Climate Change - Looking Back

[lukin]

take a shot... see if you can even structure a sentence to actually describe what, to you, would constitute, as you say, "legitimate evidence".

Waldo with the comprehension problem. There isn't any legitimate evidence supporting human cause GW...just a bunch of blather from fools who's gig is up.

[Michael Hardner]

Waldo with the comprehension problem. There isn't any legitimate evidence supporting human cause GW...just a bunch of blather from fools who's gig is up.

You didn't describe the legitimate evidence, though.

Oh well... we'll have to wait for TimG's return. I learn something of skepticism from him...

[lukin]

You didn't describe the legitimate evidence, though.

Oh well... we'll have to wait for TimG's return. I learn something of skepticism from him...

One cannot describe "legitimate evidence" because there isn't any, Mike. You want to believe the sky is falling, then fine, but don't expect me to fall for the same scam.

Educate yourself, Mike.

http://foia2011.org/

Edited December 2, 2011 by lukin

[waldo]

One cannot describe "legitimate evidence" because there isn't any, Mike. You want to believe the sky is falling, then fine, but don't expect me to fall for the same scam.

you now have two of us asking you to detail the kind/degree of evidence you would consider legitimate... we both fully recognize and acknowledge that you... you... take a position that there isn't any existing legitimate evidence. Everyone is also well aware of the type of skeptical position you espouse. However, the repeated questions are asking you to define what kind/degree of evidence you would consider as legitimate... what would you be looking for... what would be legitimate in your estimation, in your view, to suggest that mankind has had an effect on what you describe as, "globaloney warming and globaloney climate change". It's really quite a simple request, now coming at you from two of us...

[lukin]

you now have two of us asking you to detail the kind/degree of evidence you would consider legitimate... we both fully recognize and acknowledge that you... you... take a position that there isn't any existing legitimate evidence. Everyone is also well aware of the type of skeptical position you espouse. However, the repeated questions are asking you to define what kind/degree of evidence you would consider as legitimate... what would you be looking for... what would be legitimate in your estimation, in your view, to suggest that mankind has had an effect on what you describe as, "globaloney warming and globaloney climate change". It's really quite a simple request, now coming at you from two of us...

You have no clue. Human activity is not responsible for climate change. End of story. Go cry with Al Gore.

[waldo]

You have no clue. Human activity is not responsible for climate change. End of story. Go cry with Al Gore.

no problem - after repeated requests made to you, from both Michael and myself, it is quite clear you haven't the wherewithal, the capability, to actually state what would constitute legitimate evidence if mankind was responsible for what you defined as, "globaloney warming and globaloney climate change". I certainly had no expectations of you to comply... this was simply an academic pursuit to highlight your absolute, glaring fake skeptic self.

[lukin]

These emails reveal the alarmist AGW scam. Humans are not causing climate change. Even the sientists paud to prove humans are causing CC are trying to fudge the data any way possible because even they know they can`t prove what they are paid to prove.

There is LOTS of reading here, but if you really want to understand the scam, reading these is a must. Sorry waldo, you are wrong again buddy boy.

http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/FOIA/mail/

[Michael Hardner]

These emails reveal the alarmist AGW scam. Humans are not causing climate change. Even the sientists paud to prove humans are causing CC are trying to fudge the data any way possible because even they know they can`t prove what they are paid to prove.

There is LOTS of reading here, but if you really want to understand the scam, reading these is a must. Sorry waldo, you are wrong again buddy boy.

http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/FOIA/mail/

Lukin - you haven't said anything specific here. TimG has acknowledged that human caused climate change is supported by climate scientists in surveys on the question, but the matter of what that means is what we discussed on this thread.

[wyly]

Lukin - you haven't said anything specific here.

when has he ever?...

[lukin]

Lukin - you haven't said anything specific here. TimG has acknowledged that human caused climate change is supported by climate scientists in surveys on the question, but the matter of what that means is what we discussed on this thread.

Mike, you know a lot about everything. I've been trying to find an accurate answer to a simple question.

Of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, what % occurs naturally, and what % is created by humans? Thanks in advance for your answer.

[Michael Hardner]

Mike, you know a lot about everything. I've been trying to find an accurate answer to a simple question.

Of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, what % occurs naturally, and what % is created by humans? Thanks in advance for your answer.

Here's a web search result for you:

The annual growth rate of atmospheric CO2 was 1.6 ppm in 2009, below the average for the period 2000-2008 of 1.9 ppm per year (ppm = parts per million). The mean growth rate for the previous 20 years was about 1.5 ppm per year. This increase brought the atmospheric CO2 concentration to 387 ppm by the end of 2009, 39% above the concentration at the start of the industrial revolution (about 280 ppm in 1750). The present concentration is the highest during at least the last 2 million years.

