Remember me
▼ Content

Natural CO2 vs man made CO2-is there a difference?



Page 1 of 212>
Natural CO2 vs man made CO2-is there a difference?27-02-2017 18:15
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
I may not have the scientific knowledge, but I can certainly study the claimed effects of CO2.

So, as I look at temp vs CO2 charts from alarmist websites like Greenpieceofshit , I have to wonder what's not going on. Maybe you guys can help.

I get it. CO2 and temps definitely have a correlation as they are nearly lockstep throughout the last 400,000 years. About 15000 years ago, CO2 and temps took off on another natural cyclical spike. Today's CO2 is off the charts, but temps have remained below the 400,000 year spike average, and actually seem to have fallen short of historical temp spike expectations. Why? Is there a difference between man made CO2 and natural? If everything Algore told me is correct, then temps should continue to rise off the charts. Does Earth really not have a fever?

[img][/img]


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Attached image:

27-02-2017 19:25
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
It's a molecule, the effects it has or does not have are irrespective of how it came to be released into the atmosphere, I would have thought that was obvious.

I see you mentioned Alogre and you even spelled out his name wrong on purpose, I'm sorry I thought you were interested in learning something and not just trolling for a second there.

I will allow you to continue joyfully wallowing in your obvious ignorance.

Edited on 27-02-2017 19:27
27-02-2017 19:36
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
What seems obvious to me is that CO2 doesn't seem to have much, if any effect. I am interested in learning Mr. Sunspot, and I would like to know how the huge gap in temp and CO2 is explained. It's a simple question and for someone like yourself it should be easy. After all it's the biggest temp/CO2 spread in the earths history.....
27-02-2017 19:38
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
GasGuzzler wrote:
What seems obvious to me is that CO2 doesn't seem to have much, if any effect. I am interested in learning Mr. Sunspot, and I would like to know how the huge gap in temp and CO2 is explained. It's a simple question and for someone like yourself it should be easy. After all it's the biggest temp/CO2 spread in the earths history.....


Why are you posting in a troll infested barely moderated talk board then, why not read a book?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-02-2017 19:46
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What seems obvious to me is that CO2 doesn't seem to have much, if any effect. I am interested in learning Mr. Sunspot, and I would like to know how the huge gap in temp and CO2 is explained. It's a simple question and for someone like yourself it should be easy. After all it's the biggest temp/CO2 spread in the earths history.....


Why are you posting in a troll infested barely moderated talk board then, why not read a book?


OK, I'll put Sunspot down for an "I don't know".

[img][/img]


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Attached image:

27-02-2017 19:52
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Whether or not I am able or feel like answering your quiz questions is irrelevent. But this link may help.
27-02-2017 19:58
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
Yep yep, google is great, and here it is again!


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Attached image:

27-02-2017 20:02
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Yep you have me there because it is not a 15C degrees instant reaction to an increase in CO2 it proves the whole theory wrong. Why did we even listen to the pencil headed scientists?
27-02-2017 20:08
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
spot wrote:
Yep you have me there because it is not a 15C degrees instant reaction to an increase in CO2 it proves the whole theory wrong. Why did we even listen to the pencil headed scientists?



What???!!!!

The whole thing is just a theory?



I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
27-02-2017 20:08
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
The answer is quite simple: It's because of thermal inertia, primarily due to the oceans. The Earth just hasn't had time to warm up yet, though we're seeing the beginning. The recent increase in CO2 due to human emissions has happened in just 150 years - a geological instant - while previous, natural rises happened over a few thousand years.

It's like the thermostat in your house. If you turn the thermostat up and down slowly, the temperature in the house will match quite closely, but if you suddenly turn it right up, it'll take a while for the temperature to catch up.
Edited on 27-02-2017 20:17
27-02-2017 20:29
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
Surface Detail wrote:
It's like the thermostat in your house. If you turn the thermostat up and down slowly, the temperature in the house will match quite closely, but if you suddenly turn it right up, it'll take a while for the temperature to catch up.


