It has to be CO2, what else could it be????

It seems you may be unfamiliar with atmospheric equilibrium, or perhaps the influences that effect a closed system......try this:

Fill a glass to the rim with water....then add a tablespoon of water to it.

Did it spill over?

 

Then you are saying there is no room on the planet for man.

 

76:

He's not going to get it . . .

77:

He didn't get it . . .and he's probably ranting ceaseless, rwnj-hyperbole, in a padded cell, at a straw dolly, which the nice keepers let him have.

 

problem with your failed theory there has never been an equilibrium of co2 it has varied year to year century to century millennium to millennium there is no right about of co2. if there is what is it? just like what is the right temperature of the earth what should it be?

 

Utter childishness.

 

or add a tablespoon of salt, does that lower the freeze point of water?...indeed it does something else they don't comprehend...change the % of a mixture even a small amount and it's properties must also change...

 

You resort to a rant, about "failed theory," without benefit of one coherent sentence.

Then you show awesome ignorance, by ranting the usual rwnj-question, about what is "the right temperature of the earth," in the course of a run-on sentence.

When Jackie Chan rants, in pidgin-English, he's funny. Right-wing, nut-job rants have no such advantage, and you ranters aren't from Hong Kong.

You have no excuse, to fail, at English, in any US or English school, and then fail, to learn, to enter search criteria, and hit 'enter.'

You are an embarrassment, to the remaining speakers, of English, who do not share rwnj-dementia, but particularly to Gov.Jindal, R-La. You know why.

 

<Yawn.> If you had even rudimentary math skills, you could answer that one for yourself. But then you're anti-science, so arithmetic must not be in your wheelhouse.

But just to save you the trouble, let me enlighten you: a solar panel causes many, many times less energy absorption by avoided CO2 emissions than it causes in albedo absorption.

Don't believe me? Prove me wrong. Should be easy for a math hound like you.

 

All science is "unproven", including heliocentricity. Science, unlike religion, is always open to new data.

If you want certainty, stop learning and go to church. (Most climate deniers are already there.)

 

Except for Tett et al. 2000, Meehl et al. 2004, Stone et al. 2007, Lean and Rind 2008, Huber and Knutti 2011, Gillett et al. 2012, Wigley and Santer 2012, and Jones et al. 2013. In fact, Google Scholar shows more than 100 studies of climate change attribution just in the past 10 years. So it seems to me your basic research skills leave something to be desired.

 

which is why they're called deniers....evidence and logic play no part in their reasoning process only deny, deny, deny...

 

You provided eight references.

Two of them could not be found in the first ten pages of Google Scholar cites: Jones 2013 and Stone 2007. Perhaps you could provide a more definitive search title.

Five of them were computer simulations - these do not qualify as emperical studies.

The eighth, Lean & Rind 2008, did not apparently use computer simulations. But the abstract that is accessible was not unequivocal in attributing global temperature changes to anthropogenic sources, let alone to man's burning of fossil fuels. Access to the entire report is necessary.

 

Or try this.

Let's say you have a man who makes $5000 per month and spends $5000 per month, always paying the exact same bills. His bank account ends the month at $7500, then he gets his paycheck, pays his bills, and ends at $7500 the following month. This goes on for twelve years, as the man doesn't change jobs and lives in a country with zero inflation.

Then the guy gets married, and puts his wife on as joint tenant of his checking account. Because he's been living with his girlfriend the entire time, his expenses don't change. His new wife works part time in a convenience store and to thank hubby for the wedding, she starts putting $250 a month into the checking account. He still puts in his paycheck and writes all the bills.

One year later, the account has $10,500 at the end of the month. The account has increased by 40% in one year.

So who's responsible for the increase in the account? The man, or his wife?

Hint: Only a climate denier would claim it couldn't possibly be the wife, because her monthly contributions are 5% of the total.

 

Jones, G. S., P. A. Stott, and N. Christidis (2013), Attribution of observed historical near&#8210;surface temperature variations to anthropogenic and natural causes using CMIP5 simulations, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 118, 4001–4024, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50239.

Stone, DáithíA., Myles R. Allen, Frank Selten, Michael Kliphuis, Peter A. Stott, 2007: The Detection and Attribution of Climate Change Using an Ensemble of Opportunity. J. Climate, 20, 504–516.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3966.1

Utter nonsense. What part of any computer simulation is not empirical? Every GCM uses the Beer-Lambert Law. Are you saying that the Beer-Lambert Law is not empirical? Every GCM uses Navier-Stokes equations. Are you saying they're not empirical? Every GCM uses the Universal Gas Law. Are you saying that's not empirical? Every GCM uses Earth's albedo. Are you saying that's not empirical? Every GCM uses the gravitational constant. Are you saying that's not empirical?

