2014 was definitely the hottest year on record

Bugeye said:

water vapor

Click to expand...

are we extracting millions and millions of years of water vapor from the ground and then sending it into the atmosphere over a mere century?

are carbon sinks as plentiful as gentle breezes and rain?

LOL

it's just too hilarious to watch you idiots jump from talking point to talking point.

UncleBuck said:

are we extracting millions and millions of years of water vapor from the ground and then sending it into the atmosphere over a mere century?

are carbon sinks as plentiful as gentle breezes and rain?

LOL

it's just too hilarious to watch you idiots jump from talking point to talking point.

Click to expand...

Pro tip - when your models most sensitive variable is not well understood, that's a bit of a red flag. Like running Monte Carlo and still getting a hockey stick.

Bugeye said:

your models most sensitive variable is not well understood

Click to expand...

why do you think that repeating denier talking points on a pot website is a wise use of your time?

we are taking millions of years of sequestered carbon dioxide out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere over the course of a century. are we doing the same thing with water vapor?

there are nowhere near enough carbon sinks to keep up with our carbon dioxide output. but we're not gonna run out of gentle breezes or rain anytime soon.

maybe for your next act, you can say that CO2 is heavier than air, thus there is no way it can get into the atmosphere.

LOL

UncleBuck said:

for example, when it is 4 degrees celsius warmer than it was 150 years ago, which crops will not be able to withstand the extra heat, and which cool season crops can be grown in new places? to what extent will the oceans rise and by when so that people can be relocated? what effect will warmer temperatures have on the plankton development, which powers much of the food chain in the ocean?

Click to expand...

Where are you getting the 4K number from?
How did America handle the hottest years on record in the 1930s? What "new" crops did they plant in its wake?
To what extent are oceans not rising?

SURPRISE!
Phytoplankton, it turns out, are highly adaptive, despite your doomsday desires, kid.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/phytoplankton-climate-kachur-1.3349107

UncleBuck said:

we are taking millions of years of sequestered carbon dioxide out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere over the course of a century. are we doing the same thing with water vapor?

Click to expand...

To summarize in advance, anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have NO MEASURABLE EFFECT ON THE NET EMISSIONS because Nature trumps whatever we try to do.
CO2 levels are determined by temperature, not the other way around, kid.
It's the LAW (of Henry).
Even NASA agrees.

heckler73 said:

Where are you getting the 4K number from?
How did America handle the hottest years on record in the 1930s? What "new" crops did they plant in its wake?
To what extent are oceans not rising?

SURPRISE!
Phytoplankton, it turns out, are highly adaptive, despite your doomsday desires, kid.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/phytoplankton-climate-kachur-1.3349107



To summarize in advance, anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have NO MEASURABLE EFFECT ON THE NET EMISSIONS because Nature trumps whatever we try to do.
CO2 levels are determined by temperature, not the other way around, kid.
It's the LAW (of Henry).
Even NASA agrees.

Click to expand...

The video was too long. Didn't open it. Was there something you wanted to convey with it?

Who said anything about a phytoplankton die off? In the last year, phytoplankton shut down some fisheries along the PNW due to warmer water. It ("the blob" and not el nino) was a huge event stretching from Southern CA to Alaska. If you check UB's post he said it would affect PP not kill them off. This kind of event is exactly what we can expect more of as the climate gets warmer.

Regarding the dust bowl era, in the midwest, a lot of farmers no longer farmed. It was a complete disaster. Partially man made from how we tilled the soil and cut down trees. But it all started with drought.

I have trouble understanding science deniers because I give people like you the respect to think that you think. So I don't understand what you don't get about this, copied from:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-levels-airborne-fraction-increasing.htm:

or this:
Figure 1: Observed increase atmospheric CO2 derived from direct measurements, taking the average of Mauna Loa (Hawaii) and the South Pole (thin solid line) and two ice cores: Law Dome (dashed thin line) and Siple (thin dotted line). This is compared to totalanthropogenic emissions (thick solid line) and 46% of total emissions (thick dashed line). (Knorr 2009)

Knorr finds that since 1850, the airborne fraction has eemained relatively constant. When CO2emissions were low, the amount of CO2absorbed by natural carbon sinks was correspondingly low. As human CO2 emissions sharply increased in the 20th Century, the amount absorbed by nature increased correspondingly. The airborne fraction remained level at around 43%. The trend since 1850 is found to be 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade.