So if I'm reading the chart correctly, the "thermostat" was turned on ~15000 years ago, and has been "set" at a higher level every year, starting a 180 and going over 400. Is 15000 years not long enough?

If it's like my house thermostat, if it is set at 75 and starts from 35 degrees, there will be no 1-2 hour pause pause in warming. Yes, a big jump will take longer, But if my heat source is constant, so is my temp rise.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
27-02-2017 20:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It's like the thermostat in your house. If you turn the thermostat up and down slowly, the temperature in the house will match quite closely, but if you suddenly turn it right up, it'll take a while for the temperature to catch up.


So if I'm reading the chart correctly, the "thermostat" was turned on ~15000 years ago, and has been "set" at a higher level every year, starting a 180 and going over 400. Is 15000 years not long enough?

If it's like my house thermostat, if it is set at 75 and starts from 35 degrees, there will be no 1-2 hour pause pause in warming. Yes, a big jump will take longer, But if my heat source is constant, so is my temp rise.

The scale of the chart is too large to see the details, but it's more like this:

The thermostat was gradually turned up from 180 at 15000 years ago to 280 at about 10000 years ago, so up 100 over 5000 years and slow enough for the temperature to keep up.

It then remained at 280 until about 150 years ago, so very little temperature change.

Then, over the last 150 years ago, it was suddenly wound up to 400. So there we have a change of 120 in just 150 years. This is 40 times as fast as the earlier, natural change, and is too fast for the temperature to keep up. Give it a few hundred years or so, though, and catch up it will.
27-02-2017 21:02
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
2 questions,

How do you explain the temp rise lagging so far behind the CO2?

Why has Earth been unable to achieve the high temps it reached in the previous natural cycles in the current rising cycle we are in?
27-02-2017 21:45
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
[Is 15000 years not long enough?

If it's like my house thermostat, if it is set at 75 and starts from 35 degrees, there will be no 1-2 hour pause pause in warming. Yes, a big jump will take longer, But if my heat source is constant, so is my temp rise.
The scale of the chart is too large to see the details, but it's more like this:

The thermostat was gradually turned up from 180 at 15000 years ago to 280 at about 10000 years ago, so up 100 over 5000 years and slow enough for the temperature to keep up.

It then remained at 280 until about 150 years ago, so very little temperature change.

Then, over the last 150 years ago, it was suddenly wound up to 400. So there we have a change of 120 in just 150 years. This is 40 times as fast as the earlier, natural change, and is too fast for the temperature to keep up. Give it a few hundred years or so, though, and catch up it will.


If there's anything that says stable temperatures it's:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Edited on 27-02-2017 22:31
27-02-2017 21:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
The answer is quite simple: It's because of thermal inertia, primarily due to the oceans. The Earth just hasn't had time to warm up yet, though we're seeing the beginning. The recent increase in CO2 due to human emissions has happened in just 150 years - a geological instant - while previous, natural rises happened over a few thousand years.

It's like the thermostat in your house. If you turn the thermostat up and down slowly, the temperature in the house will match quite closely, but if you suddenly turn it right up, it'll take a while for the temperature to catch up.


Why does the chart show the previous interglacials as often being warmer?

Was there even more human activity then and did all the wildlife die off?
27-02-2017 21:57
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
2 questions,

How do you explain the temp rise lagging so far behind the CO2?

Why has Earth been unable to achieve the high temps it reached in the previous natural cycles in the current rising cycle we are in?

Didn't I just answer these questions?

We've just wound the CO2 up high in the blink of an eye in geological terms. The temperature has started to rise, but there's a lot of land and, especially, water to heat up, and that takes time. The Earth will reach and easily exceed the high temperatures of previous natural cycles, but not for a few decades yet. You don't expect a kettle to boil instantaneously when you switch on the power!
27-02-2017 22:39
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
[b]Surface Detail wrote:
Didn't I just answer these questions?

