NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: raymundoko

Which guy have you called me out on?


Tactics straight from the book are what you use.

Why are you guys trying to discredit my facts?

Another straw man. I've never discredited the 40% number. I have shown you legit papers that show that not all of it is man made...you simply ignore that.

a reply to: raymundoko

You tried damage control tactics when I first presented the 40% as fact. I named to PHDs that can back my claims up. Are you calling them strawman?

Not that much different then when you tried to tell me Fukushima did not meltdown in another thread. For the record Fukushima is still out of control and in a meltdown state.

a reply to: jrod

When did I ever say 40% wasn't a fact? I never did damage control. I have always agreed that it went up 40%. Are you just making stuff up now?

Edit: And link to me saying Fukushima didn't melt down...

a reply to: raymundoko

It may have been someone else with a similar name, I think it was you. It was months ago. Have you been active in the Japan threads?


I can quote you from this thread when you tried to discount the 40% rise in CO2 as mostly natural causes.

I am beginning to believe that you truly are a DisInfo Agent.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Yes it does...

I'm also not arguing the 280 to 400 either. But isotopes don't lie, and only 4% is ours.

a reply to: jrod

The isotopes don't lie angle you tried to pull has been debunked this thread. Don't try to go there again.

Residence time calculation!

originally posted by: raymundoko
No, 5% is ALL man made co2. Why do you think otherwise?

a reply to: jrod

And again......


280ppm to 400ppm is a 40% increase. Real numbers, all the experts agree this rise is related to human activity.


Damage control is what you tried to pull there.

a reply to: jrod

I have been involved in those threads yes, but I never said the plant didn't melt down. I had a lengthy conversation about how radiation is diluted and he said radiation couldn't be diluted...it was rather funny.

Please, quote me. I have never, not once, disagreed with a 40% increase.

a reply to: jrod

Did you read what you quoted? There is no damage control. I was referencing IPCC numbers...

I have never once disagreed that co2 hasn't increased 40%. I have made it perfectly clear that the 40% increase is only partially man made. I have linked peer reviewed articles as well as the lates IPCC report to back that up.

You are just stuck on 40% without understanding what makes up that 40%.

Edit: Also, you NEVER answered the question I asked there. Why do you think otherwise. You have YET to link one single scientific article that shows all 40% is man made...I directly linked you a study published in NATURE that shows that 25% of the increase in co2 is from anthropogenic sources and comprises 7% of co2 for the atmosphere. I have already said we can reasonably say that since 60% of mans co2 is reclaimed instead of natural co2 sources, that means over half of the co2 increase is mans. That other half is from natural sources. I used that article because it was the highest estimate for co2 in the atmosphere I could find. I didn't pick one that was lower intentionally.

Edit2: That information, based on what one of the anti AGW crowd posted about 330 PPM...hey, you just found your missing 50PPM...

If in fact, the baseline should have been 330 and not 280, then in that case man accounts for 100% of the added co2. As is now, with a baseline of 280, man accounts for just over half of the added co2.

a reply to: raymundoko

I will now just start copying others post when you ask me these questions. I present good science, you present pseudoscience and then try to bust down my credibility.

That angle has been debunked in this thread.....


Show me a residence time calculation to prove your credentials.

a reply to: jrod

So the links from the IPCC and scholarly articles from peer reviewed sources that I used are Pseudoscience? Are you for real? You are embarrassing yourself at this point. You have crossed the line into defensive mode, so you are starting to spew what I assume are some type of perceived intellectual insults. You have yet to link one article to show why you think all 40% is man made.

All you have to show is this:

Industrial Revolution Start = 280 PPM
Current = 400 PPM
Therefore, all is from Industrial Revolution

Isotopes don't lie, and I linked you legitimate peer reviewed papers from Nature, Science and the IPCC's own raw data. You have only said the same thing over and over:

Increase of 40% FACT

originally posted by: mbkennel

Yeah, so why did it stay around 280 from 8000 BC to 1750 AD?

And so where are the molecules of CO2 from human combustion going? People can approximately count them. In reality almost all the rise is from consequences of human activity---and some of the fossil carbon is being absorbed into the ocean so it would be even worse (if you're not a crustacean) if it all went in the atmosphere.

Ah, I now see the source of your error. You hear about 4% of carbon flux out per year is from humans (which may be true) but there is also a large yearly natural carbon flux back in---and it's the cumulative effect which matters obviously so even if it's 4% per year (considering the size of the biosphere and planet that number is astonishingly large to me!!!) additional the human responsibility for the long-term rise can be much more than 4%.

Co2 was 10's of times higher in the past. A runaway greenhouse was not triggered. The effects of co2 are logarithmic.

Deep in the past, sure. But everything about the climate was different then, and most importantly there were no humans, much less technological civilization supporting 7 billion on the biosphere as opposed to 50,000 in prehistoric times. And climate changes were associated with mass extinctions. Good idea to NOT tempt that.

And most importantly, back then (many millions of years) the Sun was not as hot and did not radiate as much power (known fact of stellar physics) and so the climate would be cooler then with the same CO2 as now, and likewise with very high CO2 now as then the climate would be hotter still.

Nobody is predicting a 'runaway greenhouse' like Venus---because that isn't just catastrophic for humans but all life. It doesn't have to be anywhere near that large for the results to be a huge problem for humans.

Consider that the difference between current climate and deep ice ages was, on average, about 5 C cooler than today. 5 degrees C difference on global average temp meant that glaciers were TWO MILES THICK in New York, and agriculture was infeasible for nearly all of the land on the planet. We're barreling towards a Heat Age of almost a similar magnitude up. You don't think that won't be a tremendous problem?

This has some answers to the question you pose.

280ppm CO2 pre industrial CO2

400ppm CO2 NOW!

Why do I need to cite a source for these numbers again? Read the thread for sources or simply use google. I will waste my time trying to enlighten someone with a disinfo agenda.

a reply to: jrod

Who is arguing the 40% number???? I've never disagreed with it...are you super confused?

a reply to: raymundoko

No. You tried disinfo tactics to discredit the 40% when I first posted. And now you continue to question every post.

WHere did you get your degree from?

What do you mean I tried to discredit it? Do you lack reading comprehension?

a reply to: jrod

a reply to: raymundoko

Clearly we are responsible for a 40% increase in CO2 over a few hundred years. This concentration is increasing fast, at a rate of about 20ppm per decade.

Enough of the Brawndo style debating.

Do you propose any solutions?

There are many plant varieties than can go from seed to fully grown in just a few months. Planting more trees is a start. Ending our addiction to fossil fuels in necessary of we want to become a type 1 civilization.

Yet I've linked you several papers, including the IPCC that show all 40% isn't ours...what are you missing?

a reply to: jrod

a reply to: raymundoko

What are you missing?

In order for me to continue to respond to your questions, I need to see proof of your credentials. A valid residence time calculation for CO2 in the atmosphere is sufficient.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: jrod

OK, so you mean indirect. This I can agree with. Deforestation, livestock etc. You kept wording it like burning fossil fuels was the cause of the increase, that is only a small part of it.

So you do agree that humans are likely the cause of the 40% rise of CO2.

What are you trying to get out of this thread?

I am attempting to separate fact from pseudoscience. I do my own research, unlike you have suggested I do not blindly take information I read in the internet as fact.

Dr. Lazarus is still at FIT, would you like an email address and phone number as a reference.

So pathetic.

a reply to: jrod

No, I don't, and neither does the IPCC's raw data...we're responsible for about half. I've already proven that with direct links to peer reviewed papers as well as the IPCC's latests report.

Do you really not see how pathetic and hypocritical that is?

a reply to: jrod