CO2 greens our planet and feeds plant life.

The circulations models cant predict tomorrows weather how can they predict or forecast a 100 years into the future.

AGW is false, a big lie to scam nations of their wealth.

http://petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

Ajax wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:00am:

The circulations models cant predict tomorrows weather how can they predict or forecast a 100 years into the future. AGW is false, a big lie to scam nations of their wealth. http://petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

Disagree. Totally.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:02am:

Ajax wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 12:00am: The circulations models cant predict tomorrows weather how can they predict or forecast a 100 years into the future. AGW is false, a big lie to scam nations of their wealth. http://petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf Disagree. Totally.

Good its a free world and everyone is entitled to their opinion. 8-)

From the link provided in the OP

CONCLUSIONS

There are no experimental data to sup port the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape.

There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been proposed.

We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing sea sons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.

The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, econom ical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, how -
ever, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and an imal life is increased.

Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase.

Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.


Far out? Who financed this self-contradicting garbage?

How the hell do ridiculous papers like this get published in the 1st instance?

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:16am:

Far out? Who financed this self-contradicting garbage? How the hell do ridiculous papers like this get published in the 1st instance?

Sounds like you haven't heard both sides of the story..... :D

Have you bothered to read the last page of your link?

It's the stuff of hilarious non sensical fairy tales.

Perhaps you're into that sort of thing. I'm not.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:22am:

Have you bothered to read the last page of your link? It's the stuff of hilarious fairy tales.

Ok here we go again.

Look the Earth has had 20 times the CO2 we have today in our atmosphere and guess what there was no runaway greenhouse effect.

Actually plants and life flourished at that time.

By the way look at the correlation of CO2 and temperature on a long time scale (millions of years)

http://i39.tinypic.com/v6td0j.jpg

http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf




Still not convinced how about a short time span (11000 years)

http://i40.tinypic.com/293ap28.gif





Arrhhh now this one is tricky a medium time span looks like they do right but no they actually don't its the time scale that makes it appear so.

This is the scale you will find on all global warming blogs and sites that preach the AGW religion to scare the be-jesus out of you.

Medium time scale (450000 years)

http://i39.tinypic.com/2gwhzzc.gif

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:22am:

Have you bothered to read the last page of your link? It's the stuff of hilarious non sensical fairy tales. Perhaps you're into that sort of thing. I'm not.

What is funniest is that he is quoting from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine -  a bizarre little organisation whose main focus is home schooling.

Just ignore Ajax.  He has trouble with basic arithmetic and comprehension.  I actually this he is really just a weird piece of software that endlessly repeats silly talking points on forums like this.

Surely a real person couldn't be so ignorant.

Ajax wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:24am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 12:22am: Have you bothered to read the last page of your link? It's the stuff of hilarious fairy tales. Ok here we go again. Look the Earth has had 20 times the CO2 we have today in our atmosphere and guess what there was no runaway greenhouse effect. Actually plants and life flourished at that time. By the way look at the correlation of CO2 and temperature on a long time scale (millions of years) http://i39.tinypic.com/v6td0j.jpg

Heh!  Look!  Ajax.com has just gone into it's pointless pre-history loop again.

This can't be a real person.  Surely.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:30am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 12:22am: Have you bothered to read the last page of your link? It's the stuff of hilarious non sensical fairy tales. Perhaps you're into that sort of thing. I'm not. What is funniest is that he is quoting from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine -  a bizarre little organisation whose main focus is home schooling. Just ignore Ajax.  He has trouble with basic arithmetic and comprehension.  I actually this he is really just a weird piece of software that endlessly repeats silly talking points on forums like this. Surely a real person couldn't be so ignorant.

Typical alarmist when they cant fight the science FACTS they revert to personal insults. :o ::) :P

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:30am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 12:22am: Have you bothered to read the last page of your link? It's the stuff of hilarious non sensical fairy tales. Perhaps you're into that sort of thing. I'm not. What is funniest is that he is quoting from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine -  a bizarre little organisation whose main focus is home schooling. Just ignore Ajax.  He has trouble with basic arithmetic and comprehension.  I actually this he is really just a weird piece of software that endlessly repeats silly talking points on forums like this. Surely a real person couldn't be so ignorant.

