What does Trump as President mean for Climate Change research??

[ORH_wxman]

2 minutes ago, JC-CT said:

Will, I wasn't saying anything about his position on the Paris Agreement as a yes or no issue. It is the justification he uses:

"government scientists have not been able to produce any meaningful evidence that greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, cause global warming or climate change"

Or this rhetoric towards the Obama administration:

"The egos of the environmental zealots, including key members of the Obama administration, will not be satisfied – until they have destroyed everything modern."

Whether you agree with the Paris Agreement or not, surely you can agree that this guy shouldn't be anywhere near the NOAA.

Oh of course, I wasn't disputing that...I was just noting the pretty hilarious irony. They get ridiculed (deservedly so) for ignoring the science, but then the policy makers turn right around and ignore the science themselves by deciding to do this agreement which doesn't change anything.

 

It's purely a policy of perception...the illusion that we're "fighting climate change" when in reality we're shooting a BB gun at a freight train and pretending it's a good start.

[Snow_Miser]

Professor for my programming class recommended to all of the Graduate Students in the class that any references to climate change be removed in Masters and Ph.D theses, as the likelihood for a federal grant would be significantly lower if it wasn't removed. 

[Jack Frost]

 

Saturday morning fun fact from the paper linked below:

..."each person exhales about a thousand pounds of carbon dioxide per year, which when multiplied by the 6.8 billion people alive today is 3.085 x 109 metric tons, a significant amount, especially when the total amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide is estimated at 3.45 x 1012 metric tons. (One metric ton equals 1000 kilograms or 1.1023 short-or American-tons.) The increment from the year 2000 alone is equal to about 363,000,000 metric tons per year." 

 

Removing CO2 as a "pollutant" pursuant to the Clean Air Act can't happen fast enough: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2365&context=journal_articles

 

Always wondered why the EPA didn't designate water vapor, which is the largest component of the GHG family, as a pollutant along with the other family members.

Just another one of those things that make you go hmmm....

 

[BillT]

11 minutes ago, Jack Frost said:

 

Saturday morning fun fact from the paper linked below:

..."each person exhales about a thousand pounds of carbon dioxide per year, which when multiplied by the 6.8 billion people alive today is 3.085 x 109 metric tons, a significant amount, especially when the total amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide is estimated at 3.45 x 1012 metric tons. (One metric ton equals 1000 kilograms or 1.1023 short-or American-tons.) The increment from the year 2000 alone is equal to about 363,000,000 metric tons per year." 

 

Removing CO2 as a "pollutant" pursuant to the Clean Air Act can't happen fast enough: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2365&context=journal_articles

 

Always wondered why the EPA didn't designate water vapor, which is the largest component of the GHG family, as a pollutant along with the other family members.

Just another one of those things that make you go hmmm....

 

some here claim this is about science yet as you point out they call co2 a "pollutant" NO "scientist" can possibly call co2 pollution...so this is PURE POLITICS 100% unrelated to science.

[snowsux]

 I find it amazingly coincidental at the very least that in recent months I've been seeing some of the deepest blue clear skies above me than I've seen in quite a while. For the past several years, without fail, by mid-morning on a daily basis in my area (on the days we weren't overcast), our sky in this area would look like a blue piece of construction paper that a child scribbled on with a white crayon. By early afternoon, the "persistent contrails" would envelop the entire visible sky in a milky white haze that would usually persist until an hour or so before dusk. Funny how after about 3 years that feature just seemed to taper off last fall. I haven't experienced sunshine like this....even during the summer months.... since I went on a Caribbean cruise a couple of years ago. 

 I'm not trying to go down the rabbit hole here, but I can't help but make this observation. I remember hearing the edgy catch phrase "planet hacking" being tossed around a little in the MSM back in 2008/2009, and then all of the sudden back in 2013, our skies here here in parts of the eastern US started to look like what Californians had been complaining about for the previous few years with the persistent contrails. The whole concept of solar radiation management is pretty well-documented, and what I was seeing for the past few years in the skies above me sure as hell looked like how it was described. I just find it ironic that for the first time in 3 years, I'm feeling the need to wear sunglasses again on "partly cloudy" days. It's been a while, and I hope it continues.

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

 

Saturday morning fun fact from the paper linked below:

..."each person exhales about a thousand pounds of carbon dioxide per year, which when multiplied by the 6.8 billion people alive today is 3.085 x 109 metric tons, a significant amount, especially when the total amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide is estimated at 3.45 x 1012 metric tons. (One metric ton equals 1000 kilograms or 1.1023 short-or American-tons.) The increment from the year 2000 alone is equal to about 363,000,000 metric tons per year." 

