mini ice age could be on the way and it’s going to get very, very cold

Graphs and charts are worthless. They cherry pick and each side could present endless graphs and charts to prove their point on any subject from AGW to the economy.

 

Graphs generally have accompanying data that explains them in detail however as you ignore them as stated, that explains a lot.

Have A Nice Day

 

Scroll throuht numerous threads in here and see the pointless chart and graph wars for yourself. Debate and discussion through charts and graphs is a waste of time and it's neither debate or discussion. It's mostly for people who can do neither and just search the net for copy and paste pretty pictures.

 

Okay...I did the eight seconds of search required to find the place the silly graph was posted so you can actually read the data.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/1510/global-effects-of-mount-pinatubo

 

Which proves my point that posting charts and graphs is the cowards way out when you can't debate or discuss a subject yourself.

How did her pretty pictures and your search for data prove the poster she responded to believed in a conspiracy theory that says NASA blames everything on man? She made a false allegation and then pasted pretty pictures. When all else fails post charts and graphs and head for the hills.

 

Agreed so why post them?

Science is about backing your statements with facts

WHERE ARE YOURS.

 

LOL, your response tells it all. AGW is a scam.

 

Its been pointed out for decades that one volcano can have a larger impact than all of mankind. In fact, thats one of the major flaws in AGW.

 

There's another forum just for conspiracy theories.

 

Yep. The effects of one volcano can dominate over the greenhouse gas effect. But, the effect is temporary and it requires a VEI 6+ eruption or many VEI 5+ eruptions in a short amount amount of time for the effect to be perceived. This is not a flaw in AGW at all. In fact, AGW fully embraces this fact and climate scientists are well aware of it. Afterall, it was climate scientists that figured this out a long time ago. In fact, that's how YOU know about it.

 

The "greenhouse effect" was first called "nuclear winter" and it entered the vocabulary in the early 1950's when it was noticed that nuclear tests resulted in changes in the weather.

And the point is that over the past 30 years there have been numerous eruptions that have had clearly measurable effects on the global climate, while AGW is not so clearly demonstrated. And the proposed AGW solutions are equally invisible, a study on the global impact if the USA fully implemented the old Kyoto Protocol was that it would be within the margin of error of the measurements, and if the entire world implemented Kyoto it was barely measurable.

A volcano has clear impact and swamps the 100 years of human activity. Not a good arguement for AGW.

 

The two do not equate and are in fact opposing forces for the most part.

 

So the CO2 from a volcano cools the planet but the CO2 from everything else causes the planet to warm?

 

Nope...CO2 has nothing to do with it.

 

The greenhouse effect is different from the aerosol effect. GHGs put a positive radiative forcing on the planet. Aerosols putting a negative radiative forcing on the planet. GHGs warm and aerosols cool.

Pinatuba (1991) is a clear demonstration of this effect. It's also a clear demonstration of it's temporary nature. Scientists actually used Pinatubo to calibrate their estimates of climate sensitivity. Anyway, both Pinatubo and CO2 have a measurable effect. The integrated effect of CO2 over time is orders of magnitude larger than Pinatubo. And the smoking gun is the warming troposphere and hydrosphere simultaneous with the cooling stratosphere.

Not even remotely close. Even a VEI 6 eruption has an effect that is orders of magnitude less human influence. And a volcano's effect is temporary. CO2's effect lasts for 100s or even 1000s of years.

 

CO2 from a volcano warms the planet just like the CO2 from humans. The difference is that volcanoes don't emit hardly any CO2 compared to humans. The aerosols from volcanoes have a larger impact. That's why volcanoes cool the planet instead of warming it. Their aerosol effect is bigger than their CO2 effect.

 

Just every so often I hit a post so empty of even the basic understanding of chemistry and physics..........

 

Fact free rebuttal

 

And if you had read any of the reports on this you would realise that

A) scientists are well aware of the effects and
B) those effects are temporary

 

Its interesting to note that you and the AGW crowd used to go on and on about methane and nitrous oxide and sulfur hexafluorid and other emissions from internal combustion engines and power plants. Water vapor and carbon dioxide were footnotes.

But now that the AGW theory is failing and being rejected, the AGW fanatics need a new arguement and have turned to water vapor and carbon dioxide, probably because those are ubiquitous and can never be removed, and co2 and water vapor make an easier presentation for shallow thinkers..

 

LOL, what happened to the "great researcher" of old? I guess you dropped that false claim.

 

I'm aware. I was asking based on his comment. Actually it's the particulate matter they expel into the upper atmosphere that reflects sunlight that causes the cooling.

 

Can you show me where you are getting that CH4, NOx, and SF6 were more of a concern than CO2?

It's quite the opposite. More and more evidence keeps piling on to support AGW.. And for the most part the warming has been in line with expectations.

Hmm...well, Nobel prize winning chemist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that the Earth would warm due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. The gas he was specifically studying was CO2 and H2O. He correctly figured out that CO2 would catalyze a temperature change and H2O would magnify it. He even figured out that the poles would warm faster than the equator and that the oceans would help mitigate our effect by scrubbing out some of our emissions. This was back in 1896! So I'm not sure what you mean when you say this a new argument.

 

Science refers to particulate matter suspended in a gas as aerosols. The aerosols in the atmosphere come from a variety of sources. Industrial pollution is the largest source. We loft enough aerosols into the air that it offsets our own GHG effect by about 50%.

 

When you are telling people they have to make transformational societal changes that will greatly degrade their standard of living, then you better back that up with amazing proof. "for the most part" does not cut it. Not even close.

AGW fanatics made definitive predictions which did not come true, and then they could not explain their failure. Instead they hide their data (like mr hockey stick liar), and try to force their opinions on the world.

<>

Svante Arrhenius, a guy from the late 19th century and early 20th - are you joking? The role of water vapor is still not fully understood even today, it was a mystery in his time.

<>

Get on the internet, set the search parameters to articles pre-2010, and search on green house gas emissions.


In case it has not occurred to you, I abandoned the AGW fanatics years ago. They are a totally discredited political faction and not worth any significant effort to convert.