Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 24, 2013, 02:59:44 PM
So you can't find any flaws in methodology in the peer reviewed studies I just showed you?

OK then, answer this: if you don't think manmade fossil fuel emissions contribute to climate change, explain why a progressively increasing percentage of the CO2 detected in the atmosphere lack a carbon-14 footprint.  The only source that would lack such an isotope is above ground human controlled burnings of fossil fuels.

Also read this:

http://skepticalscience.com/richardson-2013-man-made-carbon.html

At some point, someone has to do something other than being decent, kind, and adult to your childish, puerile BS, lying, and navel-gazing....and simply say STFU, a-hole.  Go away, get lost, vamoose.....the reasonable, intelligent world around doesn't give a shit about you and your nonsense.

Find a hole in the ground with 3 others that think and babble like you, and have a big old time.  But get lost from the reasoned, intelligent world.

Solar, none of your research is peer reviewed.

AndyJackson, I think you're in over your head on this topic.

Taxed, have you figured out yet that "I don't feel like this is a big deal" does not override actual research suggesting the contrary?

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.

You did a decent job at at least trying to address the issue here, but you're not winning a Nobel prize for disproving the entire scientific community just yet.

The model does not predict that CO2 levels rise by 1.5% - you may be confusing this with the predicted 1.5 increase in global temperatures since 1850.  Human emissions technically count for a small proportion of total emissions; however, natural emissions are counterbalanced in the carbon cycle while human emissions are not.  Furthermore, that our CO2 levels are increasing at a lesser rate than human CO2 levels, proves that natural processes are actually mitigating the effects of global warming and that the net emission level from purely non-human sources must be negative. 

We know that the Earth's atmosphere is trapping more heat from a variety of sources including satellite measurements of the ratio of incoming radiation to that which the Earth is radiating back into space.  We know that CO2 is the culprit because the wavelengths of trapped radiation are increasingly within the ranges CO2 has been demonstrated to absorb.  We know that this is a result of manmade fossil fuel burnings due to the low carbon 14/13 to carbon 12 ratio.

Bullshit on the volcano argument.  I'd love to see your sources, as most estimates ping 400 million tons as the upper range for your typical volcanic eruption.  Furthermore there is no evidence that volcanic eruption has been increasing in the past century, indeed most evidence suggests that natural carbon emissions have overall decreased at the same time overall CO2 emissions have gone up.