 

Removing CO2 as a "pollutant" pursuant to the Clean Air Act can't happen fast enough: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2365&context=journal_articles

 

Always wondered why the EPA didn't designate water vapor, which is the largest component of the GHG family, as a pollutant along with the other family members.

Just another one of those things that make you go hmmm....

 

Putting aside the terminology e.g., characterization of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 as "pollution," water vapor receives less attention because CO2 has a much longer lifetime in the atmosphere. The hydrologic cycle provides a natural mechanism for removing water vapor from the atmosphere. No such natural mechanism exists for rapidly removing CO2 once it's in the atmosphere. Hence, we've seen the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rising steadily.

[BillT]

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Putting aside the terminology e.g., characterization of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 as "pollution," water vapor receives less attention because CO2 has a much longer lifetime in the atmosphere. The hydrologic cycle provides a natural mechanism for removing water vapor from the atmosphere. No such natural mechanism exists for rapidly removing CO2 once it's in the atmosphere. Hence, we've seen the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rising steadily.

there is NO cycle that removes water from the atmosphere......rain does allow some to fall to the earth at the SAME TIME more is being added to the air in countless other locations.....water in the atmosphere is nearly a CONSTANT on the global scale.....and please understand this isnt about semantics this is about what words MEAN to remove means to eliminate it from the air and that NEVER happens......

[FloridaJohn]

 

[Jack Frost]

 

FloridaJohn, please confirm that you posted that video as a joke.   

See spot.  See spot run. Why is spot running?  To get away from "scientific" videos that apparently can fool some of the people some of the time.  LOL

Sorry, just couldn't help myself.  My reaction was rude and I apologize.

Moving along, from the article linked below:

"Temperature has little effect on the long-term upper atmosphere specific humidity contrary to climate model assumptions. CO2 emissions are causing a decline in upper atmosphere water vapour thereby allowing heat to escape to space. We believe that the long-term specific humidity in the upper atmosphere is determined by the maximum entropy principle, not temperature. The atmosphere is able to maximize the loss of heat to space subject to the constraint of the saturation limit in the lower atmosphere by decreasing the water vapour content in the upper atmosphere in response to increasing CO2 concentrations."

https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=710

Layers matter!

 

 

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, BillT said:

there is NO cycle that removes water from the atmosphere......rain does allow some to fall to the earth at the SAME TIME more is being added to the air in countless other locations.....water in the atmosphere is nearly a CONSTANT on the global scale.....and please understand this isnt about semantics this is about what words MEAN to remove means to eliminate it from the air and that NEVER happens......

Let's see if this is clearer. If a given water molecule reaches the atmosphere, it won't reside there for centuries or longer due to the hydrological cycle. One can't say the same about carbon dioxide molecules that reach the atmosphere. There is no comparable cycle for CO2.

[Jack Frost]

5 minutes ago, Jack Frost said:

 

FloridaJohn, please confirm that you posted that video as a joke.   

See spot.  See spot run. Why is spot running?  To get away from "scientific" videos that apparently can fool some of the people some of the time.  LOL

Sorry, just couldn't help myself.  My reaction was rude and I apologize.

Moving along, from the article linked below:

"Temperature has little effect on the long-term upper atmosphere specific humidity contrary to climate model assumptions. CO2 emissions are causing a decline in upper atmosphere water vapour thereby allowing heat to escape to space. We believe that the long-term specific humidity in the upper atmosphere is determined by the maximum entropy principle, not temperature. The atmosphere is able to maximize the loss of heat to space subject to the constraint of the saturation limit in the lower atmosphere by decreasing the water vapour content in the upper atmosphere in response to increasing CO2 concentrations."

https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=710

Layers matter!

 

 

 

From the same analysis linked above:

"Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. HARTCODE simulations show that a 10% increase in CO2 concentration has the same effect as a uniform 1.80% change in water vapour on the out-going longwave radiation (OLR). A uniform 1% change in water vapor has 5.4 times the effect that a 1% change in CO2 has on OLR. A doubling of CO2 can be offset by a 12.3% reduction in H2O. This is shown in the following graph."

