. It does however provide further evidence for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Some people just need to be led.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/10/1539
And some people are too f##king stupid to even read the abstract of a paper that they quite obviously have not read.
“The OLR has been rising since 1985, and correlates well with the rising global temperature… The regional patterns of the observed OLR change from 1985–2000 to 2001–2017 show a warming pattern in the Northern Hemisphere in particular in the Arctic…”
It’s still at odds with the “greenhouse theory” as qouted by Hansen.
Explain.
Show your work.
Explanation:
That’s a lie — a flat out, blatant, right-through-the-teeth lie.
End of explanation. I expect more lies will follow from Lil Liar. That is, after all, what liars do.
Simmer down before you shit yourself.
To the woods hissy Bear.
Poor Lil.
Game. Set. Match. … to reason and Bill Bear. This should be a Teach-able moment for you.
You have just been eviscerated so cleanly and neatly that you don’t even realize that your argument bled to death.
Poor Lil. Remember you, jl, Teach screeching for proof that human-generated CO2 is causing the Earth to warm? Remember? Although scientific theories can never be technically “proven”, the evidence supporting human-caused global warming is so overwhelming that it would be unreasonable to deny it.
We understand that climate change deniers are constantly looking for The Stake to drive through the heart of science, but in this case all we can say is, keep looking.
It’s no wonder you’ve subsisted on threats and insults for so long. Science is hard.
Lol. Hissy Bear couldn’t provide an answer, got pissed, started tossing epithets in frustration and ran off to the woods.
We can take it as a given that the liar who identifies as “Liljeffyatemypuppy” has not bothered to read or comprehend the article I posted above. Denialists are renowned for their fanatical need to protect their own ignorance.
Is the Bear throwing a hissy fit?
Nope. Just pointing out a fact. Liars lie, and climate denialists are both liars and ignorant of the facts.
I thought you were doing videos these days since nobody wants to waste their time with your 5 page screeds.
Quoting Skeptical Science? Again?
That’s sooooo 2009, er, … 2010.
LOL.Â
Committing the genetic fallacy? Again?
That’s so dishonest… just as one expects of a lying denialist.
Is that a quote from Skeptical Science too? Lol.
Gateway has a better track record.
And they cite their stuff.
Imagine having a self-image so low that you create fake internet allies to bolster your idiot arguments. What kind of pathetic low-T sissy would do such a thing? Well, wonder no more…
HillBillary,
“Is not” is not much of a scientific argument, is it?
Lil is just doing what low-information trolls do, which is to tie up the time of people who actually care about truth and fact.
Since you’ve just waded in over your head, can you explain why there would be more overall OLR radiating with time from a warming Earth?
Sources were provided.
What’s your low-information explanation?
Show your source. LOL.
Over fifty years ago we had an Irish Setter named Lil.
She didn’t understand the physical principles of the universe either.
Do you believe in reincarnation?
She was a dumb animal, so how do you know what she understood?
Do you believe in reincarnation?
Then you must be Karl.
Always stops him dead.
You boyz claimed sources were provided yet neglected to provide sources.
Anyway, the Earth is still warming a result of the CO2 you, me and all of us add to the atmosphere. It’s going to keep happening. Period.
For all your distractions (your primary objective), lies, insults, nonsensical circular arguments, mental masturbation, did we mention distractions?… the Earth is continuing to rapidly warm.
Period.
Liljeffyatemypuppy says:
April 6, 2019 at 9:12 am
Greenhouse theory:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BEy879JdDBg/XJuZ8jdUwSI/AAAAAAAABZg/04mqY_prB-wwpb3se_rwGRlTxtydW9xoACLcBGAs/s1600/OLR-Hansen-cited-2011.png
Satellite data:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9nZBB2e1A1U/XJuaIXKeyoI/AAAAAAAABZk/mVFfUfe36G8ajbwZ_9aQWrezV7XquB6GACLcBGAs/s1600/OLR-1985-2018.png
Period.
“Is not†is not much of a scientific argument, is it?
But it really cuts through the bull, don’t it?
Lil is just doing what low-information trolls do, which is to tie up the time of people who actually care about truth and fact.
Then why do we see your stuff more than his? Projection, it’s just not for dinner anymore.
Why do we see your nonsense most of all?
Here’s the problem with your argument. You and your ilk never spent a moment in thought, nor spend even a minute in research (other than repeating what jimhoft, Sean and DC tell you to spread).
The objective of you and your ilk is to suck information out of the system and elevate ignorance. Good job.
Now go and suck no more.
You and your ilk never spent a moment in thought, nor spend even a minute in research
Then how come I shoot down your drivel all the time?
The objective of you and your ilk is to suck information out of the system and elevate ignorance.
No, that’s your thing. I know Uncle Saul teaches his little minions to always double down, but, when it’s you that spreads the propaganda (among other things), hoping to sway some poor unfortunate who slept through grade school, and you’re still shot down, you ought to try something else.
And I don’t know who Sean and DC are.
PS Haven’t quoted Gateway here in a long time. I do like to go right to the source.
It’s so much fun watching you run and hide for the rest of the day.