The article ends with this conclusion:
Lastly, some perspective. There are still areas of uncertainty associated with the carbon cycle. Because of this uncertainty, scientists are currently debating whether the airborne fraction is steady at 43% or slightly Increasing from 43%. Unfortunately, some skeptics use this uncertainty to hold the position that the airborne fraction is closer to 0%.

heckler73 said:

Where are you getting the 4K number from?
How did America handle the hottest years on record in the 1930s? What "new" crops did they plant in its wake?
To what extent are oceans not rising?

SURPRISE!
Phytoplankton, it turns out, are highly adaptive, despite your doomsday desires, kid.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/phytoplankton-climate-kachur-1.3349107



To summarize in advance, anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have NO MEASURABLE EFFECT ON THE NET EMISSIONS because Nature trumps whatever we try to do.
CO2 levels are determined by temperature, not the other way around, kid.
It's the LAW (of Henry).
Even NASA agrees.

Click to expand...

so much bullshit in there.

i guess what i should be left with is the assurance of a nutbag who thinks CO2 is not even a greenhouse gas (LOL) telling me that rapid, dramatic, manmade changes to the planet earth will have no effect on planet earth, or the humans living on it.

i guess i can sleep well knowing that.

nonetheless, i should address some of the horribly misleading bullshit you put out there.

first of all, let's look at you chart showing how little the oceans have risen in the last 24,000 years.



the ~100+ meter rise in sea level corresponds with a whopping ~3 degrees celsius change in temperatures!



i can only wonder why you might have chosen to leave that little detail out!

i wonder what would be the result of another 4 degrees celsius change in global temperatures (all caused by human activities) over a mere century or two?

probably nothing to worry about, because heckler said so. you can trust what heckler says because heckler does not even believe in the elementary tenets of climate science regarding C02.

as far as CO2 emissions having no effect because mother nature just eats it all up, that is false. categorically false. measurably false. demonstrably false.

mother nature does not have enough CO2 sinks to handle all of our emissions.



hence why CO2 levels have risen dramatically in the last century, from ~280PPM to 400+ PPM

Wasn't 2015 hotter? Serious question. Thought I'd read someplace that 2015 was even hotter than 2014, continuing the trend of climate change and its effects.

I'm investing in better cooling systems, not even kidding.

ttystikk said:

Wasn't 2015 hotter? Serious question. Thought I'd read someplace that 2015 was even hotter than 2014, continuing the trend of climate change and its effects.

I'm investing in better cooling systems, not even kidding.

Click to expand...

Glacier melt-off, arctic ice coverage shrinking, migration of species into areas too cold for them not too long ago, a valid and well defended explanation for all of this through human activity. Then ignore all that because of some satellite measurements -- eventually proven wrong but continue to use the wrong data. Or find ONE "expert" willing to lick the urinal of the wealthy elite for funding to gin up a counter argument that will not die no matter how much evidence is given to prove it wrong.

All backed and supported by the same party whose membership claims dinosaurs walked the earth 7,000 years ago when the earth was created.

Like you, I'm boggled at the lack of insight provided by our resident science deniers. Next up: When proven wrong they then want to go off and do geo engineering because its too hard to fix the problem.

I don't get it either.

i bet i can find an almost verbatim argument of everything the deniers here say on the heartland institute's website right now.

you guys know the heartland institute, right? they were the group who was paid to deny, muddy, and coinfuse the issue of cigarettes causing cancer. it worked for years on certain idiots.

now you are their ally in the climate change debate.

think about that.

UncleBuck said:

i bet i can find an almost verbatim argument of everything the deniers here say on the heartland institute's website right now.

you guys know the heartland institute, right? they were the group who was paid to deny, muddy, and coinfuse the issue of cigarettes causing cancer. it worked for years on certain idiots.

now you are their ally in the climate change debate.

think about that.

Click to expand...

leave me out of the ally list.

I saw the similarity between cigarettes and climate change denial but figured it would just get them off on that tangent and we'd have to have the whole denial that cigarettes cause cancer debate all over again. So I didn't bring it up.

Fogdog said:

leave me out of the ally list.

Click to expand...

sorry, definitely not directed at you.

Fogdog said:

The video was too long. Didn't open it. Was there something you wanted to convey with it?

Click to expand...

