Human-induced climate change requires urgent action

futurecurrents · Aug 21, 2014

You don't get it do you? If Salby is mentioned that means it is denialist nutter bullshit. Got it? Salby is a liar and fraud, like you are.

And you still haven't answered. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Because if it is rising levels of it have to cause warming. It's so simple that even you can understand it.

I notice that since I showed proof of what a fraud Salby is that piehole has not come back here. I wonder why?

Ffox · Aug 21, 2014

Futurecurrents’ penchant for mistruth is matched only by his ignorance of science.
The desperate claims by this troll (“Have opinion. Will travel.”) must resort to one epithet after another,
to deflect attention from the obvious contradictions.

In Australia they’re trying to raise $100,000 for Patrick Moore to speak.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/17/moore-tour-needs-some-backers/

They could have gotten Salby for $37.50. See Jo Nova’s description of the NSF affair,
which left the claims eviscerated.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/murry-salby-responds-to-the-attacks-on-his-record/

Likewise ignored is the observed behavior of nature, which exposes the fallacy
in Futurecurrents’ broken record. It’s nicely summarized in an article
by Darwall, along with hysterical rants like that pushed by Futurecurrents.

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/it...tical-scientists-like-murry-salby/#more-37555

Time for some new material. Yawn…

futurecurrents said:
"Just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas by definition, and its concentration has been rising, and that's true, it isn't, necessarily, the cause of an observed increase in the Earth's surface temperature. "

Of course it is you bullshit artist. CO2 is the earth's most important long term greenhouse gas. Without it the earth would be 30 - 50 degrees colder. We have raised it's levels by 40%. That HAS to cause warming and it has and is. The level of CO2 is what controls the long term temperature of the earth. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

"All scientists who have had any training in photochemistry or photophysics know that the effectiveness of a greenhouse gas will depend on its concentration profile, the absorbtivity at the wavelengths emitted from the Earth's surface, and the intensity of emission as a function of wavelength"

Yes, beneath all your layers of impressive sounding and superfluous horseshit you say something right. The effectiveness depends on concentration. We have increased by 40%. So the CO2 in the atmosphere has become more a more effective trapper of long wavelength radiation. Heat.

"To assume that a dilute gas being defined as a greenhouse gas is a sufficient condition for it to cause significant warming, in something as complex as our Earths atmosphere, is, frankly, ridiculous."

No it's not. It's a bedrock principle of climate science. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you said it yourself. It's the very definition of "greenhouse gas", a dilute gas that that warms the atmosphere. Again, you are off the reservation and full of shit.

"Finally, let me say that your calling internationally recognized experts such as Professor Salby, who is one of the foremost experts in atmospheric physics, a fool and a fraud does your credibility no favor."

I really don't care what you say since you yourself has zero credibility after all the festering piles of impressive sounding, but ultimately absurdly wrong bullshit that you have piled on this topic. You have some set of balls. Are you Salby? Why else would you defend a man like this...

"The National Science Foundation investigation report issued on 20 February 2009 found that Salby had overcharged his grants and violated financial conflict of interest policies, displaying "a pattern of deception, a lack of integrity, and a persistent and intentional disregard of NSF and University rules and policies" and a "consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit." It debarred Salby from receiving federal assistance and benefits until 13 August 2012.[2]

After leaving Colorado, Salby joined the faculty of Macquarie University in Australia, where he was appointed Professor of Climate Risk in 2008. In May 2011, Salby's research showing that ozone levels over Antarctica had begun to recover since the Montreal Protocol banned the use of ozone-depleting substances, was published in Geophysical Research Letters.[7][8] Salby's employment at Macquarie was terminated in 2013. Macquarie University stated that he was dismissed for refusing to fulfill his teaching responsibilities and for inappropriate use of university resources including a corporate credit card.[3][9]"

So he's a liar and a thief.

In addition, his scientific statements and positions are a joke, completely ignoring that there are large annual fluctuations in carbon dioxide, as it is exchanged back-and-forth between the atmosphere, oceans, soils, and forests. This flux in and out of the biosphere and oceans is many times larger than man's annual contributions The resulting CO2 level changes thus are not expected to match human emissions. However, Salby wants us to believe that therefore man's CO2 emissions are not showing up in the atmosphere since they are not well correlated on short term time frames. However, over the course of many years the annual flux in and out of the biosphere and oceans evens out. Some years more is absorbed and others less. On decades long time scales the rising CO2 levels are very well correlated to man's emissions.

So then from this narrow mistaken view of it he then makes the absurd leap that therefore man's emissions are not causing the rise in CO2 and it is instead due to temperature changes. However the temp record does not fit with his theory so he basically just says the ice record is wrong and is not showing atmospheric CO2 levels at the time the ice was laid down. But indeed that is exactly what the ice record is. It is the trapped air of the time the ice was laid down.

