Venting as I mentioned is the third source. The explanation that includes venting would have to include an explanation of how the venting started in earnest in 1950 and has been rising steadily in a steady curve:
Posted on 07/31/2015 2:28:06 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
People who insist that climate change isn’t happening often try to disprove it by pointing to what they see as contradictory phenomena. One of their most visually compelling arguments has centered upon Antarctic sea ice, which expanded to reach record levels in 2014. If the planet really is warming, they ask, then shouldn’t the ice in the southern ocean be melting?
But now, in a new, not-yet-published paper, James Hansen, former director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and colleagues push back even harder. They argue that the increase in Antarctic sea ice not only doesn’t refute climate change, but actually is caused by warming.
“Our climate model exposes amplifying feedbacks in the Southern Ocean that slow Antarctic bottom water formation and increase ocean temperature near ice shelf grounding lines, while cooling the surface ocean and increasing sea ice cover and water column stability,” the scientists argue in the abstract for the paper, which is undergoing review for publication in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
Here’s that scenario in simpler terms. While sea ice has been increasing, we know from analyzing satellite data that the ice covering the land mass of Antarctica has been melting rapidly.
Hansen told the Washington Post that the Antarctic ice expansion trend will continue, along with ice sheet melt. But that acceleration actually will be a sign that climate change is worsening.
“It will be clearer, give us a few more years,” Hansen told the Post.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.discovery.com ...
Venting as I mentioned is the third source. The explanation that includes venting would have to include an explanation of how the venting started in earnest in 1950 and has been rising steadily in a steady curve:
There used to be something called “The Scientific Method.”
Basically you would (1) observe some condition, (2) come up with a hypothesis to explain the condition, (3) come up with a way of testing your hypothesis, (4) test your hypothesis (either by a test or by further observations), and (5) either prove your hypothesis wrong or not prove it wrong. If your hypothesis survived sufficient testing without being proven wrong, then it would be accepted as true unless and until it was later proven wrong or someone comes up with a better hypothesis to explain the condition.
The key element of the scientific method is falsifiability or refutability, i.e., you must have a way to test your hypothesis and prove it wrong. A hypothesis that is incapable of being disproven is simply an unsupported belief.
With Global Climate Warming, that is now all out the window.
You (1) observe some condition (”Gee, it seems to be getting warmer”), (2) come up with a hypothesis to explain the condition (”carbon emitted by man is causing the world to get warmer”), (3) come up with a way of testing your hypothesis (”here are some computer models that show what is going to happen to the climate as we continue to release carbon”), (4) test your hypothesis (”every prediction in every model has been wrong”), and finally (5) declare “It is accepted science you heretics, so shut the frak up.”
Global Warming is the theory that can never be proven wrong. Is it warmer today then it was yesterday? It is proof of Global Warming. Is it colder today then it was yesterday? It is proof of Global Warming. Is it wetter? Dryer? Cloudier? Less Cloudy? Windier? Less Windy? It doesn’t matter! No matter what the weather happens to be, it is because of Global Warming.
For later
His head has high albedo.
So when North America is again covered by glaciers, that will be the ultimate proof of GoreBull warming, I guess.
You left out:
6. Carbon dioxide is a trace element making up less than 0.04% (that’s 400 parts per million) of the atmosphere.
“People who insist that climate change isn’t happening often try to disprove it by pointing to what they see as contradictory phenomena. “
As opposed to those who try to prove Global Waring WITH contradictory phenomena.
What will those evil deniers try next? Logic? Data?
If all the “logic” confuses them, then the “truth” would drive them insane. Oh, they are already there? Sorry!
Congressman: EPA Sexual Predator ‘Fed A Steady Diet Of Interns’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3319195/posts
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Thing is, the massive global warming has been masked by the cooler weather.
If the Antarctic sea ice is increasing, it is certainly caused by global warming.
If the Antarctic sea ice is not increasing, or even decreasing, it is definitely caused by global warming.
