found a great site with the truth about CO2

There has roughly been a 40% increase in atmospheric levels of CO2 since the industrial revolution. Can you post citations that this is largely due to natural phenomenon? To my knowledge, carbon sinks do not absorb all of anthropogenic CO2 output but only around half. The rest remains in the atmosphere and this has an accumulative effect over time.

It is also thought that the sinks are possibly declining in efficiency [1]

The greenhouse effect implies that temperatures will increase with increases of greenhouse gasses.

I disagree ...Scientific observation and empirical data suggests we do have an impact. The extent of our impact is debatable though. Best not to get caught up in the dire predictions as there is new data coming out all the time. Don't be alarmed, be aware.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2550682.htm (click on view transcript)

Http://www.climatecooling.org

http://www.geocraft.com/WVfossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://whttp://www.geocraft.com/WVF...w.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/01/the-geologic-record-and-climate-change.html (read to the bottom of the page)

If you just look there is a wealth of contrary opinion AND hard science condradicting the agw climate change alarmists. You cannot dismiss the many highly qualified scientists who are saying agw climate change is crap.
Most of the alarmist I have seen are not scientists or if they are, their area of scientific study is not climatology and most of them have some sort of pecuniary interest in pushing the alarmist agenda. Flim Flam Flannery is a perfect example.

 

Then why is it okay to dismiss those who say AGW is a valid theory? This is a completely biased way of addressing the debate. Neither side, when they present compelling and accurate studies (not blog posts), should be dismissed.

What you said goes both ways, not just one. There is plenty of information that goes against what skeptics are saying. To think the science is settled for either side is simply wrong. Science should never be settled anyway.

Climatologists are not the only scientists who have credibility in this debate. I assume you know this because you posted a link to an interview with a geologist. Many skeptics also have an agenda or are funded by those who will benefit from maintaining the status quo. Equal criticism and scrutiny must be applied to both sides for this debate to progress.

 

You contributed (i use that word very loosely) to this thread, so you either suffer from a form of memory loss or you are one of the many lords of confirmation bias that frequent this forum. Or perhaps you're just trying to be stupid.

If you don't recall my arguments, please re-appraise yourself.

 

Like it or not, the total CO2 we have added on top of the natural atmospheric carbon cycle in the last 150 years is 40%, see posts from Lepper in this thread. The lower calculation someone quoted in previous posts was from dated or inaccurate figures. If it weren't for natural sinks the amount in the atmosphere would be a lot higher.

If you don't get that we have increased CO2 by 40% in 150 years you are unlikely to believe in climate change. I thought it was rubbish until I checked that figure out. It's actually more like 39.78% or something but not lower than 39.5%. That figure is real. That figure is indisputable fact.

Whenever I read a climate change article and it avoids or does not take that figure into consideration I know to be immediately suspicious.

The tiny amount of CO2 we contribute yearly sounds like a little bit, but it stacks up. The 40% isn't staying at 40% and it isn't going down. It's going up. These "tiny indiscernible differences" that a country could make, stack up considerably over time.

I am not saying we are all about to drown but you would have to be an idiot to claim that a 40% change in CO2 content in the global atmosphere is going to have absolutely no effect. Especially because we can calculate the effect and also measure how those sorts of concentration changes effect heat in the laboratory on a smaller scale.

Nothing I have said here is disputable in the face of fact. This is the concrete settled basis of all the concern. Just what I have given you here is enough for most people to realise it's validity.

Much of the rest of what exactly will happen and when is disputable and this is where the horror of politics and media come in. Most political arguments about climate science are not about climate science. They are about getting the upper hand. The massive problem with science is it's not as flexible as politicians are used to. They become confined by it, unlike so many other aspects of society. Politicians are about ruling and not being ruled. This is why climate science may be so passionately abandoned and refuted by some politicians.

About 97.5% of climate scientists believe it is real. The other 2.5% are doing their job by nitpicking into it as much as possible. This is a completely necessary aspect of science. It does not demonstrate a division, especially a 50/50 one. There are not two equal sides of the story, the community is not divided. The doubts among scientists are nothing like the doubts in the broader community (I am a scientist).