Exactly!!
Elwood and Bill Bear are the same person.
That’s a lie — a flat out, blatant, right-through-the-teeth lie.
End of explanation. I expect more lies will follow from Lil Liar. That is, after all, what liars do.
Are you silly in the head? You honestly think one more screed from some Lefty website is going to make your case?
And what’s with all the epithets? Mommy make you clean out the basement?
Nope. Just pointing out a fact. Liars lie, and climate denialists are both liars and ignorant of the facts.
That’s a contradiction, sweetie. You can’t be a liar and ignorant at the same time. A liar consciously knows the facts. An ignoramus has no knowledge.
Grab a dictionary.
Poor Lil.
Game. Set. Match. … to reason and Bill Bear. This should be a Teach-able moment for you.
You have just been eviscerated so cleanly and neatly that you don’t even realize that your argument bled to death.
The best of schizophrenia. Clapping one of your other personalities on the back for an argument of simply calling people names.
Careful, you can hurt yourself.
Poor Lil. Remember you, jl, Teach screeching for proof that human-generated CO2 is causing the Earth to warm? Remember? Although scientific theories can never be technically “provenâ€, the evidence supporting human-caused global warming is so overwhelming that it would be unreasonable to deny it.
We’re still waiting, sweetie. The first step is to use honest data.
We understand that climate change deniers are constantly looking for The Stake to drive through the heart of science, but in this case all we can say is, keep looking.
Don’t have to, Vlad. We’ve already done it.
It’s no wonder you’ve subsisted on threats and insults for so long. Science is hard.
Sure is. You have yet to understand proof is the lifeblood of science.
Bill,
Can you explain the science behind using taxes to stop CO2 production??? Add universal communist government as well. Otherwise please explain all the other efforts being used or put forth.
Yep! Asking them how raising taxes fixes the weather sends them scurrying or has them block you instantaneously.
As I have already explained, the comments I post dealing with the science of climate change are not meant for formwiz and his fellow denialists. We already know that they lack the intellectual honesty to discuss the facts.
But when someone stumbles upon Porter Good’s den of climate lies, they will at least encounter a few facts about climate science.
LOL. The stench of Bear shit.
Bill Bear.
It is hard to argue the governments’ lies.
Come on over to the Right side, where we value and argue the truth.
It is a lot easier.
589 typed: Right side, where we value and argue the truth.
I almost choked on my borscht, pirogi and vodka lunch.
So why do all the con-menters here lie con-stantly? Little lies, big lies, denials of simple truths etc. Even your “facts” are lies. Why? (That’s rhetorical – we know why – the truth is too hard for you to bear). It’s like verbal in-con-tinence.
We don’t, but mentally-deranged individual that you are, you must project your neuroses on everybody else.
PS Better verbal than mental.
Bill,
Your statement shows transference, delusion, ideation and hallucination. All the basic elements of a good dose of psychosis. I am guessing you are schizophrenic, am I right or is it run of the middle bipolar?
david,
We didn’t know that nurses were responsible for diagnoses.
Didn’t you misdiagnose Secretary Clinton with Parkinson’s during the campaign?
Why should we trust your ‘skills’?
Or are you just name-calling again?
Jeff, the child,
You don’t seem to be aware of crooked Hillary’s dx. Grow up.
Well, we haven’t gotten the results back from the lab, but it’s pretty clear the old galleon has a great many things wrong and many of them fit Parkinson’s.
Notice, please, she doesn’t go out much and you never see her standing for long periods.
Lil’, it’ properly called “scat” and this post is loaded with it.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/aSV21pPeF3g
I counted about 18 or 19 times Bear used lie, lies or liar in 12 comments! Plus, he pulled a hat trick here:
Bill Bear says:
April 6, 2019 at 9:55 am
Nope. Just pointing out a fact. Liars lie, and climate denialists are both liars and ignorant of the facts.
Three times in one sentence! He’s a regular Shakespeare. If the permutations of “lie” were removed from the white privileged, patriarchal and racist English language he wouldn’t be able to string a paragraph together.
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2019%2F04%2FIMG_9722.jpg%3Fresize%3D280%252C293%26ssl%3D1&t=1554565559&ymreqid=d1981f21-fcf0-6f7c-2f34-8a0007010000&sig=0ggxfOVXegvYX4YKha.d4Q–~C
Easy solution. Stop lying.
We’ve been waiting years for you to stop.
William Teach: First, it is unscientific language. “carbon emissions†is a political advocacy phrase.
Carbon emissions is a common term, a synecdoche for emissions of carbon-based gases, typically expressed in CO2 equivalencies.
William Teach: Second, what caused the CO2 rise 100 million years ago?
Over very long periods of time, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are driven by geological processes, such as volcanism and silicate weathering.
May I suggest a synecdoche may merely be an indefinite term to allow propagandists to be purposely vague and claim later that’s what they really meant.
You may, but like all your “suggestions” it makes little sense.
What do you “suggest” is the propaganda value of writing ‘carbon’ over ‘carbon dioxide’?