We've just wound the CO2 up high in the blink of an eye in geological terms. The temperature has started to rise, but there's a lot of land and, especially, water to heat up, and that takes time. The Earth will reach and easily exceed the high temperatures of previous natural cycles, but not for a few decades yet. You don't expect a kettle to boil instantaneously when you switch on the power!


you didn't answer squat. During the last 1,000 years we have had both the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum shortly after the Medieval Warm period and our present warm period that is stalled a long way below our previous warm period. Your CO2 does seem up to the job.
27-02-2017 22:56
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote:
Didn't I just answer these questions?

We've just wound the CO2 up high in the blink of an eye in geological terms. The temperature has started to rise, but there's a lot of land and, especially, water to heat up, and that takes time. The Earth will reach and easily exceed the high temperatures of previous natural cycles, but not for a few decades yet. You don't expect a kettle to boil instantaneously when you switch on the power!


you didn't answer squat. During the last 1,000 years we have had both the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum shortly after the Medieval Warm period and our present warm period that is stalled a long way below our previous warm period. Your CO2 does seem up to the job.

Stalled? The global average temperature has increased by 1 C in less than 100 years. This is absolutely rocketing in geological terms! Remember, it took over 5,000 years for the Earth to warm naturally by about 6 C degrees at the start of the current interglacial period.
27-02-2017 23:06
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
If you look at this the current warming it a major disappointment, falling well short of expectations. I do hope the CO2 works. Hate cold weather.

Seriously, how can you look at any warming of 1 degree at this blink in history and say it's man made? Why is it not 2 degrees warmer right now?

[img][/img]
Attached image:


Edited on 27-02-2017 23:07
27-02-2017 23:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
[b]Surface Detail wrote: Stalled? The global average temperature has increased by 1 C in less than 100 years. This is absolutely rocketing in geological terms! Remember, it took over 5,000 years for the Earth to warm naturally by about 6 C degrees at the start of the current interglacial period.


The Medieval Warm Period STARTED at a warmer time, Climbed to a higher level and all with lower CO2 which is WHAT you have been suggesting is the cause of all of this.

How is it that happened with 200 ppm CO2? But 400 ppm has warmed us not as much and has stalled for the last 20 years now?
27-02-2017 23:10
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
GasGuzzler wrote:
If you look at this the current warming it a major disappointment, falling well short of expectations. I do hope the CO2 works. Hate cold weather.

Seriously, how can you look at any warming of 1 degree at this blink in history and say it's man made? Why is it not 2 degrees warmer right now?

[img][/img]


And to put this into perspective:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
28-02-2017 00:00
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
If you look at this the current warming it a major disappointment, falling well short of expectations. I do hope the CO2 works. Hate cold weather.

Seriously, how can you look at any warming of 1 degree at this blink in history and say it's man made? Why is it not 2 degrees warmer right now?

That looks like a graph derived from Antarctica ice core data, which means that:
1) We don't know if it covers the last 150 years.
2) The temperatures are Antarctic temperatures (not global temperatures).

As you say, it's a blink in history, and the Earth has already warmed by 1 C in that time. This is an extremely high rate of warming and is inexplicable without taking into account the anthropogenic CO2 greenhouse effect.

As for your last point, I've already answered it, twice. Things don't instantly get hot when you start heating them. They take time to warm up. I don't know how I can explain any more simply.
28-02-2017 00:04
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
GasGuzzler wrote:

What???!!!!

The whole thing is just a theory?


Gosh!!! you are correct I guess that means that no bad things will happen and we can cut funding to environmental agencies and not try and transition to renewables until we run out of stuff to burn.

I suppose we don't need to take evolution and gravity seriously because they are just theories as well.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-02-2017 00:06
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Wake wrote:

The Medieval Warm Period STARTED at a warmer time, Climbed to a higher level and all with lower CO2 which is WHAT you have been suggesting is the cause of all of this.