Every scientific law is a model, and every one of them is based on empirical data. Many GCMs are open source. Find me a line of code in any of them that's not empirically based. I flat-out predict that you will not be able to, not you nor any other climate denier.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2337&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

'll admit to denying that the C in CAGW is meaningful.

What are CAGW sceptics

exactly?

1. CAGW sceptics don't

climate, therefore cannot be

2. Sceptics don't

that climate changes, therefore cannot be

3. CAGW sceptics don't

that Earth has warmed by almost 0.8º C over the last 162 years, therefore cannot be

4. CAGW sceptics don't

that climate science exists, therefore cannot be

5. CAGW sceptics don't

that CO2 can cause a small amount of warming, therefore cannot be

6. CAGW sceptics don't

anything, we're sceptical of the inaccurate figures bandied about by alarmists and very sceptical of the scary catastrophe stories about everything and anything to do with climate.
We're also justifiably sceptical of computer models.

So, climate catastrophists, man up and spill the beans, what do you believe CAGW sceptics are actually

if you know, of course?

 

what the hell are you talking about? who else on earth burns fossil fuel other then man did we have new fossil fuel burning alien life form land on earth I don't know about. you just added a factious life form to the equation that doesn't exist

 

While all climate realists hold pretty much the same position, the same cannot be said for deniers. Perhaps you might accept that climate is changing, but a lot of deniers disagree. Perhaps you might accept that humans are causing the change, but a lot of deniers would disagree. Perhaps you might (or might not) accept that the consequences will be catastrophic, but a lot of deniers would disagree.

There is, however, one thing that all climate deniers have in common: there are one or more aspects of climate science that they don't understand, don't believe, or reject outright. That means they're all deniers in my book.

Including you.

 

The question is, what are you talking about? Where did you get the idea that "man with all his fossil fuel burning only contributes to 5% of atmospheric CO2 emissions"?

Where do YOU think the other 95% comes from?

 

I have put up my fair share of math on this site. Your turn, prove your point - you work the math.

Over it's lifespan:
How much CO2 does a panel save?
How much heat does that CO2 save (assuming the model is accurate)?
How much additional heat does a panel contribute?
How much CO2 is used in making, transporting, installing, maintaining, and disposing of a panel?
How much CO2 is created during the 19 hours a day solar panels are worthless?

Science doesn't need puffery, it needs to consider all the elements. Not just those that fit a political agenda, for one side of the other.

 

Name one person who claims that climate doesn't change?

At the very most, humans are causing a minuscule amount of climate change.

The consequence of human CO2 emissions cannot be catastrophic, it's physically impossible.

The same is true for climate catastrophists.

Including you.

 

Priceless.

 

......

 

Every scientific law is a model, and every one of them is based on empirical data. Many GCMs are open source. Find me a line of code in any of them that's not empirically based. I flat-out predict that you will not be able to, not you nor any other climate denier.

Computer models - particularly climate models because they are so complex - are the very essence of subjectivity. There are perhaps a couple of hundred variables that affect the climate. Modelers must select which ones they will use and what values to give them. These are large scale approximations. Then modelers must develop their own algorithms to manipulate those selected variables. There is nothing "emperical" about this process. Computer models "prove" nothing - they simply manipulate data they are given in ways they are told. In the case of climate models, they have done a miserable job of predicting temperatures - their primary goal. And if they cannot do this task well, then any subsequent prediction based on their ability to perform this task is highly questionable.

Even the IPCC admits that their models do a poor job with water vapor - the most important greenhouse gas.

One critique states the following..."Major imperfections in the models prevent proper simulation of important elements of the climate system, including pressure, wind, clouds, temperature, precipitation, ocean currents, sea ice,
permafrost, etc. Large differences between model predictions and observations frequently exist when comparing these elements or features. In some cases computer models fail to simulate even the correct sign of the observed parameters."

As an aside, I recently became aware that there were 140 principles that constitute the only published set of evidence-based standards for forecasting. "Thirty-nine experts from many disciplines and from around the world developed forecasting principles from published experimental research. A further 123 forecasting experts reviewed their work." These principles were published in 2001. A review by three experts in forecasting concluded that the IPCC modeling approach violated about 80% of the principles that are applicable to climate models. A discussion and interview can be found at
[URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/10/22/the-un-ipccs-climate-modeling-procedures-need-serious-remodeling/"[/URL]

BTW - I do not deny the climate.

 

Would I be right in saying you actually stopped to think about what you had written earlier before editing that post?

 

Regarding the topic title.

Does anyone know how much our Sun has contributed to global warming over the last 100 years?