[lukin]

Here's a web search result for you:

The annual growth rate of atmospheric CO2 was 1.6 ppm in 2009, below the average for the period 2000-2008 of 1.9 ppm per year (ppm = parts per million). The mean growth rate for the previous 20 years was about 1.5 ppm per year. This increase brought the atmospheric CO2 concentration to 387 ppm by the end of 2009, 39% above the concentration at the start of the industrial revolution (about 280 ppm in 1750). The present concentration is the highest during at least the last 2 million years.

Thanks for NOT answering my question. That's why this forum is useless. Simple questions can't get answered...tney are danced around.

100% carbon...how much is created by humans? That's a simple question.

[Michael Hardner]

Well... ok.

I can Google as well as you can.

This source (seems to be Oak Ridge National Laboratory) says

64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2.

.

14%.

[lukin]

Well... ok.

I can Google as well as you can.

This source (seems to be Oak Ridge National Laboratory) says .

14%.

So 86% of carbon in the atmosphere comes from natural sources, and 14%, according to YOU is human created?

[Michael Hardner]

So 86% of carbon in the atmosphere comes from natural sources, and 14%, according to YOU is human created?

According to the link... which you asked for.

It seems so. Now, where are we with this ?

[jbg]

It seems so. Now, where are we with this ?

Where are we, in Toronto or in New York?

[waldo]

Now, where are we with this?

buddy clearly was on a mission... but to what/where?

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe it was going to be along the lines of "only 14% ? well that isn't very much"...

To which I was planning to respond "Have you ever had 14% alcohol content in your blood ?"

And ... I don't know what answer I was expecting after that.

[lukin]

Maybe it was going to be along the lines of "only 14% ? well that isn't very much"...

To which I was planning to respond "Have you ever had 14% alcohol content in your blood ?"

And ... I don't know what answer I was expecting after that.

I wouldn't want to interrupt Waldo and Mikey's reaffirmation session.

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

[waldo]

I wouldn't want to interrupt Waldo and Mikey's reaffirmation session.

buddy... given you've fervently denied global warming and climate change, outright, it was somewhat confusing to read you actually inquiring about anthropogenic sourced atmospheric CO2 levels... and then you did nothing with Micheal's actual response. Wassup?

in this your latest post, you blatantly plagiarize, word for word, this amazing piece of fake skepticism... from renowned coal mining industry spokesman/advocate, one Monte Hieb (engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety)

[lukin]

buddy... given you've fervently denied global warming and climate change, outright, it was somewhat confusing to read you actually inquiring about anthropogenic sourced atmospheric CO2 levels... and then you did nothing with Micheal's actual response. Wassup?

in this your latest post, you blatantly plagiarize, word for word, this amazing piece of fake skepticism... from renowned coal mining industry spokesman/advocate, one Monte Hieb (engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety)

Oh, here we go again. Sources that support waldo's BS are credible, all others are false. give it up buddy.

Humans DO NOT contribute 14% to all the atmospheric carbon. It's under 5%. And that 5% does not alter climate

Monte Hieb is much better educated than The Original Internet Ninja, Waldo.

Edited December 14, 2011 by lukin

[Michael Hardner]

But Lukin, you didn't even provide your source... Waldo did.

Can you give us background on Mr. Hieb? Is he really a mining industry spokesman?

[waldo]

Humans DO NOT contribute 14% to all the atmospheric carbon. It's under 5%. And that 5% does not alter climate

Michael's 14% number was strictly with respect to fossil-fuels... the total anthropogenic numbers would also need to reflect upon land use and cement production. In any case, you're quite obviously out of your depth since you can't even interpret your own failed source... you're mixing historical absolute percentage level numbers (reflecting accumulations only on through to 2000) with your plagiarized source's presumed greenhouse effect number, outright.

perhaps you should step back and read up on forcing versus feedback and the residence time for water in the atmosphere. Hey now, perhaps your plagiarized go-to source has written a scientific paper to support his claims... ya think?

[lukin]

Michael's 14% number was strictly with respect to fossil-fuels... the total anthropogenic numbers would also need to reflect upon land use and cement production. In any case, you're quite obviously out of your depth since you can't even interpret your own failed source... you're mixing historical absolute percentage level numbers (reflecting accumulations only on through to 2000) with your plagiarized source's presumed greenhouse effect number, outright.

perhaps you should step back and read up on forcing versus feedback and the residence time for water in the atmosphere. Hey now, perhaps your plagiarized go-to source has written a scientific paper to support his claims... ya think?

AGENDA21 ?????????

WTF are you talking about, waldo. WTF is wrong with you?

[eyeball]

Humans DO NOT contribute 14% to all the atmospheric carbon. It's under 5%. And that 5% does not alter climate

It does when it accumulates over time. Now its some 30% or more higher than it was when the industrial age started.

We're responsible for 100% of that.