Attempt to look at CO2 in a realistic manner:

[gsvol]

It isn't precise, but it's a good visualization of the problem.

While all this stuff was pinballing around the lower
atmosphere, how do you explain the cooling trend
of surface temperature from 1945 to 1975??

If the upper atmosphere were cooling because of
lower level CO2 the the surface should have been
warming according to your thesis, right?

That didn't happen, the opposite happened.

Here is a more appropriate visualization:

Global Warming is Code for Installing the Progressive Agenda - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com

If one understands progressive political wishes the
connections are clear. Progressives want socialism.
They favor world bodies overseeing nations and in
fact that for the progressive vision of "the betterment
of Mankind" they favor sovereign nations giving over
some level of national autonomy to these world bodies.
It's in all progressive political writings.
-------------------------

Oddly enough the fixes for this alleged global
warming involve nations giving over some level
of autonomy to world governing bodies to keep
us evil greenhouse gas makers in check. There
are clear and undeniable connections between
ancient progressive political wishes and global
warming fixes. Pure coincidence, huh?

Add in progressives controlling the public funding
so many scientists need for their work to continue
and we see a further dovetailing. If global warming
can only be fixed by super-national bodies, and
since progressives are all for that type stuff, aren't
the connections glaring in clarity? Scientists who
forward this know if they want more government
and private foundation monies, and if government
leaders and private foundations have a global
warming itch they wish to scratch, wouldn't the
two entities getting together on the same page
be par for the course?

To deny it is intellectually dishonest.
-------------------------------------

The last major element is the redistribution of
wealth aspect of this whole thing. First we must
agree that progressives are honest when, as
Obama told Joe the Plumber, "It's better when
we spread the wealth around." Redistribution is
one of the key elements of Marxism and
progressivism.
--------------------------------

Do readers' know how involved Obama
and so many of his administration's big
wigs are in being financially invested in
global warming fixes and trading carbon
credits? Do they? Obama, AlGore, George
Soros, the leftist big money organizations
and too many others to list are heavily
invested in making big, big, I mean Bill
Gates big, amounts of monies on this
stuff? Does that NOT pique your interests
and seem self-serving?
-------------------------------------

The total value of all the US assets in both public
and private hands is around $65 or $70 Trillion dollars
- that is the sum total of all assets in this nation -
public and private - added together. And now along
comes these clever folks creating a false economy
based on trading air basically, and in so doing will
generate EVERY YEAR an amount of money equal to
one-sixth of all the combined wealth of this nation
in 221 years. Is this making your brain go all tingly?
If not, check your pulse.

Anyone remember Obama telling us on videotape
that "under MY system of Cap & Trade,
electricity rates WILL NECESSARILY
skyrocket?"

Anyone remember that? I wrote an article the day
before the election in '08 about that very statement.
Obama stated "they can build coal plants
[referring to utilities], but I'll bankrupt them."
Got that on tape too, so let's not play word games.

What does all this then mean? Well it means to
me there is something very untoward afoot. It is
clear and undeniable evidence there is collusion
between power broker progressives, government
and others to make the world and this nation in
particular accept that global warming is imminent
and we need to trade our carbon credits to save
the planet. And all for a completely debunked
"global warming" scheme dreamed up by progressive
power brokers.
--------------------------------------

What to make of the progressive forwarded scientific
flip flop? That 1978 article was certain they were right,
yet by about 1990 the worry shifted from cooling to
warming. Wow, so suddenly that was out the window
but a new monster was acomin' and this monster's
name is global warming, and oddly enough EVERY
SINGLE PROPOSED FIX for it is an ancient progressive
political desire they have been advocating for since
the end of the 19th Century in America. How
convenient for them.

Keep in mind if cooling were the reality, the fixes for
it as evidenced by progressive forwarding of greenhouse
gas caps, would be to produce more of it, right?
Progressives are sure carbon dioxide leads to warming,
so if cooling is the bugaboo ONE of the fixes would be
more heavy industry to warm the planet, right? But
wait - that won't enrich poor nations and it damn sure
would only make the rich nation's richer, and that does
not play well into the feelings of progressives that we
must redistribute the world's wealth from the rich to
the poor, now does it?