I STILL can't get over the non sensical contradictions within the Conclusions of the paper Ajax appears to be relying on.

Hilarious reading material though .. haven't stopped laughing in fact.

Ajax wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:33am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 12:30am: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 12:22am: Have you bothered to read the last page of your link? It's the stuff of hilarious non sensical fairy tales. Perhaps you're into that sort of thing. I'm not. What is funniest is that he is quoting from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine -  a bizarre little organisation whose main focus is home schooling. Just ignore Ajax.  He has trouble with basic arithmetic and comprehension.  I actually this he is really just a weird piece of software that endlessly repeats silly talking points on forums like this. Surely a real person couldn't be so ignorant. Typical alarmist when they cant fight the science FACTS they revert to personal insults. :o ::) :P

Don't be silly Ajax - you wouldn't know a FACT if it bit you on the arse. 

You can't add up.
You don't understand what you read.
And you tell lies.

Come back to us when you can do some calculations that are not out by a factor of a million.
And when you can tell us why you believe a tabloid columnist that tells you warming stopped in 1998 - when sea levels have continued to rise, the arctic ice cap has continued to melt and global glacial mass balance has continued to decrease.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:48am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 12:30am: Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 12:22am: Have you bothered to read the last page of your link? It's the stuff of hilarious non sensical fairy tales. Perhaps you're into that sort of thing. I'm not. What is funniest is that he is quoting from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine -  a bizarre little organisation whose main focus is home schooling. Just ignore Ajax.  He has trouble with basic arithmetic and comprehension.  I actually this he is really just a weird piece of software that endlessly repeats silly talking points on forums like this. Surely a real person couldn't be so ignorant. I STILL can't get over the non sensical contradictions within the Conclusions of the paper Ajax appears to be relying on. Hilarious reading material though .. haven't stopped laughing in fact.

Exactly which parts are contradictory??

Ajax wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:00am:

CO2 greens our planet and feeds plant life. The circulations models cant predict tomorrows weather how can they predict or forecast a 100 years into the future. AGW is false, a big lie to scam nations of their wealth. http://petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

Damn, and I really wanted to know if I wanted to take an umbrella with me when I go out on the 28st August 2113.

So let me get this right, climate models tell you how windy it will be on that day and whether or not it will rain on a particular day 100 years in the future? - or do they just forecast general averaged trends? 

Do you think that climate is just a tad different from weather forecasting?

I'm interested in your opinion.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 12:30am:

What is funniest is that he is quoting from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine -  a bizarre little organisation whose main focus is home schooling.

http://www.oism.org/oism/faculty.jpg

Praise the Lord! Somebody finally bought that thur Science paper. Now they can afford to fix the double wide.

The real interesting thing is that more than one third of ALL the CO2 man has ever emitted has gone into the atmosphere from the year 1998.

But guess what temperatures are falling.

If that's not a case to stop the money manipulators from taxing us on the air we breath, I don't know what is...!!!

http://i44.tinypic.com/2qxvr6b.png

Ajax wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 2:15pm:

The real interesting thing is that more than one third of ALL the CO2 man has ever emitted has gone into the atmosphere from the year 1998. But guess what temperatures are falling. If that's not a case to stop the money manipulators from taxing us on the air we breath, I don't know what is...!!! http://i44.tinypic.com/2qxvr6b.png

Ajax, posting exactly the same message numerous  times is called spamming.

Guess what, temperatures are actually rising despite the fact that solar irradiance has been falling.
http://descrier.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/land-ocean-temperature-428x320.jpg

From the FATHER of global warming, James Hansen


Quote:

The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

That's a bit strange isn't muso considering one third of all manmade CO2 emissions have been sent up into the atmosphere after 1998.....?????????

Therefore the logical conclusion is,

Yes CO2 is a greenhouse...!!

Yes CO2 does cause warming in the atmosphere...!!!