[BillT]

15 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Let's see if this is clearer. If a given water molecule reaches the atmosphere, it won't reside there for centuries or longer due to the hydrological cycle. One can't say the same about carbon dioxide molecules that reach the atmosphere. There is no comparable cycle for CO2.

i understand what you are saying, do you understand since water vapor is constantly being added that how long a single molecule stays before condensing is irrelevant to the discussion of the impact of water vapor in the gh effect....also the oceans and plants on earth indeed do take co2 out of the air constantly, so some of its molecules wont last much longer than water vapor, to me that is "comparable" to the water cycle a point we likely wont agree but that is fine........again i appreciate the tone and civility of your responses.

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, BillT said:

i understand what you are saying, do you understand since water vapor is constantly being added that how long a single molecule stays before condensing is irrelevant to the discussion of the impact of water vapor in the gh effect....also the oceans and plants on earth indeed do take co2 out of the air constantly, so some of its molecules wont last much longer than water vapor, to me that is "comparable" to the water cycle a point we likely wont agree but that is fine........again i appreciate the tone and civility of your responses.

Atmospheric concentration of water vapor isn't steadily increasing and it hasn't increased more than 25% since 1959, as is the case with CO2.

Source of graph: 

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

[FloridaJohn]

 

[Jack Frost]

1 hour ago, FloridaJohn said:

 

???

It's 5:00 somewhere....

[Jack Frost]

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Atmospheric concentration of water vapor isn't steadily increasing and it hasn't increased more than 25% since 1959, as is the case with CO2.

Source of graph: 

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

This in no way addresses this:

https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=710

Serious question Don - Do you agree that it is ok to mislead the general public by posting pictures of smokestacks to mislead the masses into thinking that CO2 is a pollutant addressed by the Clean Air Act at the time it was initially signed into law?  

 

 

[PhillipS]

10 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

This in no way addresses this:

https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=710

Serious question Don - Do you agree that it is ok to mislead the general public by posting pictures of smokestacks to mislead the masses into thinking that CO2 is a pollutant addressed by the Clean Air Act at the time it was initially signed into law?  

FriendsOfScience is an denialist advocacy site, not a credible source of accurate information.  Here is the NOAA page on global specific and relative humidity trends.  Compare the two and you'll see which is the misleading one.  https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-state-climate-humidity

  

[Jack Frost]

26 minutes ago, PhillipS said:

FriendsOfScience is an denialist advocacy site, not a credible source of accurate information.  Here is the NOAA page on global specific and relative humidity trends.  Compare the two and you'll see which is the misleading one.  https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-state-climate-humidity

  

Why do you cite a summary referring to increased humidity in the surface atmosphere to refute a study that finds that water vapor is decreasing in the upper atmosphere (300mb and above)?ere is a graph of global average annual relative humidity at various elevations in the atmosphere expressed in millibars (mb) from 300 mb to 700 mb for the period 1948 to 2013. [d atmospheric pressure = 1013 mb. 1 mb = 1 hectopascal (hPa)] The data is from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory here.ere is a graph of global average annual relative humidity at various elevations in the atmosphere expressed in millibars (mb) from 300 mb to 700 mb for the period 1948 to 2013. [Standard atmospheric pressure = 1013 mb. 1 mb = 1 hectopascal (hPa)] The data is from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory here.re is a graph of global average annual relative humidity at various elevations in the atmosphere expressed in millibars (mb) from 300 mb to 700 mb for the period 1948 to 2013. [Standard atmospheric pressure = 1013 mb. 1 mb = 1 hectopascal (hPa)] The data is from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory here.

le of the predicted (but missing) tropical troposphere hot-spot. This is the critical elevation as this is where radiation can start to escape withAn analysis of NASA satellite data shows that water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, has declined in the upper atmosphere causing a cooling effect that is 16 times greater than the warming effect from man-made greenhouse gas emissions during the period 1990 to 2001 out being recaptured. The average relative humidity at this altitude has declined by 20% (or 9.6 percentiles) from 1948 to 2014!

labelled 300 mb is at about 9 km altitude, which is in the middle of the predicted (but missing) tropical troposphere hot-spot. This is the critical elevation as this is where radiation can start to escape without being recaptured. The average relative humidity at this altitude has declined by 20% (or 9.6 percentiles) from 1948 to 2014!

