CO2 levels higher than any time in last 800,000 years

I love exposing truth. First it was the publisher from PA and now the lying Democrats rip up Koch.

Their site shows who they really are.

As to my pay, I assume I get my pay from you working on your job.

 

You are a good and loyal servant to your masters. Tonight you will receive a double portion of gruel. LOL

 

I collect social security. Be sure to include desert when you send me gruel.

 

Here is the Readers Digest version for you. CO2 traps thermal energy in Earth's atmosphere. Increasing the amount of CO2 increases the amount of thermal energy that gets trapped, causing surface temperature to rise. Humans have been increasing the amount of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere, ergo surface temperature is higher than it would be otherwise.

 

Well, you have it wrong. CO2 by itself is not strong enough according to the hypothesis so it relies on a multiplying effect of water vapor, which, of course, is not proven in a coupled non linear chaotic system.

 

You've gone from one extreme to the other. I don't need a summary of AGW as a theory, but a summary of a STUDY that has valid, empirical data to support such a theory. How was the data collected? What are the standards & procedures for collecting it? How does it compel the conclusion of AGW? I am questioning the data, not the idealistic theory.

But be forewarned. I have looked for this mysterious data before. it does not exist. It is assumed, projected, extrapolated, & modeled from computer generated assumptions. it is like the OP in this thread.. making dogmatic statements about CO2 levels or surface temps, or ocean temps over 800,000 years!! That is absurd! There is NO WAY to get credible, convincing data of such magnitude. it is all 'calculated' from computer models that are programmed by humans. It is opinion based data, not empirical.

Add to that all the faulty projections about flooded coastlines, searing hot temperatures, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, & other apocalyptic portents of doom, & you definitely have a end of the world religious prophecy. But that is not science, even if it is shrouded in pseudo scientific terms, & in conflicted 'studies' that just happen to calculate out as they predict, to ensure a continuation of a grant, or a new one.

The data is weak & made up. The conflicts of interest bring doubt as to the validity of the data. The predictions are wrong. Other than that, it is a fine theory.

 

You'll have to be more specific. Which one of my statements do I have wrong?

Whether feedbacks are positive or negative doesn't disprove anything I said. Besides, the idea that the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere increases by about 7% for every 1 °C rise in temperature was proven over a century ago.

 

You may want to also ask "what percentage of the CO2 number is actually CO2?" A lot of the sources try to hype the CO2 number by changing other greenhouse gases to their carbon dioxide equivalent and then representing that the number is an actual measurement of CO2 output.

 

So you want us to copy down all of the science? The thousands of studies? Constantly asking for many hours of work on our part comes across as an evasion tactic on your part.

It appears you've only looked at denier conspiracy blogs. Leading off with the "It's just models!" denier fable gave that away. Nobody who had looked at the real science would have said something that crazy.

Thermometers are actually computer models? Who knew. Out here in the real world, real thermometers measure real temperatures, and show record high temperatures. That matches the models very closely, by the way, which is why most deniers are now resorting to comically desperate claims that all the data is faked.

We directly measure ocean rise. Ice melt. Ocean temperatures. Ice core CO2 levels. Funny, no models there either.

We directly measure stratospheric cooling. Increased backradiation. Decreased outgoing longwave in the GHG bands. All of those are smoking guns for greenhouse-gas caused global warming, being there is no natural explanation for them.

Then stop spouting such prophecy. Or at least stop watching and believing so many Hollywood movies. What you believe global warming theory says has little connection to reality, probably because, again, you're getting your information from conspiracy blogs.

Don't project your own nature on to honest people. As hard as it may be for you to believe, some people won't lie for money. Just about any scientist could make much more money by lying for the denier side, but instead they choose the path of honesty and less money.

The climate science predictions have been spot on. The real predictions, not the phony ones that deniers repeat. It's the denier predictions that have a near-perfect record of failure. Is that ice age which your side has been predicting for the past 40 years here yet? What? Any day now? Yeah, good luck with that.