 

Yes - it is obvious you are a scientist. You are part of the global conspiracy to make us all socialists. The one started by Margaret Thatcher....(no - I don't quite understand that bit either)

I don't want to hear all of these so-called "facts". Why should I believe you and not Allen Jones? Have YOU ever coached the Wallabies?!?! No - I didn't think so.

I bid you good-day sir!

 

Clueless. You said it, not me.

 

It is not indisputable fact. Man has contributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2, that is indisputable fact. How much of the increase can be attributed to human activities is open to speculation. And let's get it into perspective, 40% sounds like a lot, but really the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from (approximately) .00028% to .00039%. That is a tiny, tiny amount. And no one knows if this will have any effect on climate, or if so, what that effect will be. There is only speculation and quess work on that score.

Not idiots mate. People with Dr. and Phd. after their names and titles of Professor Emeritus are saying it.

And you claim to be a scientists? What is your area of study? Astrology perhaps? Or maybe the healing power of crystals? No, it's Homeopathy isn't it!

You got that right. So far every alarmist prediction of doom has been wrong.

Believe what is real? Who gave you that figure anyway? I bet it was a climate change believer.

 

Lets put it further into perspective, 99% of the Earth's atmosphere is NOT greenhouse gas, yet they still have an impact. The speculation that you talk of is backed by empirical data and observation, so it is a bit more than simple conjecture.

 

The SPECULATION is based on FLAWED computer MODELS that have PREDETERMINED OUTCOMES... God you warmists are silly.

 

What is really silly is making such a bold claim without providing any evidence to substantiate it.

 

99% is not greenhouse gas?? Tell us what percentage of the atmosphere is water vapour? Much of the data does actually contradict the climate alarmists claims. If you cared to read some of the links I provided you would find that the geological record shows that CO2 increase FOLLOWS increases in temperature and the greenhouse effect of CO2 'tops out' after which more CO2 does'nt cause more warming. THe geological record also supports this showing that at times in the past CO2 levels have been much, much greater than today but there was not a corresponding increase in temperature that alarmists today are predicting.
But all this academic anyway. There is no evidence that humans are having any effect on the climate. It is all conjecture and so far every alarmist prediction has been wrong!

 

Mate, you're the one making bold claims about climate change without any evidence to substantiate it!

 

I don't want to make a habit of doing peoples research for them, but this one time I will make an exception. Took me all of 5 seconds using google.

"Gaseous water represents a small but environmentally significant constituent of the atmosphere. The percentage water vapor in surface air varies from a trace in desert regions to about 4% over oceans.[11]" - citation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition

Gas Volume
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 390 ppmv (0.039%)
Not included in above dry atmosphere:
Water vapor (H2O) ~0.40% over full atmosphere, typically 1%-4% at surface

Yes, this has been documented and considered by scientists. Are you referring to Milankovitch cycles and the 'lag' effect of CO2?

Warming can definitely precede CO2 increase, but this does not mean that CO2 increase cannot precede a temperature increase. This is fallacious reasoning.

Citations needed to show the greenhouse effect is saturated (not sure if this is correct terminology). Studies still show the greenhouse effect to be increasing. [1]

Yes, at times it has. Science has not overlooked this. CO2 is not the only factor that drives temperature. Solar activity is likely to have played a role [2]

Empirical observation and data suggests we do have an impact, the extent of which is debatable. Please provide citations that humans have no impact whatsoever.

 

The only bold claim I have made is about the possible declining efficiency of natural sinks, to which I provided a citation. There is also plenty of evidence to substantiate claims about climate change, to say otherwise is pure ignorance.

 

Could you please tell us which computer models were flawed?
Could you please tell us which computer models had pre-determined outcomes?

Or are these just more of these silly lies you make up and then run away?


Like when you wrote:

We are still waiting to hear who these scientists that falsified data were
We are still waiting to hear what data they falsified


or when you wrote:

We are still waiting to hear what the mechanism that is responsible for this "well-established, long-term, natural climate trend" is.