This graph shows that the relative humidity has been dropping, especially at higher altitudes allowing more heat to escape to space. The curve labelled 300 mb is at about 9 km tituddle of the predicted (but missing) tropical troposphere hot-spot. This is the critical elevation as this is where radiation can start to escape without being recaptured. The average An analysis of NASA satellite data shows that water vapor, the most important greenhouse gas, has declined in the upper atmosphere causing a cooling effect that is 16 times greater than the warming effect from man-made greenhouse gas emissions during the period 1990 to 2001 relative humidity at this altitude has declined by 20% (or 9.6 percentiles) from 1948 to 2014!

 

   

  

 

[PhillipS]

1 hour ago, Jack Frost said:

Why do you cite a summary referring to increased humidity in the surface atmosphere to refute a study that finds that water vapor is decreasing in the upper atmosphere (300mb and above)?e

THe FriendsOfScience advocacy piece you posted is for 700mb - 300mb which is the Troposphere, and not upper atmosphere.  Fueglistaler et al 2013 is a good paper on upper atmosphere (<100mb) water vapor trends.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50157/full  It disagrees with your claims that upper atmosphere water vapor is decreasing.

 

[Jack Frost]

2 hours ago, PhillipS said:

THe FriendsOfScience advocacy piece you posted is for 700mb - 300mb which is the Troposphere, and not upper atmosphere.

It is "upper" compared to the surface atmosphere which was the subject of the paper cited in your post 137, but admittedly not "uppermost".

 

2 hours ago, PhillipS said:

Fueglistaler et al 2013 is a good paper on upper atmosphere (<100mb) water vapor trends.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50157/full  It disagrees with your claims that upper atmosphere water vapor is decreasing.

So far, you first pitch was at the ankles and your next pitch was at the eyes.  This article throws a strike:  https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=710

The troposphere, as I think you know, is between the start and the surface.

Cite the paper that attempts to prove that water vapor is increasing in the troposphere and we can then - maybe - have an apples to apples discussion. 

As an aside, thought this was an interesting concession in the Fueglistaler, et. al. paper:

"[68] Our work demonstrates that only very long observational time series (with several years of overlap between different instruments) may provide the necessary constraints to address the fundamental question whether interannual variability and trends in stratospheric water vapor can be understood from those in the temperature field around the tropical tropopause under consideration of transport pathways. Despite an additional decade of observations and improved reanalyses and homogenized radiosonde temperature records since the SPARC Water Vapor Report [Kley et al. 2000], our results show that this fundamental question remains open due to uncertainties in the temperature and water vapor observations alike. The extensive, detailed comparison between observations and model predictions presented here, however, led to the identification of specific, well-defined periods where observations and model predictions systematically diverge." (emphasis added)

But, as you have said, or at least implied, let's not confuse papers on stratospheric issues with papers on tropospheric issues, much less with papers on the surface atmosphere.  

Right?

 

[donsutherland1]

17 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

This in no way addresses this:

https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=710

Serious question Don - Do you agree that it is ok to mislead the general public by posting pictures of smokestacks to mislead the masses into thinking that CO2 is a pollutant addressed by the Clean Air Act at the time it was initially signed into law?  

 

 

There's a distinction between the scientific realm and the policy/public realm. The former seeks evidence to build understanding. The latter may draw upon science, but also from other sources to devise policy responses. Those responses rely on numerous variables, some of which may conflict with others. Efforts to influence policy may well rest on cases made from selective information, exaggeration, etc., to promote outcomes that favor the interests of those involved. One saw that with the recent repeal of a regulation aimed at protecting water from toxic leaks from closed coal mines, even as multiple lines of research have demonstrated that toxic chemicals can seep from such mines even after decades of inactivity.

A reasonable degree of scientific and information literacy is required for the public to be in the best position to make informed judgments. 

[PhillipS]

1 hour ago, Jack Frost said:

It is "upper" compared to the surface atmosphere which was the subject of the paper cited in your post 137, but admittedly not "uppermost".

 

So far, you first pitch was at the ankles and your next pitch was at the eyes.  This article throws a strike:  https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=710

The troposphere, as I think you know, is between the start and the surface.

Cite the paper that attempts to prove that water vapor is increasing in the troposphere and we can then - maybe - have an apples to apples discussion. 

As an aside, thought this was an interesting concession in the Fueglistaler, et. al. paper:

"[68] Our work demonstrates that only very long observational time series (with several years of overlap between different instruments) may provide the necessary constraints to address the fundamental question whether interannual variability and trends in stratospheric water vapor can be understood from those in the temperature field around the tropical tropopause under consideration of transport pathways. Despite an additional decade of observations and improved reanalyses and homogenized radiosonde temperature records since the SPARC Water Vapor Report [Kley et al. 2000], our results show that this fundamental question remains open due to uncertainties in the temperature and water vapor observations alike. The extensive, detailed comparison between observations and model predictions presented here, however, led to the identification of specific, well-defined periods where observations and model predictions systematically diverge." (emphasis added)

But, as you have said, or at least implied, let's not confuse papers on stratospheric issues with papers on tropospheric issues, much less with papers on the surface atmosphere. 

