They obtained their impact data largely from the impact of MSH and other volcanoes.  What we find is a SLIGHT increase in temperatures following a major eruption dumping LARGE amounts of ASH and CO2 into the atmosphere.  They then equate the impact to CO2.  In reality much of the impact is caused by the Ash preventing sunlight from reaching the earth.  Within 1 or 2 years the extra CO2 causes MORE CO2 to be absorbed.  Not only this, the extra Ash soon diminishes in the atmosphere and with 1 year temperatures return to normal.  Emitting the equivalent of 1/100th of this CO2 by all mankind over a lengthy period has NO noticeable impact nor would one expect it to.  The feedback completely handles any effects.  It is changes in the feedback loop which determine CO2 levels and the impact even then is HIGHLY suspect.

Note this is obviously to be expected.  Any system which has maintained a climate sufficient to sustain life for 4.5 Billion Years (I think you believe in evolution and that is your estimate) would almost HAVE TO BE a negative feedback system to have remained so stable.  Your own scientists acknowledge the ecosystem is a negative feedback system.  Their science is JUNK and they know it.  They are attempting to scare the naïve in an effort to gain funding.  This is why they had to skew the data.  Not only this, "What is the natural response of ANY feedback system?"  Answer is sinusoidal.  Wow!!!!  Imagine that, the climate has a sinusoidal response!!!!!  Why is it they only look at the data for the rising half of the cycle?  Because if you assume the sinusoid will continue up forever it looks alarming to the naïve who don't understand feedback and cycles.

Quote from: Solar on November 25, 2013, 05:27:10 AM

Apparently farmers having to deal with weather is a new concept.


Note to members of CPF:  Do you guys now see why we love to keep these libs around?

Quote from: taxed on November 25, 2013, 08:23:18 AM
Apparently farmers having to deal with weather is a new concept.


Note to members of CPF:  Do you guys now see why we love to keep these libs around?

Yet he simply swallows and says thank you.

Fortified By Global Warming, Crop Production Keeps Breaking Records

Bolstered by increasing soil moisture, longer growing seasons, warmer winters, and the fertilizing effects of more atmospheric carbon dioxide, crop production continues its long and impressive run of ever-increasing yields as global temperatures warm.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/01/16/fortified-by-global-warming-crop-production-keeps-breaking-records/

Quote from: LibDave on November 25, 2013, 07:21:47 AM
I would love to know your background.  Because it certainly isn't a science background.  Unless you are at some liberal University or something.  You know you don't have to drink the Kool-Aid right?

There is no such 98% claim.  The total amount of CO2 production by humans compared to that naturally produced is ~6/40,000.  This means about 0.015% of the total CO2 produced is man-made.  That's not 1.5% that is 0.015%.  Furthermore, this doesn't take into account the Feedback system or what you call ecosystem.  This is modeled as k/(1 + Ak) for first order feedback or single loop with A being open loop gain; k/((1+Ak)^Nk) for higher orders of feedback (actually at least several dozen orders meteorologically speaking).

Now the GW alarmists perform very lame science in an attempt to tell us the sky is falling (Chicken Little With a Helmet Science).  According to them, if you take the 0.015% * 100 years gives 1.5% more CO2 than we would otherwise have.  They then equate a second order relationship between CO2 levels and temperatures and then another 2nd order relation between temperatures and sea levels.  This still didn't prove sufficient after the end of the last cycle so they manipulated their data.  It is JUNK SCIENCE.  Don't be a sucker.  You don't have to drink the Kool-Aid.

The Mount Saint Helen eruption produced the equivalent of ALL THE CO2 produced by ALL industrialized countries for the ENTIRE industrial revolution up to that point.  In other words all the CO2 produced by man for 120 years is equivalent to 1 extra MSH eruption.  And MSH dumped this in 9 months not 120 years.  MSH wasn't even a large eruption by historic geological standards.  Don't be a sucker.

They get funded to determine what the risk is.  They have a dog in the fight.  Of course the sky is falling.

Read this over dozen times by different authors but never seen it formulated so short and eloquently.

Quote from: Solar on November 25, 2013, 10:26:50 AM
Yet he simply swallows and says thank you.

Fortified By Global Warming, Crop Production Keeps Breaking Records

Bolstered by increasing soil moisture, longer growing seasons, warmer winters, and the fertilizing effects of more atmospheric carbon dioxide, crop production continues its long and impressive run of ever-increasing yields as global temperatures warm.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/01/16/fortified-by-global-warming-crop-production-keeps-breaking-records/

I am amazed at how damaged his logic faculties are....

Quote from: taxed on November 25, 2013, 10:55:38 AM
I am amazed at how damaged his logic faculties are....