Why are you unable to answer any of these questions after you make these claims?

 

Nope, how much CO2 we added is not a matter of speculation within the scientific community, this is an issue for random people to make up and discuss based on limited knowledge and ignorance. Professor Emeritus means they have retired and lost touch. Ooh PhD? Finished mine 4 years ago. I have done spectroscopy tests on low concentration CO2 and calculated the heat absorption. The tiny sounding amounts you are talking about add up a lot on the global scale. It's like putting a few drops of food colouring in a glass, 0.00028% to 0.00039% is enough to significantly change absorption.

PhD in chemistry actually. Currently working on 3rd generation solar cells

That's your problem for listening to the alarmists. Read the IPCC reports? Actual journal articles? Understood what they say? Or is it blogs and media reports that give you your "information".

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analysed "1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change



Anyway.. You don't give a cr*p, scientists will find ways around things, if we bump a tipping point whole planet will know about it, so just go on with your life. I guess the worst thing would be if something bad happened and it came out that we knew about it all along but wouldn't tell people because we thought they were too stupid to understand. You've been told, don't care if you believe it or not, live your life and don't interfere with what we have to do..

 

I stumbled across 'the galileo movement' facebook page today.

The website claims it is: "Non-political: The Galileo Movement is non-partisan. We want to appeal to all political parties;"

Yet this is just a few of their 'liked' pages in facebook.

The Australian Tea Party
Stop Gillard's Carbon Tax
Its Over Gillard, Call an Election
2GB 873AM
Friends don't let friends re-elect Julia Gillard
Conservative Cafe
Democracy Loading 3% [Error: Please remove Julia Gillard and try again]
Friends don't let friends vote for Julia Gillard

They claim non-partisan but further investigation reveals an undeniable bias. Their credibility is disappearing fast. Be careful those who are uncritically accepting info from this site.

 

Are all you scaremongering loops going to admit that..

1. If the science is in...

and

2. Developing countires are going to increase emissions

then...

3. We have already failed our children and need to look at survival and not making a huge change to our economy, to redistribute wealth, to make no difference.

Is there a loop out there with an ounce of integrity??

 

That is a loaded question that also commits an ad hominem fallacy. Please get your own integrity in check before insulting others.

 

LOL

Yep another loop with no integrity.

Not one has answered this question.

Why (if the science is in, and developing countries emissions are not going down) are we wasting time shaving a pittance of our emissions when we should be saving ourselves from this terrible future?

Why loops...why?

 

Nobody has answered because it is a loaded question that serves your own agenda, much like the other post you made which I ignored. Please refrain from further degradation of this discussion. You have asked your question, no need to repeat yourself.

 

Oh Lepper, you cop out just like the rest of your scaremongering mob, how pathetic you all are.

You think the science is in, yes?

Worldwide emissions will increase, yes?

Our pitiful pittance of reductions will be eclipsed by just China in months, yes?

Then why the hell are we not preparing for the inevitable consequences that surely must come? Why don’t we go and rescue Tim “BIG GREEN” Flannery from his water-side residential folly?

Why won’t any loop answer? Are you scared of the answer? Does the answer make Gillard’s lie even worse and thus you do not answer, as you need to defend your/her stance?

Is there an honest loop out there…..anywhere?

 

A Phd eh, you are obviously a very learnard gentleman (or women). But I must say for someone with a Phd your response above to by message leaves a lot to be desired. I said very highly qualified people with Dr and Phd after their names and titles such as Professor emritus are telling us that acc is crap. Your very unprofessional response was to demean the titles! Do you really hold your own Phd qualification in such low regard?

I like the food colouring anology, it has improved my understanding of the effects of CO2.

So you have a vested interest in maintaining the acc alarmism.

 

You are absolutely correct. The emissions targets proposed by both major parties are far too small.

As we are responsible for more CO2 emissions per person than virtually any other people on the planet - we should be aiming for much higher reductions