On top of all this is the simple fact that man is dumping about 8 billion tons of CO2 into the air every year. That quantity does not just disappear. Indeed the CO2 rise matches the increasing emissions as seen in this chart.

Far from being a foremost atmospheric expert, Salby is a liar, a thief, a fraud and a fool. He has zero respect among climate scientists dealing with AGW. His earlier work with the ozone layer being an exception. He used this early respect to earn him higher prostitution fees from the fossil fuel interests as an AGW denialist.

That you would defend such a person speaks volumes about you. You are just like him.
More...

futurecurrents · Aug 21, 2014

Yeah, Salby will say anything for any amount of money. He's a prostitute.

How about you foxfucker? Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Do you know what that is? You say I am ignorant about the science. How about you? Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?

Ffox said:
Futurecurrents’ penchant for mistruth is matched only by his ignorance of science.
The desperate claims by this troll (“Have opinion. Will travel.”) must resort to one epithet after another,
to deflect attention from the obvious contradictions.

In Australia they’re trying to raise $100,000 for Patrick Moore to speak.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/17/moore-tour-needs-some-backers/

They could have gotten Salby for $37.50. See Jo Nova’s description of the NSF affair,
which left the claims eviscerated.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/murry-salby-responds-to-the-attacks-on-his-record/

Likewise ignored is the observed behavior of nature, which exposes the fallacy
in Futurecurrents’ broken record. It’s nicely summarized in an article
by Darwall, along with hysterical rants like that pushed by Futurecurrents.

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/it...tical-scientists-like-murry-salby/#more-37555

Time for some new material. Yawn…
More...

WeToddDid2 · Aug 21, 2014

futurecurrents said:
Yeah, Salby will say anything for any amount of money. He's a prostitute.

How about you foxfucker? Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Do you know what that is? You say I am ignorant about the science. How about you? Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
More...

You dumb ass. You have no idea how to debate. Do you have shit for brains?

It seems as though you actually think that you are clever by repeating that question over and over.

You are simply a regurgitation orifice.

WeToddDid2 · Aug 21, 2014

Who gives a shit about some made up term?

CO2 is a red mobile home gas. Wow! Look! I can make up terms and definitions too!!!!

Please refer to CO2 as a red mobile home gas from now on.

WeToddDid2 · Aug 21, 2014

Fraudcurrents,

Please thoroughly inspect my post for any typos or grammer mistakes....oops....I mean grammor...oh...I mean grammar.

WeToddDid2 · Aug 21, 2014

In retrospect, I really should have gone with a yellow submarine gas. But, it is too late. I already called it a red mobile home gas. Therefore, that is what is has to be.

futurecurrents · Aug 21, 2014

So you and foxfucker seem to saving your few posts to attack the global warming science. Which organization do you work for? The same one piehole does?

And it's pretty pathetic that you and co sock-puppet disinformer friends don't know what a greenhouse gas. Didn't your think tank tell you about that?

I now expect you to quote Salby or Tim Ball. LOL

futurecurrents · Aug 21, 2014

OK. This is for the idiot deniers that don't have clue about what a greenhouse gas does.

A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would average about 33 °C colder, which is about 59 °F below the present average of 14 °C (57 °F).[2][3][4]

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (taken as the year 1750), the burning of fossil fuels and extensive clearing of native forests has contributed to a 40% increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, from 280 to 392.6 parts per million (ppm) in 2012.[5][6] and has now reached 400 ppm in the northern hemisphere. This increase has occurred despite the uptake of a large portion of the emissions by various natural "sinks" involved in the carbon cycle.[7][8] Anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO
2) emissions (i.e., emissions produced by human activities) come from combustion of carbon-based fuels, principally wood, coal, oil, andnatural gas.[9] Under ongoing greenhouse gas emissions, available Earth System Models project that the Earth's surface temperature could exceed historical analogs as early as 2047 affecting most ecosystems on Earth andthe livelihoods of over 3 billion people worldwide.[10] Greenhouse gases also trigger[clarification needed] ocean bio-geochemical changes with broad ramifications in marine systems.[11]

dbphoenix · Aug 21, 2014

futurecurrents said:
So you and foxfucker seem to saving your few posts to attack the global warming science. Which organization do you work for? The same one piehole does?

And it's pretty pathetic that you and co sock-puppet disinformer friends don't know what a greenhouse gas. Didn't your think tank tell you about that?

I now expect you to quote Salby or Tim Ball. LOL
More...

You certainly are picking up a lot of new fans.

Human-induced climate change requires urgent action

Human-induced climate change requires urgent action