I'm amazed at how he can turn off his critical thinking mechanism, the part of the brain in control of skepticism.
Everything about the UNPCC council screams govt enforced agenda, even after being caught lying, fudging data, and every freakin model being wrong, he still supports the theory that a 1.5 degree increase will negatively effect all life on the planet.

Quote from: Solar on November 25, 2013, 11:16:32 AM
I'm amazed at how he can turn off his critical thinking mechanism, the part of the brain in control of skepticism.
Everything about the UNPCC council screams govt enforced agenda, even after being caught lying, fudging data, and every freakin model being wrong, he still supports the theory that a 1.5 degree increase will negatively effect all life on the planet.

Notice he won't admit Antarctic caps aren't melting, or the ocean levels wouldn't rise if the Arctic caps melt?  I love it when libs commit to outright idiocy, then have to walk it back -- yet not denounce it -- when called on it.  If he had any shred of credibility, he would address facts instead of trying to hold onto modeled probabilities and maybes, simply because he has spent so much time supporting them.

I always get a kick out of the Lefties Chicken Little ranting, the sky is falling!! The oceans are rising!!!
Just for fun here's the original Disney 1943 "Chicken Little story", a closer look at the reality of doom sayers:

http://youtu.be/Vnp4kj5lLOU 

Enjoy!!

Quote from: Solar on November 25, 2013, 10:26:50 AM
Yet he simply swallows and says thank you.

Fortified By Global Warming, Crop Production Keeps Breaking Records

Bolstered by increasing soil moisture, longer growing seasons, warmer winters, and the fertilizing effects of more atmospheric carbon dioxide, crop production continues its long and impressive run of ever-increasing yields as global temperatures warm.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/01/16/fortified-by-global-warming-crop-production-keeps-breaking-records/

   You Just Can't trust those damn liberal scientists.

Quote from: Niccoli on November 24, 2013, 10:10:39 AM
Is it just me or does anyone else feel like this administration and its minions this week have begun to quickly ram through unprecedented policies as quickly as possible?

I am just wondering is there something behind these issues all being piled on at once?

1. Dems cancel out 200 yrs of senate history by implementing the "nuclear option"
2. The recent news this week that Obama has taken it upon himself to again change the healthcare law implementation date without the approval of congress
3. Back door deal in the middle of the night to make a deal with a country who wants nothing more than to see America and Israel burn.

Is this a distraction from botched healthcare rollout or is this becoming a push to get Obama policies through before midterm elections?

Maybe im just having a conspiracy theory moment but the timing seems odd.

I don't think it is about OBAMA POLICIES as much as appointments.  I don't see how you can have NON-FUNCTIONING COURTS for long stretches--defies logic.  Judges need to be appointed.  JUDICIAL BACKLOGS are quite real.   And since Bush had 90+ FEDERAL bench appointments and Obama has only gotten about 70% through, something does seem to be awry in 'simple' numbers. 

Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on November 25, 2013, 02:27:21 PM
I don't think. it is about OBAMA POLICIES as much as appointments.  I don't see how you can have NON-FUNCTIONING COURTS for long stretches--defies logic.  Judges need to be appointed.  JUDICIAL BACKLOGS are quite real.   And since Bush had 90+ FEDERAL bench appointments and Obama has only gotten about 70% through, something does seem to be awry in 'simple' numbers.

Fixed it...

Quote from: Niccoli on November 24, 2013, 10:10:39 AM
Is it just me or does anyone else feel like this administration and its minions this week have begun to quickly ram through unprecedented policies as quickly as possible?

I am just wondering is there something behind these issues all being piled on at once?

1. Dems cancel out 200 yrs of senate history by implementing the "nuclear option"
2. The recent news this week that Obama has taken it upon himself to again change the healthcare law implementation date without the approval of congress
3. Back door deal in the middle of the night to make a deal with a country who wants nothing more than to see America and Israel burn.

Is this a distraction from botched healthcare rollout or is this becoming a push to get Obama policies through before midterm elections?

Maybe im just having a conspiracy theory moment but the timing seems odd.

Well, get back the Senate and you too can trigger the FILIBUSTER change back to the 60 votes.  Personally, I don't think a threat alone shouldn't be allowed.  You wanna filibuster?  Then do it the old-fashioned way.  Put on your most comfortable shoes, put on your 'Depends' and get up there and talk!  And, not that BOGUS Cruz all day photo op  where he reads Dr. Seuss (without reading the Dr. Seuss story for meaning--which was exactly opposite in meaning to his purported reason for filibustering IN THE FIRST PLACE (That was DUMB!!).

And let's not forget who 'devised' the nuclear option!  They gave Obama the 'technique'.  Doesn't EVERYBODY just hate when that happens??

I removed your quote.
Quotes without links are considered copyright violations and will not be tolerated on this forum.

Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on November 25, 2013, 03:05:55 PM
Well, get back the Senate and you too can trigger the FILIBUSTER change back to the 60 votes.  Personally, I don't think a threat alone shouldn't be allowed.  You wanna filibuster?  Then do it the old-fashioned way.  Put on your most comfortable shoes, put on your 'Depends' and get up there and talk!  And, not that BOGUS Cruz all day photo op  where he reads Dr. Seuss (without reading the Dr. Seuss story for meaning--which was exactly opposite in meaning to his purported reason for filibustering IN THE FIRST PLACE (That was DUMB!!).

And let's not forget who 'devised' the nuclear option!  They gave Obama the 'technique'.  Doesn't EVERYBODY just hate when that happens??


In 2005, a group of Republican senators led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, responding to the Democrats' threat to filibuster some judicial nominees of President George W. Bush to prevent a vote on the nominations, floated the idea of having Vice President Dick Cheney, as President of the Senate, rule from the chair that a filibuster on judicial nominees was inconsistent with the constitutional grant of power to the president to name judges with the advice and consent of the Senate (interpreting "consent of the Senate" to mean "consent of a simple majority of Senators," not "consent under the Senate rules").[33] Senator Trent Lott, the junior Republican senator from Mississippi, had named the plan the "nuclear option." Republican leaders preferred to use the term "constitutional option," although opponents, including then-Senator Obama, and some supporters of the plan continued to use "nuclear option." In 2005, Obama opposed the change before supporting it in 2013. He said on the Senate floor "I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. In the long run it is not a good result for either party. One day Democrats will be in the majority again and this rule change will be no fairer to a Republican minority than it is to a Democratic minority." [34] In 2013, Obama supported the rule change as a Democratic President when Democrats were the majority in the Senate.[34]

You need to link your quotes young man. 

Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on November 25, 2013, 03:05:55 PM
Well, get back the Senate and you too can trigger the FILIBUSTER change back to the 60 votes.  Personally, I don't think a threat alone shouldn't be allowed.  You wanna filibuster?  Then do it the old-fashioned way.  Put on your most comfortable shoes, put on your 'Depends' and get up there and talk!  And, not that BOGUS Cruz all day photo op  where he reads Dr. Seuss (without reading the Dr. Seuss story for meaning--which was exactly opposite in meaning to his purported reason for filibustering IN THE FIRST PLACE (That was DUMB!!).

And let's not forget who 'devised' the nuclear option!  They gave Obama the 'technique'.  Doesn't EVERYBODY just hate when that happens??


In 2005, a group of Republican senators led by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, responding to the Democrats' threat to filibuster some judicial nominees of President George W. Bush to prevent a vote on the nominations, floated the idea of having Vice President Dick Cheney, as President of the Senate, rule from the chair that a filibuster on judicial nominees was inconsistent with the constitutional grant of power to the president to name judges with the advice and consent of the Senate (interpreting "consent of the Senate" to mean "consent of a simple majority of Senators," not "consent under the Senate rules").[33] Senator Trent Lott, the junior Republican senator from Mississippi, had named the plan the "nuclear option." Republican leaders preferred to use the term "constitutional option," although opponents, including then-Senator Obama, and some supporters of the plan continued to use "nuclear option." In 2005, Obama opposed the change before supporting it in 2013. He said on the Senate floor "I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules. In the long run it is not a good result for either party. One day Democrats will be in the majority again and this rule change will be no fairer to a Republican minority than it is to a Democratic minority." [34] In 2013, Obama supported the rule change as a Democratic President when Democrats were the majority in the Senate.[34]

What's your point? The GOP never brought it to a vote. Are you criticizing the dems for following through with the "nuclear option"?

Quote from: cpicturetaker12 on November 25, 2013, 03:05:55 PM
Well, get back the Senate and you too can trigger the FILIBUSTER change back to the 60 votes.  Personally, I don't think a threat alone shouldn't be allowed.  You wanna filibuster?  Then do it the old-fashioned way.  Put on your most comfortable shoes, put on your 'Depends' and get up there and talk!  And, not that BOGUS Cruz all day photo op  where he reads Dr. Seuss (without reading the Dr. Seuss story for meaning--which was exactly opposite in meaning to his purported reason for filibustering IN THE FIRST PLACE (That was DUMB!!).

And let's not forget who 'devised' the nuclear option!  They gave Obama the 'technique'.  Doesn't EVERYBODY just hate when that happens??

I removed your quote.
Quotes without links are considered copyright violations and will not be tolerated on this forum.

So that's what you you got from the Cruz moment, a bed time story he read to his kids?
He spent all that time on the floor speaking of historical moments that formed our country, and all you got was a MSM soundbite.
Can you say "Low Information Voter"?