Global warming proved to be fake

Originally posted by mcsteve
reply to post by Kali74

 

You don't need to up-to-date on the science of greenhouses, just science in general. Do you understand why greenhouse gases are greenhouse gases? Its nothing to do with an actual greenhouse. I think you were the one who brought the irrelevant subject of greenhouses into the thread. What initially provoked me to reply to you was the fact that you think you know better than most about the subject, where its abundantly clear that you don't. I don't particularly care what you think of what I am saying, I would just rather see correct information than a half thought out guess presented as fact.

I brought green houses up, on the first couple of pages, when I was trying to explain plants grow better with more co2, which is why farmers intentionally release co2 into their greenhouses.

To which she responded with the reply you replied to, after I linked here an entire page from google showing links to millions of places to buy both co2 snd the injector equipment.

I dont think she has any actual understanding of this subject, and is simply chiming in ajd trying to stand up for her beliefs.

Which however misguided, I will not further attempt to educate her about, as I believe more than enough evidence has already been presented here.

Wrabbit alone has linked enough data to electronically smack some sense into almost anyone, but......meh, some people will believe what they want no matter what.

Great explanation about the green house etc.... stars for your contributions.

reply to post by cody599


Why is this kind of ignorance still tolerated on ATS?

A thread, written by a no-name blog, will never be able to disprove something that science has vigorously documented over the past 25-30 years.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


You can insult me and and whoever else who understand why 97% of scientists agree that our current warming is caused by man, all you want... it won't change any facts. You and that other poster got me good on greenhouses, I conceded that I'm horribly outdated on greenhouses, something that is completely irrelevant to the actual subject. Yet you're both choosing to harp on it and insult me for it.

You're bringing emotion into the discussion with your belittling, very telling. I understand the subject increasing well, being ignorant on greenhouses doesn't negate anything else that know and I don't need emotion to back me up. Denying AGW relies on 99.99% emotion (politics, economical concerns and greed) and .01% on science.

Climate changes in response to it's strongest forcing, right now the strongest force is...us.

It's not the sun.

We are currently in a relatively cool orbital period. If we were strictly looking at Earth's orbit to determine whether Earth was in a cool period or warm period, we would determine Earth was in a cool period.

If we were looking strictly at the sun to determine if Earth was in a cool or warm period, we would determine that, over the last 30 years solar variation has been a relatively constant cycle but the suns highs have been lower and the suns lows have also been lower, therefor the earth should be in a cooler period.

It's not volcanic.

The average, yearly Co2 output from volcanoes is min-max 65-319 million tonnes. Fossil fuel use yearly output average is 29 billion tonnes.

It's not natural.

The warming period we are in now is outside our natural warming cooling cycle. Rapid warming and cooling cycles are thought to be brought on by an abnormality, a large volcanic eruption can cause rapid cooling outside of the normal cycle for example. Natural warming and cooling periods take place over thousands of years, not hundreds and certainly not decades.

As I said before climate changes according to the dominant forcings and we are now that dominant force. In the past 150 years greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased 40%.

A bit condescending but informative.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional

I brought green houses up, on the first couple of pages, when I was trying to explain plants grow better with more co2, which is why farmers intentionally release co2 into their greenhouses.

This is true. But they don't only add CO2. They add fertiliser as well. Without additional nitrogen in the soil, and other nutrients, the CO2 alone has little or no effect.

Of course, in a greenhouse, there is also no concern about other consequences of additional CO2 which may be less beneficial to plant growth - like changing weather patterns.

reply to post by cody599


The Daily Mail article written by David Rose (aka Johann Hari, more) is trash. Not only did he incorrectly report facts, he altered the graph.

A leading purveyor of the myth to the contrary is journalist David Rose, of the British tabloid The Mail on Sunday and Vanity Fair. We've previously pre-bunked and debunked his articles on the subject, but he appears oblivious to any criticism of his work.

"No, the world ISN'T getting warmer (as you may have noticed)," wrongly begins an article published in last week's Mail on Sunday. Try saying 'there's no noticeable warming' to the Australians and Americans who suffered the greatest run of heat waves ever recorded; or the British or New Yorkers who were flooded out of their homes during 2012.

Global Surface Warming is Within the Predicted Range
Rose's latest denial of global warming makes a great play of this graphic created by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading (which Rose modified, printed, and misrepresented without permission or attribution [update: The Mail has now attributed the figure to Ed Hawkins' site, but does not link to it, and still misrepresents it]).

Skeptical Science

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by cody599

 

Why is this kind of ignorance still tolerated on ATS?

A thread, written by a no-name blog, will never be able to disprove something that science has vigorously documented over the past 25-30 years.

The government made us pay for you mean ?
please reread the post and see the 2000 year trend

Originally posted by cody599

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by cody599

 

Why is this kind of ignorance still tolerated on ATS?

A thread, written by a no-name blog, will never be able to disprove something that science has vigorously documented over the past 25-30 years.

The government made us pay for you mean ?
please reread the post and see the 2000 year trend

And then read the rebuttals:

David Rose hides the rise in Global Warming

No, Global Warming has NOT stopped

Scientists set straight the latest Mail on Sunday climate contortion

And bear in mind that the author of this piece has knowingly and deliberately published lies and distortions in the past, in direct contravention of the Nation Union of Journalists code of conduct

And then decide who to believe. It's up to you

reply to post by AndyMayhew



[sarcasm] Yeah, but we were schooled on greenhouses and electronically smacked by a rabbit - surely that outweighs any of your silly "science" and "data".. [/sarcasm]

reply to post by cody599


No response to my last post?

In science nothing is prooved. It's just means 95 percent of the time it's true.