Instead though, if global warming were the fear and
the fixes were to cool the planet by producing no
more carbon dioxide than we did some 25 years ago,
then that would clearly well coincide with ancient
progressive political wishes. Ipso facto friends.
I rest my case.

I realize this article is over six months old but
everything he says is still valid except the
progressive insiders have shut down their
carbon exchange and abandoned, at least
for the time being any sort of cap and trade
legislation and have instead adopted an indirect
taxing method to be enforced by governmental
agencies, particularly the EPA.

IP, your idealistic desire to save the planet is
misplaced, both scientifically and economically.

 

[gsvol]

you apparently have math problems, but who knew?

Could be linked to reading comprehension also
since the title of the thread is "Attempt to look
at CO2 in a realistic manner:"

Gibbs is 480 degrees left of 0, you might call
it a parallel universe.

it's like glass

I'll spare you the link and excerpts but even though
that terminology used to support theoretical AGW
claims has been soundly refuted scientifically, it
still pops up in these discussions, sort of like mud
that stuck to the barn door.

 

[gsvol]

GS - I disagree. I was responding directly to the post about the models predicting that the only thing that can happen with increasing CO2 is warming. I not sure, maybe someone can let ne know with some certainty, but the models may not have a dial to adjust solar flux reaching the earth. However, I think they do. Thus, temperatures could fall with increasing CO2, depending on how the model is run.

My point is that I haven't run into any climate modelers who argue that temperatures must increase with increasing CO2, irrespective if other influences. Thus, I have a hard time not seeing problems with the statement you posted. It is probably true that the modelers don't include the 11-year solar cycle in their modeling, because temperatures will be right back "up there" in a few years. However, if you could predict that an orbital shift were to occur miraculously tomorrow, I think that they would be quite interested in capturing this in the model.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Gibbs and I were discussing Hansen who is a modeler.

Hansen predicted in 1988 that temps would rise
dramatically in the next twenty years due to CO2
increases.

Although he was accurate for the first ten years
the reverse has happened over the past twelve.

As a matter of fact all those who have used the
IPCC formulas for climate modeling have been 180
degrees dead wrong.

You yourself say you don't want to take the chance
of temps increasing 3 to 5 degrees C over the next
century by not limiting CO2 emissions.

Seems to me you are talking out of both sides of
your mouth.

 

[utvolpj]

as a matter of fact all those who have used the
ipcc formulas for climate modeling have been 180
degrees dead wrong.

*360

 

[gsvol]

*360

or *720 spin.

 

[utgibbs]

Gibbs and I were discussing Hansen who is a modeler.

Hansen predicted in 1988 that temps would rise
dramatically in the next twenty years due to CO2
increases.

Although he was accurate for the first ten years
the reverse has happened over the past twelve.

This canard was actually put to bed in 2005, and the nail in the coffin has been driven in this in 2010.

Time to pooch punt, gsvol. It's fourth and LONG.

 

[IPorange]

gsvol, are you disputing the existence of the greenhouse effect? How do you explain us not being as cold as space?

 

[gsvol]

gsvol, are you disputing the existence of the greenhouse effect? How do you explain us not being as cold as space?

Of course not and you know it.

What I'm saying is that greehouse effect is wildly overstated by the AGW envirocrazies when all things are considered and that CO2 is vastly overstated in the equation.

Now since Mars is extremely cold because it has lost it atmosphere (thus having no greenhouse effect,) how do you explain it is in a warming trend just like our Earth??

 

[gsvol]

This canard was actually put to bed in 2005, and the nail in the coffin has been driven in this in 2010.

Time to pooch punt, gsvol. It's fourth and LONG.

Punt that pooch you mean.

Knowledgeable people drove a stake trough the
heart of the eviro vampire crowd forty years ago
when they were claiming we were about to enter
another ice age because of CO2 emissions and
were proven completely wrong.

Have your ever heard of the Roman warm period,
the dark age cool period, the medieval warm period
and the little ice age???

1934 has long been considered the warmest year
of the past century. A decade ago, the closest
challenger appeared to be 1998, a super-el nino
year, but it trailed 1934 by 0.54°C (0.97°F).

