Climat Change is not a commie myth.

[orogenicman]

That would come as a shock to those who have paid me a lot of money over the decades to plot graphs just like the ones in question. This is it? This is all you have? Really?

I have no idea what the development of graphing, which was invented by Galileo FYI, has to do with your inability to understand them. In connection with your claim to be a certified professional geologist, that appears to be something a soil engineer would be called. Scientists are NEVER certified. It is beneath them. That a title includes the name of a science does not make the person a scientist.

Erm, graphs were invented by Leonhard Euler. You didn't know this? Huh. Soil science is only one aspect of geology, which is, after all, the study of the Earth - ALL of it.

Your dodge and weave responses clearly indicate you do not understand the issues much less the subject.

Says the person who has yet to answer any of my questions.

If Mitch McConnell cites Newton's laws a gravity when a landslide occurs, is he making a political statement?

When and if he does you get back to me and we can talk about it.

I doubt that McConnell even realizes how much gravity is affecting his sorry arse.

I understand that conservatives and other deniers have an issue with using Wikipedia as a source,

Then you do not understand anything. All educated people have a problem with ANONYMOUS sources like wikipedia.

First of all, I didn't post it because of its anonymous author. I posted it because it contains easily verifiable NON-anonymous references. Secondly, as someone with 9 years of college, I must tell you that you are WRONG! Would I use it as a reference in a peer reviewed publication? Of course not. But for general use it is perfectly acceptable. Now, did you actually go to the link and read the contents, and browse the references contained therein? I doubt that you did, and if that is the case, then don't complain to me about Wikipedia if you aren't willing to vet what it has to say.

---

In fact, it was a joint award given to the authors of the 2007 IPCC climate report and Al Gore. Mann was one of those authors, and received a certificate from the IPCC in recognition of his efforts that contributed to the award, as were all the other authors. End of story.

You're wrong. It wasn't awarded to the authors - it was awarded to the IPCC. Mann took it to court as you know. Mann believes he won the award, he did not.

Yes, it was awarded to the IPCC. "The IPCC leadership agreed
to present personalized certificates for contributing to the award
of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC to scientists that had
contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports. Such
certificates, which feature a copy of the Nobel Peace Prize diploma,
were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors,
Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the
secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007. The IPCC has not sent such certificates to contributing
authors, expert reviewers and focal points."

Are we clear?

Of course you don't need to refute any science. Given that it is highly doubtful that you could argue the issue with a 10 year old, I can understand your reluctance.

Oh please, I've followed the EGHE science for close to a decade, it has not advanced and many of the previous claims have been long since discredited or disproven. The EGHE has an effect on our climate, it has had a contributing effect towards the global trend, however I believe that the science shows the upper limit of the effect that it had in the 20th century (1900-2000) is 0.1-0.2 degrees Celsius. The actual, physical global warming trend for that same period is 0.6-0.7 degrees; thus the majority of the trend is not attributable to EGHE's nor a subset of EGHE's.

I am going to assume you mean enhanced greenhouse emissions. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased nearly 30 per cent, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15 per cent.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4389



Carbon dioxide is the single largest contributor to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Increases in carbon dioxide emissions account for approximately 70 per cent of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Using ice cores from the Antarctic, scientists estimate that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the pre-industrial era had a value of approximately 280 parts per million (ppm). Measurements in 2005 put it at 379 ppm. The 2005 figures also tell a story of alarming growth. The 2005 carbon dioxide levels exceeded the natural range of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm). In addition, even though there has been year to year variability (at an average of 1.9 ppm), the annual growth rate of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere was larger during the 10 years between 1995 and 2005 than it had been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements between 1960 and 2005 (average: 1.4 ppm per year) (IPCC, 2007).

It is true that natural sources of carbon dioxide - plant respiration and decomposition of organic matter - generate more than 10 times the amount of carbon dioxide produced by human activities such as driving motor vehicles, heating homes and powering factories. However, in the past, natural processes that remove or sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, namely photosynthesis and the carbon reservoir function of the oceans, balanced out these releases.

We now have a situation where not only are additional sources producing and emitting carbon dioxide in significant quantities but the natural sinks that remove carbon dioxide are also being compromised. Trees and forests are being cut down for a variety or reasons, including agriculture and human settlements. At the same time, oceans, including the North and South Atlantic oceans, are reaching their carbon dioxide saturation point because their absorptive capacity is failing to keep pace with the increase in carbon dioxide emissions. A 10-year study by the University of East Anglia found that the North Atlantic halved its absorption of carbon dioxide between the mid-90s and 2000 to 2005. Scientists previously thought the carbon sink function of the oceans would help offset the increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. However, this appears not to be the case. Even though a decrease in the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide was anticipated by scientists and even factored into some climate models, it seems to be happening 40 years earlier than expected.

I also believe NASA who in 2010 published their modelling that has CO2 contributing less than half of the EGHE and Methane and Black carbon contributing the bulk of the other half. It is, however, important to mention this to simple minds.

Where do you think all that methane and carbon black is coming from?

Even IF the full 0.6-0.7 degree trend is actually solely attributable to EGHE's, then CO2's modelled contribution of 47% makes it attributable for ~0.3 degrees of warming in the 20th century (upper limit).

Now go discuss this nonsense of yours with the uneducated masses.

Why, are you afraid of discussing it with someone who can actually counter some of your ridiculous claims?

In fact, Researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who examined effects of gaps in temperature measurements during the 20th century have concluded that global warming during that time period may have been slightly larger than the previously estimated value of roughly 0.6 degrees Celsius.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...092014.htm

In an article titled "Effect of Mission Data on Estimates of Near-Surface Temperature Change Since 1900," in the July 1 edition of the Journal of Climate, LLNL researchers Philip B. Duffy, Charles Doutriaux, Imola Fodor and Benjamin Santer studied effects of the incompleteness of surface thermometer records on the estimated 20th century warming by examining 16 climate model simulations of the surface temperature changes from 1899 to 1998.

The scientists compared temperature trends obtained from globally complete model output with temperature trends derived by sampling the model output at only those locations where temperature observations are actually available. The comparison enabled the researchers to assess the effect of missing observational data on the apparent temperature trend during the 20th century.

"We found no evidence to support the hypothesis that incomplete observational data has caused us to overestimate the true warming trend," said Duffy, lead author of the paper. "On the contrary, our results suggest that the actual warming during the 20th century may have been slightly larger than the warming estimated from the incomplete observational data of -about 0.7 degrees Celsius instead of 0.6 degrees Celsius."

Also, you might want to browse this graph:

---

Also, and I think this is an important point, the increased CO2 levels are not solely anthropogenic. If we were not emitting, then CO2 levels would still be increasing. CO2 increases by about 40% of what we emit so there is a strong correlation. But correlation doesn't mean causation for that would assume that if we weren't emitting then CO2 levels would drop by 150% of the amount that they're presently increasing by - which is obviously nonsensical!

Yet I still see this claim made all the time by alarmists that we have total control over the CO2 levels - we don't. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations wouldn't drop at 150% of the rate of increase if we weren't emitting, it would still be climbing, albeit by only about half the present growth rate.

It takes Carbon 100 years to cycle through the atmosphere. Were we to stop emitting all of our share CO2 today, it would take 100 years just to get rid of our current contribution. No one said there was a short-term fix.