NO manmade CO2 emissions are not solely responsible for the warming which has been observed in the last century.

It plays a part but a very minute.

Therefore the IPCC's hypothesis is RUBB!SH.

And should be thrown in the trash can.

Your logic is flawed ... and weird.

muso wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 10:29pm:

Your logic is flawed ... and weird.

How can my logic be flawed when

Father of AGW James Hansen
IPCC Head Pachauri
and the Met office

Have all confirmed there has been no warming since 1998..??

Your taking one line out of that paper totally out of context.  What does it say immediately after that? Hmmm ?

The graph is from the same paper, and it shows how radiative forcing for CO2 has been increasing.


Quote:

How can my logic be flawed?

...because you jumped to this conclusion with no supporting data:


Quote:

NO manmade CO2 emissions are not solely responsible for the warming which has been observed in the last century.

---

muso wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 9:51am:

Your taking one line out of that paper totally out of context.  What does it say immediately after that? Hmmm ? The graph is from the same paper, and it shows how radiative forcing for CO2 has been increasing. ...because you jumped to this conclusion with no supporting data:

Then why are temperatures dropping....????

We have not surpassed the 1998 value...???

Doesn't make sense does it......???

I really wouldn't bother with Ajax anymore. He clearly has no interest in the truth of the matter (why else stubbornly repeat the same nonsensical arguments over and over). Its like that first post in the other thread said. It's not that they really disbelieve the science; it's the solution they hate. They have to put themselves out to fix climate change. That's what they can't bear and Ajax's stubborn denials ooze of it.

But having said that, I note that this thread is titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric CO2".  So tell me muso what do you see happening to the world generally and humanity specifically if say we do nothing for the next 6 years about climate change.  And by that I don't mean what effects will we see in 6 years time but rather what will we see in the long term (say by 2050) if we do nothing in the next 6 years.  Yu Folla?

Ajax wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 10:01am:

muso wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 9:51am: Your taking one line out of that paper totally out of context.  What does it say immediately after that? Hmmm ? The graph is from the same paper, and it shows how radiative forcing for CO2 has been increasing. ...because you jumped to this conclusion with no supporting data: Then why are temperatures dropping....???? We have not surpassed the 1998 value...??? Doesn't make sense does it......???

First of all, apologies, I just deleted half your post by accident (I pressed the wrong button)

To answer your question, it makes sense of you read that next section in the paper. You didn't read it.

The graph goes some way to answering your question too.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 10:38am:

I really wouldn't bother with Ajax anymore. He clearly has no interest in the truth of the matter (why else stubbornly repeat the same nonsensical arguments over and over). Its like that first post in the other thread said. It's not that they really disbelieve the science; it's the solution they hate. They have to put themselves out to fix climate change. That's what they can't bear and Ajax's stubborn denials ooze of it. But having said that, I note that this thread is titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric CO2".  So tell me muso what do you see happening to the world generally and humanity specifically if say we do nothing for the next 6 years about climate change.  And by that I don't mean what effects will we see in 6 years time but rather what will we see in the long term (say by 2050) if we do nothing in the next 6 years.  Yu Folla?

Well other people have done the hard work on that issue. I'll reply in due course.

muso wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 2:53pm:

Well other people have done the hard work on that issue. I'll reply in due course.

So what is this, talk for talk sake?  You spend 2 days in futile discussion with a climate change denier pulling out text book responses left right and center (hard work other people have already done) but when it comes time to talk about what we actually do about this disaster you don't have time???? You know, its not all about impressing people. There's some really serious shh!!t underlying it all.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 8:01pm:

muso wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 2:53pm: Well other people have done the hard work on that issue. I'll reply in due course. So what is this, talk for talk sake?  You spend 2 days in futile discussion with a climate change denier pulling out text book responses left right and center (hard work other people have already done) but when it comes time to talk about what we actually do about this disaster you don't have time???? You know, its not all about impressing people. There's some really serious shh!!t underlying it all.

Work gets in the way sometimes.

OK, let's start a new thread with the effects of rising CO2 and rising global temperature.