I don't think that is true, but taking you serous for a second, you seem sure of this. How do you know all this?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-02-2017 00:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
[b]spot wrote: I don't think that is true, but taking you serous for a second, you seem sure of this. How do you know all this?


This chart was supplied by a research team via core samples in Greenland similar to those at Vostok, Antarctica.

This shows similar results as the one pictured in Wikipedia but with an averaging line drawn through it.
28-02-2017 00:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Wake wrote:

This chart was supplied by a research team via core samples in Greenland similar to those at Vostok, Antarctica.

This shows similar results as the one pictured in Wikipedia but with an averaging line drawn through it.


The charts posted on this thread are for the last half million years or there abouts, they do not have the resolution to show the medieval warm period.



That is a chart with the correct resolution that shows the medieval warm period on Wikipedia, it shows that it is real but its not warmer then now which flatly contradicts your claims.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-02-2017 00:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

This chart was supplied by a research team via core samples in Greenland similar to those at Vostok, Antarctica.

This shows similar results as the one pictured in Wikipedia but with an averaging line drawn through it.


The charts posted on this thread are for the last half million years or there abouts, they do not have the resolution to show the medieval warm period.



That is a chart with the correct resolution that shows the medieval warm period on Wikipedia, it shows that it is real but its not warmer then now which flatly contradicts your claims.


In which case you will explain why the temperature has been climbing since the little ice age when CO2 was at 200 ppm?
28-02-2017 00:40
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

This chart was supplied by a research team via core samples in Greenland similar to those at Vostok, Antarctica.

This shows similar results as the one pictured in Wikipedia but with an averaging line drawn through it.


The charts posted on this thread are for the last half million years or there abouts, they do not have the resolution to show the medieval warm period.



That is a chart with the correct resolution that shows the medieval warm period on Wikipedia, it shows that it is real but its not warmer then now which flatly contradicts your claims.


In which case you will explain why the temperature has been climbing since the little ice age when CO2 was at 200 ppm?


If you look at my chart you can see it stops in the mid 1800s when the industrial revolution was well underway, I believe we have had this discussion before, do you expect to ask the same question and get a different answer?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-02-2017 00:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

This chart was supplied by a research team via core samples in Greenland similar to those at Vostok, Antarctica.

This shows similar results as the one pictured in Wikipedia but with an averaging line drawn through it.


The charts posted on this thread are for the last half million years or there abouts, they do not have the resolution to show the medieval warm period.



That is a chart with the correct resolution that shows the medieval warm period on Wikipedia, it shows that it is real but its not warmer then now which flatly contradicts your claims.


In which case you will explain why the temperature has been climbing since the little ice age when CO2 was at 200 ppm?

CO2 was not at 200 ppm in the LIA. It was at its pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm.

Up until the start of the industrial revolution, CO2 had remained within about 10 ppm of 280 ppm for the previous 10,000 years or so, that is, throughout the current interglacial period. Before that, CO2 had dropped as low as 180 ppm in the depths of the ice age.
28-02-2017 00:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

This chart was supplied by a research team via core samples in Greenland similar to those at Vostok, Antarctica.

This shows similar results as the one pictured in Wikipedia but with an averaging line drawn through it.


The charts posted on this thread are for the last half million years or there abouts, they do not have the resolution to show the medieval warm period.



That is a chart with the correct resolution that shows the medieval warm period on Wikipedia, it shows that it is real but its not warmer then now which flatly contradicts your claims.


In which case you will explain why the temperature has been climbing since the little ice age when CO2 was at 200 ppm?


If you look at my chart you can see it stops in the mid 1800s when the industrial revolution was well underway, I believe we have had this discussion before, do you expect to ask the same question and get a different answer?


In case there was some sort of misunderstanding I used your HTTP address and indeed it's the same chart - it STARTS at the year 0. It contains 9 different methods of identifying the atmospheric using 9 different METHODS. and it shows that four of the nine methods present the atmospheric temperature as heating since the little ice Age. It is even MARKED "Little Ice Age".
28-02-2017 01:03
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

This chart was supplied by a research team via core samples in Greenland similar to those at Vostok, Antarctica.