 

Good points. Which means this is a good time to plant tomatoes. I know I can rely on you.

 

That is the hypothesis. Whether the alarmists are right is another issue.

 

I didn't state a hypothesis, I stated three facts followed by a conclusion. Which one of my statements was wrong?

 

Nope, it is an hypothesis. No one knows if it valid in a coupled non-linear chaotic system.

 

Global warming activists have been deliberately misinformed from the beginning. Human caused global warming is as incredible as most of the rest of the very corrupt political environmental movement.

 

Even skeptical scientists believe it can contribute to warming but what that is is where the real debate is. The alarmists have changed the dialog from science to politics by announcing AGW for any and every weather event and those things not understood now in science (say something loud enough and long enough and people believe it). Scientists have even told colleagues that they are afraid to speak out or lose their positions and funding during this period of politicized science and inquisition.

 

Just one hysterical false prediction would strip the credibility from anyone not in a politically protected class. Environmental alarmists have been proven wrong for decades now. Hot house science is inherently fraudulent.

 

show me your thermometer readings from 800,000 years ago.

Show me your comparables from previous millennia, & how you, personally, measured them.

Show me ONE valid study that supports your claim. THAT is 'peer review'. Not threats of eternal hell fire, & dogmatic mandates of conformity.

If you made these predictions, surely you can see that they were wrong. How can you sit there with a straight face & repeat the lies constantly? The models are wrong. the data is made up, computer generated, or extrapolated. it is not empirical.

All you need to start is one. ONE study that suggests your 'theory' is a possibility. That is science. Then, you need peer reviews of the study, with further studies to corroborate or refute the first study. If they all agree, & are based on empirical data, then the conclusion becomes compelling AND scientific. But that is not what you have with AGW. you have a mandated belief, with elites demanding conformity. You have hordes of indoctrinated useful idiots, all nodding like bobble heads & prostrating themselves before the High Priests of Global Warming.

 

You only need one incorrect prediction to prove the whole thing wrong but no matter how many wrong predictions there are, the alarmism continues. That is because it is political, not scientific.

 

It is clearly all about politics now. It is not subtle.

 

So let me guess.....I should put you guys down for the massive and coordinated worldwide conspiracy of the finest scientific minds on the planet. Ok then. LOL

 

Now I need to personally take measurements for any science to be valid? Fascinating.

If your goal was to show everyone how wildly irrational the thinking of most deniers is, you've succeeded. And that's why you're ignored. It's not because of a VastGlobalSocialistConspiracy. It's because your science stinks.

 

First, you haven't showed any incorrect predictions. You've only made up stories about predictions. The real predictions have been very good. That would be the actual consensus predictions of actual climate scientists.

Second, you fail hard at understanding the scientific method, as usual. No, one failure does not necessarily invalidate an entire theory. Gravity predicts things fall down, but seeing a bird fly doesn't falsify gravity. It just means the theory needs a little modification.

Third, since denialism has failed completely at every prediction it's attempted for decades running now, you seem to be admitting denialism is failed science, which is something everyone already knows.

Real science is falsifiable. There are many things that could falsify global warming theory, because it's real science. I keep asking deniers what could falsify their theory, and none of them have ever given an answer. Denialism is not falsifiable because it's entirely political cult pseudoscience.

 

LOL! The Western progressive political movement would be right up there with lawn tennis on any list of conspiracies. Most scientists are just uninformed leftish nincompoops - they have actually been foolish enough to get caught urging each other to fudge their data.

 

Bwahahahaha! How could you be so blind? The slowdown in warming certainly surprised the CO2 science community.

 

This is the first thing a totalitarian government does....attack the intellectual and scientists. They are all enemies of the state because they don't follow our propaganda. We must deny their science in favor of the interests of the state. This is what you want.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no slowdown as measured in the appropriate thirty year periods.