Right?

The Troposphere is not the upper atmosphere, it's the lowest layer of the atmosphere.  Since you don't seem to understand that, and you've asked others for their credentials - please share your academic background with us.  And if you claim to be a scientist, please share some links to some of your peer-reviewed papers.  Thanks!

[chubbs]

4 hours ago, PhillipS said:

THe FriendsOfScience advocacy piece you posted is for 700mb - 300mb which is the Troposphere, and not upper atmosphere.  Fueglistaler et al 2013 is a good paper on upper atmosphere (<100mb) water vapor trends.  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50157/full  It disagrees with your claims that upper atmosphere water vapor is decreasing.

 

I love the names of the denier blogs Frosty cites. The blog author doesn't even understand how a climate model works. With "friends" like these who needs enemies.

 

[Jack Frost]

 

1 hour ago, PhillipS said:

The Troposphere is not the upper atmosphere, it's the lowest layer of the atmosphere.  

As you know, the "surface" part of the troposphere that is the subject of the article you cited in post 137 is not the same as the 700mb - 300mb part of the troposphere where it has been determined atmospheric water vapor is decreasing.  That's ok, I would be embarrassed too if I cited to not one, but two papers allegedly disproving a third paper when in fact those two papers have nothing to do with the third.     

 

1 hour ago, chubbs said:

I love the names of the denier blogs Frosty cites. The blog author doesn't even understand how a climate model works. With "friends" like these who needs enemies.

From another one of those "nut jobs" who has reason to believe the Global Climate Models (GCMs) in fact do not work

 

"In any serious greenhouse study, the knowledge of the functional dependence of the global average IR flux optical thickness on the GHG concentrations, and the surface temperature, is absolutely necessary. The flux optical thickness,  A , flux absorption, A , and flux transmittance, TA , are defined by the ST  SU exp( A ) and ST  SU (1 A)  SUTA relationships. For semitransparent atmospheres, except in M04, M07 and M10, there are no published numerical data available on the theoretical surface temperature - flux optical thickness relationship. The obvious reason why the scientific community does not present such results is twofold.

The first is the lack of a suitable greenhouse theory which is based solely on the known fundamental laws of nature. Apart from the fact, that the use of GCMs for studying large scale climate change is conceptually wrong (fundamentally stochastic processes cannot be diagnosed by a deterministic model), the GCMs with their numerous tuning parameters are not representing the principles of physics and the demonstrated response of the greenhouse effect. Common greenhouse effect explanations are not able to account for the magnitude and the tendency of the phenomenon. It has been known for a long time that climate change is controlled by the net radiative fluxes at the TOA and at the ground surface. The global average state of the atmosphere (or global average climate) is governed by the laws that control flows of radiative fluxes at the boundaries.

The second reason is rather technical, and related to the accurate computation of the flux optical thickness. According to RI06 the three dimensional charac- terization of radiative heating rates from equator to pole using the LBL approach is impractical. This view suggests sacrificing accuracy, by using band models in global scale radiative transfer computations, where it is most needed. This simplified view is probably the reason why, in recent textbooks, extensive parts are devoted to popularizing ancient band model tech- niques, see for example in Pierrehumbert (2010). Unfortunately the fact is that there are no publicly available LBL codes for accurate computations of the IR flux optical thickness. From a correct LBL spectral radiance code there is a very long way to a correct spectral spherical refractive flux density code." (emphasis added)

The full text of the article "The Greenhouse Effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth's Atmosphere" can be downloaded at this link:

http://www.seipub.org/des/paperInfo.aspx?ID=21810

About the author:

Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi:  Born in Budapest, Hungary in 1947. At the Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, he earned an MS degree in nuclear physics (1971), and a PhD degree in astrophysics (1975). At the Hungarian Academy of Sciences he earned another PhD in Earth Sciences (1981). He also holds a diploma in high-level computer programming.