This shows similar results as the one pictured in Wikipedia but with an averaging line drawn through it.


The charts posted on this thread are for the last half million years or there abouts, they do not have the resolution to show the medieval warm period.



That is a chart with the correct resolution that shows the medieval warm period on Wikipedia, it shows that it is real but its not warmer then now which flatly contradicts your claims.


In which case you will explain why the temperature has been climbing since the little ice age when CO2 was at 200 ppm?


If you look at my chart you can see it stops in the mid 1800s when the industrial revolution was well underway, I believe we have had this discussion before, do you expect to ask the same question and get a different answer?


In case there was some sort of misunderstanding I used your HTTP address and indeed it's the same chart - it STARTS at the year 0. It contains 9 different methods of identifying the atmospheric using 9 different METHODS. and it shows that four of the nine methods present the atmospheric temperature as heating since the little ice Age. It is even MARKED "Little Ice Age".



What do you want me to say? If you want to know about the little ice age you could just look it up. If I personally made a mistake or have failed to give a comprehensive account of all human knowledge on the subject what would that prove? I notice that you have abandoned defending your claims about the medieval warm period.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-02-2017 02:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
[b]Surface Detail wrote: CO2 was not at 200 ppm in the LIA. It was at its pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm.

Up until the start of the industrial revolution, CO2 had remained within about 10 ppm of 280 ppm for the previous 10,000 years or so, that is, throughout the current interglacial period. Before that, CO2 had dropped as low as 180 ppm in the depths of the ice age.


OK, let's go with your number - so it went from the Medieval Warm period to the Little Ice Age to another return to "normal" temperatures and then to the Dalton Minimum in which the Thames river froze over in the winters for 30 years and then returned to "normal" in time to start the USUAL 1,000 year warm period.

Since the temperature started up BEFORE man had ANY possible effect on CO2 (man did not produce measurable rise himself before mid-1940's) where did the rise in CO2 come from since it NORMALLY follows the temperature?

Here's a hint - when you cool the ocean it draws in more CO2 and when you warm it it dumps CO2 into the atmosphere.

I have already explained that this CO2 that is in the ocean is indistinguishable from man-made CO2 and WHY that is. But it wouldn't make any difference since CO2 as held in the ocean is there so long that naturally occurring CO2 from the upper atmosphere with radiation originated 14H would be degraded to the same levels as man-made by the time it is forced out.
28-02-2017 04:51
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
A very interesting closer look at the last 10,000 years....Greenland ice sheet summit[img][/img]


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Attached image:


Edited on 28-02-2017 04:54
28-02-2017 18:17
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
GasGuzzler wrote:
A very interesting closer look at the last 10,000 years....Greenland ice sheet summit[img][/img]


Thanks for the images that demonstrate exactly what I was talking about.

In my previous posting I mis-wrote 14H rather than 14C but our three members of the culture of hate would use that as proof that I don't know what I'm talking about when ANYONE could tell from the text what I meant.

Now we have to start questioning exactly what is going on with spot, surface detail and litesong. Who are they are what do they believe they are going to achieve?

We have shown that the entire science of man-made climate change is false. Even the SMALLEST grade school experiment will show that. We have shown that the 97% claim not only is false but has been from the VERY START. That was a generated number from the IPCC. And carried on by a governmental elite.

We have shown that CO2 has NO EFFECT on atmospheric warming and that the gas doesn't even have the properties it is claimed to have.

We have show that the present warming is nothing more than the Millennial warming that occurs naturally. We have shown that NASA has corrupted the true data about the temperatures over the last 20 years making it appear to be warming when it has in fact undergone normal variations that average out as NO CHANGE.