It increases the ice in the Great Lakes. They’re staying cold so long they’re messing with our weather.
and one more point- there has been massive vegetation die offs- all around the globe- all through history-
Startign back with medieval times, when Greenland was producing vegetables because of mild climates back then- the ice ages hit, and there is massive die off of vegetation, then Africa it is said was once lush tropical lands- obviously we had massive veggie die off- more recently we have massive deforestations around the globe, man is clearing land all over, we had the dust bowl (not just I n this country, but others as well) where massive veggie die off occurred
You have massive wildfires all around the globe because the climate has wamred, and vegetation dries out making it a tinder bundle, you have massive amoutns of volcanos all around globe causing massive veggie die off, droughts, natural disasters, floods etc-
[[to include an explanation of how the venting started in earnest in 1950 and has been rising steadily in a steady curve:]]
No it wouldn’t- CO2 was higher than it is today, and went from low 100’s to higher 100’s rapidly caused by many different causes-
The following page shows that natural forcing’s far outweigh anything man is capable of, and likely are the causes of increases in CO2 (remember, the ‘man-caused climate changers’ love pointing out that as the earth warms, natural disasters will increase I intensity and numbers)- So as the earth was warming, naturally, it was causing more natural events to take place, causing more vegetation die off, causing further CO2 to be released, and causing the ocean sinks to release more CO2 into atmosphere many decades later as earth warmed further-
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/sun-volcanoes-control-climate
6. Carbon dioxide is a trace element making up less than 0.04% (that’s 400 parts per million) of the atmosphere.
You left out
7. Man is responsible for just 3.4% of that 0.04% meaning that the total amount of CO2 In the atmosphere due to man stands at just 0.00137% (3.4% of 0.04% = 0.00137%)
[[You (1) observe some condition (”Gee, it seems to be getting warmer”), (2) come up with a hypothesis to explain the condition (”carbon emitted by man is causing the world to get warmer”), (3) come up with a way of testing your hypothesis (”here are some computer models that show what is going to happen to the climate as we continue to release carbon”), ]]
Except that they did NOT test whether CO2 was actually the cause of warmer whether- they simply threw in another hypothesis as their ‘test results’ IE: CO2 captures heat and back radiates it and releases it back from whence it came, and declared that ‘since CO2 captures and releases heat via a mechanism of back radiation, then it must be concluded that an increase in CO2 In our atmosphere is causing climate change (But note they carefully IGNORE the FACT that yep- there has been a slight increase, but man’s contribution is only 0.00137%, and ALL CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere- they make no attempt to describe how such small amounts are causing climate change, they simply make the definitive statement “Man is almost entirely responsible for climate change”)
That’s how their climate science works these days- “Cause and effect” ie: Cows fart, cow farts contain methane, methane traps heat, therefore Cows are causing climate change (But they do NOT tell you what percent of methane I in atmosphere because they would be embarrassed to show the truth, as I nthe following ridiculous claim)
[[A cow does on overage release between 70 and 120 kg of Methane per year. Methane is a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide (CO2). But the negative effect on the climate of Methane is 23 times higher than the effect of CO2. Therefore the release of about 100 kg Methane per year for each cow is equivalent to about 2’300 kg CO2 per year.
Let’s compare this value of 2’300 kg CO2: The same amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) is generated by burning 1’000 liters of petrol. With a car using 8 liters of petrol per 100 km, you could drive 12’500 km per year (7’800 miles per year).
World-wide, there are about 1.5 billion cows and bulls. All ruminants (animals which regurgitates food and re-chews it) on the world emit about two billion metric tons of CO2-equivalents per year. In addition, clearing of tropical forests and rain forests to get more grazing land and farm land is responsible for an extra 2.8 billion metric tons of CO2 emission per year! ]]
http://www.timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2
Note that they do NOT tell you the actual percent In atmosphere- they just estimate how many metric tons are produced- which is meaningless because we don’t know the context - 2.8 billion tons as compared to how many billion tons of atmosphere?
Oh gee, that’s right, there are
[[The total mass of Earth’s atmosphere is about 5.5 quadrillion tons,]]
http://blogs.britannica.com/2012/01/how-much-does-earth-atmosphere-weigh/
I’m not good at math- but I’m betting 3 billion is a very small percent of 6 quadrillion- perhaps someone can help me with what the % is?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.