I guess the bold, red text wasn't obvious enough?
You've made it succinctly clear your mind is made up, and you don't wish to explore the truth in the matter.
My condolences go out to those around you.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2016/01/a-legitimate-question-how-much-of-modern-global-warming-is-fabricated-by-noaa-nasa.html

heckler73 said:

I guess the bold, red text wasn't obvious enough?
You've made it succinctly clear your mind is made up, and you don't wish to explore the truth in the matter.
My condolences go out to those around you.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2016/01/a-legitimate-question-how-much-of-modern-global-warming-is-fabricated-by-noaa-nasa.html

Click to expand...

Nice graph. your point is?

Please don't lower yourself by repeating the right wing conclusion bought and paid for by the Koch alliance that we should just pay attention to about 1/6 of the data on your graph. Even so, this data isn't all the data. Glacier melt, arctic ice coverage, species migration, ocean temperature excursions to name a few are all consistent with global warming models.

Its pretty funny that a person so locked in on science denial would call somebody that looks at all the data before making up their mind as closed minded. Is it red bold text that you need? Would this convince you then?
anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the cause of recent CO2 increases.

heckler73 said:

I guess the bold, red text wasn't obvious enough?
You've made it succinctly clear your mind is made up, and you don't wish to explore the truth in the matter.
My condolences go out to those around you.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2016/01/a-legitimate-question-how-much-of-modern-global-warming-is-fabricated-by-noaa-nasa.html

Click to expand...

didn't you say the 30s were the hottest years?

LOL

your own data disproves the bullshit you spew.

go hate muslims somewhere.

Fogdog said:

Nice graph. your point is?

Please don't lower yourself by repeating the right wing conclusion bought and paid for by the Koch alliance that we should just pay attention to about 1/6 of the data on your graph. Even so, this data isn't all the data. Glacier melt, arctic ice coverage, species migration, ocean temperature excursions to name a few are all consistent with global warming models.

Its pretty funny that a person so locked in on science denial would call somebody that looks at all the data before making up their mind as closed minded. Is it red bold text that you need? Would this convince you then?
anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the cause of recent CO2 increases.

Click to expand...

I think his main point is the data has been modified. Pretty simple to see on the graph how they reduced temperature in the older data and added temperature to newer data. It would change the graph.

If you create a model and the model doesnt work, the solution is not to modify the data...

NLXSK1 said:

I think his main point is the data has been modified. Pretty simple to see on the graph how they reduced temperature in the older data and added temperature to newer data. It would change the graph.

If you create a model and the model doesnt work, the solution is not to modify the data...

Click to expand...

Nope, not faked. Below is a chart showing the GHCN data set with adjusted and unadjusted temperature data overlaid. The results are not substantially different at the global scale (though 2008 is a bit of an outlier).

GHCN = Global Historical Climatology Network. This data set is basically happenstance data from diligent but very different researchers over the past century or so. NASA, CRU and NOAA did go through a review of the data set and identified problematic areas of the data set. When justified, it is valid and perfectly reasonable to adjust the data. This was all done transparently and clearly open to criticism. As you can see, the data you claim to be fabricated so closely matches the happenstance data that its really just a case of crying wolf.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=255





None of this disproves the physics and implementation of the AGW theory, the model built using that theory or the conclusion that AGW is driving the recent global warming event. The only remaining valid discussion is how long will it take for the earth to reach a tipping point for the ecosystems we depend upon -- 50 years or 150 years is the approximate boundary time frame for 4 degree C global temperature rise.

Skepticalscience.com...LOL

You'd be better off citing EcoLoonCentral.org or MylifeisemptyIneedacause.com.

Do you suppose actual climate scientists have these conversations also? I think it likely, right? Seminars and summit meetings on the topic for decades now.

So when they (the scientists) look at these things and as a consensus conclude there is global warming, are we basically second guessing the experts? We don't believe them, is the takeaway. We have more data, experience and education so as to negate the majority of scientists?

So while all of this data back and forth is pretty, what the hell is really being accomplished? Nada.

MuyLocoNC said:

Skepticalscience.com...LOL

You'd be better off citing EcoLoonCentral.org or MylifeisemptyIneedacause.com.

Click to expand...

Yeah, so how about spottedowlchilirecipes.org You might like that one. Skeptical science rocks. I do read the science denier sites however. Its funny how all of their stuff comes from 2 or 3 sources. And just like you, they repeat what they don't understand.