Are you confused when a scientist says ‘carbon emissions’? Seriously?
On top of that, carbon has more than 1 isotope. Which carbon dioxide is Teach talking about? C12 or C13? Even the unstable isotope, C14, has a t1/2 of some 5700 years! And don’t even get us started on O16, O17 and O18! So even Teach is uses synecdoches!
We all understand why Teach makes the claim that ‘carbon’ is unscientific – it’s to slur those who say it. But Teach is still wrong.
What do you “suggest†is the propaganda value of writing ‘carbon’ over ‘carbon dioxide’?
Same as, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan”.
And most people don’t try to confuse the issue with isotopes (unless the guy who says science relies on “consensus” wants us to believe he’s now a nuclear scientist). A molecule of oxygen paired with a carbon atom is good enough for most people, but, since Jeffery needs to confuse the issue, he’s using the standard ambiguities of Lefty faux science.
But, since Jeffery wants to slay the fatted calf, which of the isotopes are the ones used in photosynthesis, y’know, the heavy ones that don’t rise in the atmosphere?
Hmmm?
As I said, you never make any sense.
Again. What is the propaganda value of using carbon over carbon dioxide?
You and Teach seem to think it’s a very important distinction.
Plants preferentially use C12, the more common isotope.
Are you still claiming that atmospheric CO2 pools around our ankles?
Argon makes up about 1% of the atmosphere and is heavier than N2 or O2, and according to your hypothesis should exist as a layer just above CO2. How deep is the layer of CO2 + Ar? And since both are “heavier” than O2 shouldn’t they displace it (BTW, argon tanks have a warning that Ar can displace O2 and lead to suffocation). Why aren’t we all dead?
But, they aren’t carbon. They are carbon dioxide. If we’re going to discuss science then the words used need to be precise.
“Over very long periods of time, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are driven by geological processes, such as volcanism and silicate weathering.”
So, why can’t that be the primary/sole reason for CO2 increase now?
Nicely played, sir.
Carbon is carbon, CO2 is a very different animal.
Teach,
With all due respect, Zachriel is correct concerning saying carbon vs saying carbon dioxide. It’s not a big deal.
Evidence shows (based on the C isotopes discussed above!) that the added CO2 comes largely from fossil fuels. Note formwiz’s query about which C isotope plants prefer.
In addition, carbon “accounting” of how much coal, oil, gas the world burns is consistent with the amounts measured in the atmosphere and absorbed by the oceans (where the pH is dropping).
https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change
We know, we know, that if one has predetermined that climate scientists are in league with the worldwide commie/socialist plot to dominate the Earth than no reference/citation will be persuasive.
Maybe you’re right. Perhaps all the scientists are in cahoots with the commies, the Pope, and the rest of the world and have just faked all the data. But it is very unlikely.
Remember that years ago, Tony Watts et al denied the Earth was even warming, insisting instead that scientists were committing fraud. You rarely hear that charge anymore unless it’s to agree that the scientists were “framing” a guilty planet.
There is little if any evidence that the increased CO2 is from natural (non-man made) causes. There is little if any evidence supporting that the temperature increase is from any cause other than the CO2 increase.
Which part of “very long periods of time” is Porter Good too f##king stupid to understand?
Also, let us not forget that Porter Good has no interest whatsoever in the science of climate change. His only interest is in discrediting that science — and he will employ whatever lies and misinformation might be necessary to accomplish that goal.
very long periods of time can mean whatever someone wants it to mean.
Like so many other catch phrases you use, it is purposely vague. Try a little specificity, if you have the guts.
And again you start your “argument†with the false premise that the “science†is solely on your side, hence the “has no interest in climate scienceâ€. Nothing could be further from the truth. So it becomes a case not of data, just “the other guy doesn’t believe in science, so he’s wrong.â€. Because science is about evidence, that also means it carries no authority.
Especially for J…https://twitter.com/sylviad32911201/status/1110653369255813120?s=21
Jl: https://twitter.com/sylviad32911201/status/1110653369255813120?s=21
There are a lot of factors that affect the global mean temperature. The world has certainly experienced periods of warming and cooling in the past. The current warming, because it is due to continued emissions of greenhouse gases, is expected to continue, which would mean the world would be warmer than at any time since humans settled into permanent communities.
Yet:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9nZBB2e1A1U/XJuaIXKeyoI/AAAAAAAABZk/mVFfUfe36G8ajbwZ_9aQWrezV7XquB6GACLcBGAs/s1600/OLR-1985-2018.png
formwiz: May I suggest a synecdoche may merely be an indefinite term to allow propagandists to be purposely vague
The term is precisely defined by scientists so it is not an “indefinite term”.
William Teach: But, they aren’t carbon. They are carbon dioxide.
They are carbon molecules. You will find the synecdoche commonly used in the scientific literature.
William Teach: So, why can’t that be the primary/sole reason for CO2 increase now?
There are several reasons. Volcanic emissions are not nearly sufficient to account for the change in CO2. Anthropogenic emissions are more than sufficient to account for the change in CO2. And isotope studies show that the increase in CO2 is due to anthropogenic emissions.