Climate science from 1956


You mean Al Gore didn’t invent it!? I thought they thought we were going into an ice age! You mean the climate skeptics are full of it all around, and not just on the state of today’s science??

People knew CO2 affects climate over fifty years ago, and it’s only recently that asshat denialists and climate cynics have succeeded in sowing disinformation. I think I might faint.

Comments

  1. Canada Has-Nothing says

    “Asshat” – don’t be so hard on yourself. You’re just a muppet. Well if you actually claim to be interested in science and still believe CO2 can significantly warm the climate. Twat.

    Ever heard of convection, currents, ir absorption and emission effects (short term lags/delays/emissions) in gases, or even that big ball up in the corner of the sky – you probably don’t see it living in your cold, northern hell hole. Bet you lot are really shitting it up there, no?

    Self appointed web based blogger of nonsense, tosser!

  2. says

    Wow. Just, wow. If that’s the best your side of the fight-against-real-science has, I’m amazed you’ve won anyone over to your side, ever.

    For the record, the only part of that random mishmash of alphabet that makes any sense is the claim that the sun causes warming. Of course the sun causes warming. Take the sun out of the equation, the planet would eventually drop to the temperature of the surrounding space. The problem here is not that the sun is causing warming (since we’re only just coming out of a solar minimum, with solar irradiance having been stable for the past thirty years), the problem is the mechanism by which we trap that heat has been modified by our existence and actions. Just like how the Earth’s atmospheric composition leading up to humankind was mostly created by life, now that we’re around, we’re changing that composition drastically. The greenhouse effect is a well-understood scientific principle, and the fact that the Earth is heating up is undeniable fact — we have mountains of data to show such.

    If more clouds reduce the albedo of the planet, that’s good. It might dampen the effects of the greenhouse effect somewhat. But don’t go counting on some mitigating factor to bail us out of the mess we’ve created.

  3. Canada Has-Nothing says

    To jthibeault

    Dear Mr. Patronising Clown,

    please check your facts and provide proof for your assertions rather than trot them out as if ‘givens’ in that typically disingenuous way.

    See for example Essenhigh who actually tried some science – based on atmospheric data and an understanding of physics (e.g. kinetics and thermodynamics) who has demonstrated that the overall level of carbon dioxide is not ‘set’ by human emissions but partition equilibria responding to natural changes in temperature.

    Or the vast data set of CO2 levels from ice cores and other data sources, and temperature records, that show a clear link between temperature and CO2. In that CO2 rises and falls in response to temperature changes with a clearly signalled and repeated c.800 year time lag.

    Or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the Beer Lambert Law (but not as mis-read by the unscientific IPCC high priests of your religion, and misappropriated as if a temperature device).

    Or maybe you could post definitive proof of the signal that shows without doubt clear causation between rising CO2 levels (from c. 0.02% to 0.04%) and the temperature rises you clowns posit.

    That’ll be a no then.

  4. says

    I noticed you didn’t provide any proof for your assertions, “Has-Nothing”, so here. I’ll fix it for you. Be sure to read the mouseover text!

    To jthibeault

    Dear Mr. Patronising Clown,

    please check your facts and provide proof for your assertions rather than trot them out as if ‘givens’ in that typically disingenuous way.

    See for example Essenhigh who actually tried some science – based on atmospheric data and an understanding of physics (e.g. kinetics and thermodynamics) who has demonstrated that the overall level of carbon dioxide is not ‘set’ by human emissions but partition equilibria responding to natural changes in temperature.

    Or the vast data set of CO2 levels from ice cores and other data sources, and temperature records, that show a clear link between temperature and CO2. In that CO2 rises and falls in response to temperature changes with a clearly signalled and repeated c.800 year time lag.

    Or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the Beer Lambert Law (but not as mis-read by the unscientific IPCC high priests of your religion, and misappropriated as if a temperature device).

    Or maybe you could post definitive proof of the signal that shows without doubt clear causation between rising CO2 levels (from c. 0.02% to 0.04%) and the temperature rises you clowns posit.

    That’ll be a no then.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>