Since then, NASA GISS has “adjusted” the U.S.
data for 1934 downward and 1998 upward (see
December 25, 2010 post by Ira Glickstein) in an
attempt to make 1998 warmer than 1934 and
seemingly erased the original rather large lead of
1934 over 1998. The last phases of the strong
2009-2010 el nino in early 2010 made this year
another possible contender for the warmest year
of the century. However, December 2010 has
been one of the coldest Decembers in a century
in many parts of the world, so 2010 probably
won’t be warmer than 1998.

But does it really matter? Regardless of which
year wins the temperature adjustment battle,
how significant will that be? To answer that
question, we need to look at a much longer time
frame; centuries and millennia.

Have your ever heard of the Roman warm period,
the dark age cool period, the medieval warm period
and the little ice age???

So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank
in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past
10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010.

Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998,
or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the
past century, that year will rank number 9,099
in the long-term list.

The climate has been warming slowly since the Little
Ice Age, but it has quite a ways to go yet before
reaching the temperature levels that persisted for
nearly all of the past 10,500 years.

 

[Ed12111]

I'm sorry GsVol, I got nothing. You're going to have to explain the clown symbolism.

 

[fl0at]

I'm sorry GsVol, I got nothing. You're going to have to explain the clown symbolism.

It appears to be Bozo, an ancient insult used to insinuate that someone is a moron. Gs is old. I'm surprised his head hasn't fallen off yet.

Name that reference.

 

[VOLatile]

It appears to be Bozo, an ancient insult used to insinuate that someone is a moron. Gs is old. I'm surprised his head hasn't fallen off yet.

Name that reference.

A skeleton? Skeletor? Zombie? An old person? I'm not old enough, apparently.

 

[fl0at]

A skeleton? Skeletor? Zombie? An old person? I'm not old enough, apparently.

We are of nearly equal ages. Dumb and Dumber, man.

Lloyd: Oh, man, I'm sorry. What happened?
Harry: His head fell off.
Lloyd: His head fell off?
Harry: Yeah. He was pretty old.

 

[VOLatile]

We are of nearly equal ages. Dumb and Dumber, man.

Lloyd: Oh, man, I'm sorry. What happened?
Harry: His head fell off.
Lloyd: His head fell off?
Harry: Yeah. He was pretty old.

Wow. Haven't seen that movie since the '90's, probably. Haha. In reference to the bird and the blind girl, right?

 

[fl0at]

Wow. Haven't seen that movie since the '90's, probably. Haha. In reference to the bird and the blind girl, right?

Yessir.

 

[Ed12111]

It appears to be Bozo, an ancient insult used to insinuate that someone is a moron. Gs is old. I'm surprised his head hasn't fallen off yet.

Name that reference.

If he's old, he probably lives someplace warm.

 

[VOLatile]

If he's old, he probably lives someplace warm.

The only option left is Florida, apparently.

 

[Ed12111]

The only option left is Florida, apparently.

Does the beer flow like wine?

 

[gsvol]

I'm sorry GsVol, I got nothing. You're going to have to explain the clown symbolism.

What he posted was a joke.

Yessir.

Yep, easy to see where you two get most of your scientific information, dumb and dumber, how appriate.l

 

[Ed12111]

What he posted was a joke.






Yep, easy to see where you two get most of your scientific information, dumb and dumber, how appriate.l

I'm going to ignore that dig, and keep on interpreting your art for you.

 

[VOLatile]

Yep, easy to see where you two get most of your scientific information, dumb and dumber, how appriate.l

A swing and a miss! You totally missed where I didn't get his reference right away, but keep trying. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

 

[fl0at]

Yep, easy to see where you two get most of your scientific information, dumb and dumber, how appriate.l

In my best rendition of BMFPV: Juuuuuuuuuuuuust a bit outside.

 

[VOLatile]

Bmfpv?

 

[fl0at]

Bmfpv?

Big Mother Fin' Papa Vol. When he is quoted, that is how he must be addressed, so sayeth some post from an argument with a Canadian Vol fan, circa October 2010.

 

[VOLatile]

Big Mother Fin' Papa Vol. When he is quoted, that is how he must be addressed, so sayeth some post from an argument with a Canadian Vol fan, circa October 2010.

Okay, just making sure. Danka.