He specialized in the experimental and theoretical aspects of infrared atmospheric radiative transfer. During the 80s, and 90s, he taught and did research at several universities. Before his international career, he was the head of the Department of Atmospheric Radiation at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Budapest (Hungary). He was a research associate in the International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste (Italy), a research scientist of the University of Maryland (USA), BSRN Staion Scientist in Ilorin (Nigeria), and a senior principal scientist at the Raytheon STX Corporation (USA).

He worked as Co-Principal Inveestigator on several NASA projects related to the problems of atmospheric remote sensing and planetary radiation budget. In 2003 he dis- covered and established the equations governing the infrared radiative transfer in semi-transparent atmospheres. In 2006 he resigned from NASA in protest due to unresolved publication issues related to his AGW related results. Recently his research interest has been the planetary green- house effect. His new idea of the greenhouse effect is getting more and more widely recognized. He is Foreign Associate Member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

   

   

   

 

 

[chubbs]

If you go to page 14 of the 2016 temperature thread we had a long discussion about water vapor, Satellite data shows that water vapor is increasing throughout the troposphere as expected. There were problems with the earliest satellite data and some re-analysis data. Of course that doesn't stop some from still citing the bad data. The strong warming that has occurred over the past 50 years is also evidence for a water vapor feedback.

https://www.americanwx.com/bb/topic/47548-2016-global-temperatures/?page=14

 

[Jack Frost]

On February 4, 2017 at 1:03 PM, donsutherland1 said:

Putting aside the terminology e.g., characterization of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 as "pollution," water vapor receives less attention because CO2 has a much longer lifetime in the atmosphere. The hydrologic cycle provides a natural mechanism for removing water vapor from the atmosphere. No such natural mechanism exists for rapidly removing CO2 once it's in the atmosphere. Hence, we've seen the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rising steadily.

Don,

With all due respect, it is not genuine to "put aside the characterization of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 as "pollution".  It is beyond the height of hypocrisy to characterize a gas that all living beings exhale and is essential to all plant life on earth - which, by taking in Co2 and providing oxygen - in turn is essential to all living beings on earth - as "pollution". 

It is propaganda, just like this is:  

• 
• 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You and I both know these pictures are entirely disingenuous and designed to fool the mildly interested into believing that CO2 is "pollution".

 

Why does a "settled science" need to rely so heavily on misinformation and propaganda?  Combine this with the polar bear nonsense and any AGW believer with an open mind should see why many find the hysteria needs to step it up several notches to even approach "not credible", let alone credible.   

 

 

 

[pazzo83]

15 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

Don,

With all due respect, it is not genuine to "put aside the characterization of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 as "pollution".  It is beyond the height of hypocrisy to characterize a gas that all living beings exhale and is essential to all plant life on earth - which, by taking in Co2 and providing oxygen - in turn is essential to all living beings on earth - as "pollution". 

It is propaganda, just like this is:  

• 
• 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You and I both know these pictures are entirely disingenuous and designed to fool the mildly interested into believing that CO2 is "pollution".

 

Why does a "settled science" need to rely so heavily on misinformation and propaganda?  Combine this with the polar bear nonsense and any AGW believer with an open mind should see why many find the hysteria needs to step it up several notches to even approach "not credible", let alone credible.   

 

 

 

You serious with this garbage?  Hang out on Venus for a few minutes and tell us how beneficial an excess of CO2 is to survival.

This forum needs some serious garbage collection.

[friedmators]

On 2/13/2017 at 11:26 AM, pazzo83 said:

You serious with this garbage?  Hang out on Venus for a few minutes and tell us how beneficial an excess of CO2 is to survival.

This forum needs some serious garbage collection.

Yea i can't take it anymore.  He reminds of Cameron on House the day she got her hands on that how to win an argument book.  Comes off as so fake as to not warrant a response imo.

[Newman]

On 2/13/2017 at 11:26 AM, pazzo83 said:

You serious with this garbage?  Hang out on Venus for a few minutes and tell us how beneficial an excess of CO2 is to survival.

This forum needs some serious garbage collection.

The thing is, Earth will never get to that point of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In fact, the CO2 we are releasing is beneficial to our environment in SOME ways, not all obviously.

https://fcpp.org/sites/default/files/documents/Moore - Positive Impact of Human CO2 Emissions.pdf

[JC-CT]

On 2/13/2017 at 11:26 AM, pazzo83 said:

You serious with this garbage?  Hang out on Venus for a few minutes and tell us how beneficial an excess of CO2 is to survival.

This forum needs some serious garbage collection.

He started out his very first sentence with a lie.

"With all due respect..."