We do not deny that there has been warming as we do not deny that in the past there has been more remarkable warming. Nor do we deny that glaciers have been melting, since the very fact of where they are SHOWS that they formed in the Little Ice Age. And that is backed up with the fact that beneath the retreating glaciers is evidence of forests and farming from the Viking colonization of Greenland and the time of that has been recorded in the Norwegian countries so that we have a PROVABLE time period.

We have shown that while there has been Arctic melting as well that it is weather related for the most part being effected strongly by the NORMAL weather patterns of the Pacific Ocean.

We have also shown using their own material that the Arctic melting appears to be recovering rapidly. We have not seen the predictions of an iceless North Pole come true and in fact the ice there has remained unchanged.

We have shown that because of encroachment of man larger animal groups such as Giraffes, Rhinoceros and Hippopotamus have been threatened by extinction and NOT by climate change.

In fact there hasn't been ONE SINGLE argument for AGW that hasn't been countered with FACT as one would expect when the true size of those claiming AGW are only 1% of the scientific audience.

So again I have to ask - what are these three hoping to prove and what would they gain by it? The ONLY thing that I can see is a culture of hatred for authority.
28-02-2017 19:08
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
So you have totally given up trying to defend claims made and just going off on a tangent hopeing that people will forget about it. fair enough it's the internet I guess.
28-02-2017 19:47
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
So you have totally given up trying to defend claims made and just going off on a tangent hopeing that people will forget about it. fair enough it's the internet I guess.


THIS is the only response you have? That's pretty pitiful. We have defended EVERYTHING and all you have is repeating the same old story over and over. Tell us about that 97% again.
28-02-2017 19:54
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: what are these three hoping to prove and what would they gain by it? The ONLY thing that I can see is a culture of hatred for authority.


There is an almost complete identification with the ingroup(Watson, 1974)..... Socialization further reinforces out-group hostility as it is often rewarded within the in-group(Watson, 1974). In this group emotions spread quickly, as if contagious. The ingroup membership brings with it a feeling of superiority and security. A common goal focuses all of this energy, hence the irrationality and often aggression of such groups(McDougall, 1920).

Diane Kohl, examination of Nazis
28-02-2017 19:55
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
So you have totally given up trying to defend claims made and just going off on a tangent hopeing that people will forget about it. fair enough it's the internet I guess.


THIS is the only response you have? That's pretty pitiful. We have defended EVERYTHING and all you have is repeating the same old story over and over. Tell us about that 97% again.

You've shown nothing at all. You seem to be totally incapable of understanding scientific papers and are just repeating the same old lies and long debunked claims over and over.

Can you cite one, just one, paper published in a peer-reviewed journal that supports you claims that AGW is not a real effect?
28-02-2017 19:57
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
So you have totally given up trying to defend claims made and just going off on a tangent hopeing that people will forget about it. fair enough it's the internet I guess.


THIS is the only response you have? That's pretty pitiful. We have defended EVERYTHING and all you have is repeating the same old story over and over. Tell us about that 97% again.


Well yea, If your whole argument depends on bold claims your opponent knows are false. In a debate you can't really expect your opponent to just drop the issue.

How exactly do you know the medieval warm period was warmer then now?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-02-2017 20:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: what are these three hoping to prove and what would they gain by it? The ONLY thing that I can see is a culture of hatred for authority.


There is an almost complete identification with the ingroup(Watson, 1974)..... Socialization further reinforces out-group hostility as it is often rewarded within the in-group(Watson, 1974). In this group emotions spread quickly, as if contagious. The ingroup membership brings with it a feeling of superiority and security. A common goal focuses all of this energy, hence the irrationality and often aggression of such groups(McDougall, 1920).

Diane Kohl, examination of Nazis


Since I brought your name into this I will answer you this once:

What you have suggested is that anyone that opposes your position is a Nazi. That alone disqualifies anything and everything you have ever said.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Natural CO2 vs man made CO2-is there a difference?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CO2 increase9117-08-2019 17:57
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
CO2 saturated water409-08-2019 06:43
There is no evidence there is global warming, either natural or man made8006-08-2019 19:38
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact