Bummer: Satellite Records Still Not Following UN IPCC Prognostications

Nor all the other “computer models” Warmists use

(The NO CARBON TAX Climate Skeptics Blog) Each month Professor Ole Humlum from the University of Oslo published the latest month’s data in a report called Climate4you.  He has just issued the latest for June 2013. (link – pdf)

  • The two satellite records continue to show cooling;
  • All three surface air temperature records continue to show negative temperature trend for the last 5 and 10 years; however

Also noted is that CO2 continues to increase. Yet, the computer models of Warmists are failing miserably. Here’s a good graph on just how bad they are failing

And another

Regarding Dr. Roy Spencer, he had this to say about the Democrats little “climate change” hearing on Thursday

Senate EPW Hearing: “Climate Change: It’s Happened Before”

OK, so yesterday’s hearing really was entitled, “Climate Change: It’s Happening Now”. I like my title better.

This chart illustrates that, yes, we are currently warm, but not significantly warmer than the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or the Roman Warm Period (RWP). So how is it we know today’s warmth is human-caused, when the last two warm periods couldn’t have been caused by humans? Hmmm?

Here’s the thing: “skeptics” are not arguing warming. I will argue with anyone who proclaims there hasn’t been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, and any who fail to note that, yes, there was a nice uptick starting in the late 1970′s. What we are arguing is causation. Warmists say it is mostly or solely caused by Mankind, primarily through the greenhouse gas CO2, what they unscientifically call “carbon”. We say that most, if not all of the temperature increases are caused by natural forces. If the Warmists were right, we’d continue to see statistically significant increasing temperatures. Real world data doesn’t show this. And real world data beats garbage in garbage out computer models every time.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

72 Comments

Comment by john
2013-07-20 10:25:54

so Teach your position is that it is NOT getting warmer? Yesterday i thought you agreed that it was, but that it was due to everything BUT CO2.

 
Comment by William Teach
2013-07-20 11:04:43

So, your blatant deflection and short term memory issues mask your inability to understand the reality of climate. And you’re unable to prove anthropogenic causation.

 
Comment by Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-20 15:51:35

Comment by john

2013-07-20 10:25:54

so Teach your position is that it is NOT getting warmer?

Comment by Teach in story:

I will argue with anyone who proclaims there hasn’t been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, and any who fail to note that, yes, there was a nice uptick starting in the late 1970′s.

Anyone new here, should understand that john is our local little troll, who loves to argue just to argue. He is incapable of reading small text, hates women, jews, and anyone with an ounce of a desire for personal freedom.

Johnny boy here would be happy that all those who don’t believe as he does to be enslaved to his government masters.

It is us climate realists who believe that climate is always changing, that what we have experienced has occurred before. It is the cAGW’ers, the statists, that are trying to increase taxation and reduce economic freedom in their attempt to limit the changes in climates. And yet, they are so blinded by that desire that they are incapable of seeing there is absolutely no linkage between taxation and temperature.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-22 08:57:32

Heh.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NCDC_Escalator.gif

William Teach: Bummer: Satellite Records Still Not Following UN IPCC Prognostications

The first chart shows a distinct warming trend since the 1970s.

The next two charts show only the tropical mid-troposphere.

The fourth chart is from Ljungqvist 2010. Notice the rapidly rising instrumental record at the far right of the chart.

-
xposted to Pirate’s Cove

Comment by William Teach
2013-07-22 09:34:51

Yeah, Zachriel, I’ve seen that same GIF thrown around, which actually tends to prove the point that something else is controlling this current warm period other than CO2. Otherwise, there would be no pauses, but a continuous uptick in warming.

Of course, there is warming: I never argued there hasn’t been. Read the last paragraph of the post. But, the models from you Warmists aren’t bearing fruit when compared to the real world data. Computer models are a poor substitute for reality, and continuously fail.

But, no matter what hard data is provided, you Warmists refuse to give up your cult. And you refuse to give up your own big “carbon footprints”. Climahypocrites.

 
 
Comment by Dr. Mercury
2013-07-22 09:10:49

First off, Will, our deepest apologies from Maggie’s Farm for Zachriel. Like your John, he’s our own personal AGW troll and it’s sad to see him invading other anti-AGW sites. He’s a foreigner, to note, so expect to see lots of “You Yanks sure are stupid!” innuendo in his comments.

Second, I was surprised to see you only focusing on global warming when science is offering us much more these days:

http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/22465-AGW,-NGC,-ACW,-NGW-Update-the-were-just-gettin-started-edition.html

It’s all about the science, folks, and the many options it offers.

 
Comment by William Teach
2013-07-22 09:35:39

Caught that one the other day, Dr. Mercury. Excellent information. Linked it to one of my If All You See.. posts.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-22 09:38:58

William Teach: I’ve seen that same GIF thrown around, which actually tends to prove the point that something else is controlling this current warm period other than CO2.

Climate scientists posit multiple influences on climate, so do not predict a monotonic increase in global mean surface temperatures. Large quantities of aerosols are being emitted in Asia, cooling the climate; while the Pacific has undergone a double-dip La Niña, which brings cool waters to the ocean surface, absorbing excess heat from the atmosphere. We have empirical evidence of both processes.

The chart doesn’t ‘prove’ anything, except that skeptics point to short trends in order to ignore longer trends.

-
Some content xposted to Maggie’s Farm

Comment by William Teach
2013-07-22 12:18:05

So, let me get this straight: many natural things can have an influence on cool, but Mankind is mostly/solely responsible for the Warming? Which has happened many times during this interglacial? Oh, and mankind is also partly responsible for masking the effects of the warming mankind is causing?

Warmists always have some excuse at hand Blaming Mankind to prop up their un-scientific assertions. Yet, strangely, they never seem to match their own behavior to their assertions.

 
 
Comment by Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-22 10:33:03

Wait Zachriel. Be careful or you’re going to start showing your Troll colors.

In your first comment, you posit a link to a graph to support your suppositions. In your second comment, you claim that the graph isn’t yours and you denigrate it, deny it, and claim it is a “skeptical” graph.

Wow, like john, you’ve been missing your anti-psychotic meds have you?

The fact that it is a skeptics chart begs the question what point were you trying to prove?

Also, I don’t know about your mind, but my eye only sees one graph at your link shown in two different ways. I think that you are seeing 4 graphs there is a sure sign that you need to seek medical and psychological counseling.

 
Comment by Ruralcounsel
2013-07-22 10:41:31

“Large quantities of aerosols are being emitted in Asia, cooling the climate; while the Pacific has undergone a double-dip La Niña, which brings cool waters to the ocean surface, absorbing excess heat from the atmosphere. We have empirical evidence of both processes.

The chart doesn’t ‘prove’ anything, except that skeptics point to short trends in order to ignore longer trends.”

Wait, aren’t the aerosols and La Nina short term trends?

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-22 11:17:31

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: In your first comment, you posit a link to a graph to support your suppositions. In your second comment, you claim that the graph isn’t yours and you denigrate it, deny it, and claim it is a “skeptical” graph.

Huh? It’s a graph that illustrates how skeptics point to short term trends while ignoring long term trends.

Ruralcounsel: Wait, aren’t the aerosols and La Nina short term trends?

ENSO is a short term trend. Aerosols are a forcing, and the amount of aerosols varies due to either geological activity or industrial activity. Developed nations have laws against most forms of particulate pollution while developing nations generally emit large quantities of aerosols.

 
Comment by Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-22 11:47:16

And your point is? And yes, I did notice your deflection.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-22 12:32:02

William Teach: So, let me get this straight: many natural things can have an influence on cool, but Mankind is mostly/solely responsible for the Warming? Which has happened many times during this interglacial?

Not at all. The Earth has experienced many periods of globally warmer and cooler climate due to a variety of causes, including changes in solar irradiance, orbital variations, atmospheric content, continental drift, volcanism, albedo, and the occasional object slamming into the Earth.

 
Comment by William Teach
2013-07-22 12:34:23

The long term trend, roughly 7,000 years long, is for flips between cool and warm periods lasting several hundred years each. Nothing anthropogenic about it.

But, we were told in 1988 that the world was going to burn unless we Did Something based on 9 years of warming. Warmists constantly tell us that a heightened period of warmth during the 21st century, only 13 years long, foretells doooooom. We are treated to a continuous stream of (partly false) talking points about how 9 of the 10 warmest years occurred this century.Yet, during the period of warmth, global temps have only gone up a measly 0.14F, and just 0.28F since 1990, per Met Office measurements. So, which is it?

Take a look at Climate Progress, one of the main clearing houses. Yammering on about short term warming, during, shockingly, the summer. Warmists blame every short term weather event on “climate change”, which is itself a non-scientific term for the purposes of the conversation.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-22 12:50:26

William Teach: The long term trend, roughly 7,000 years long, is for flips between cool and warm periods lasting several hundred years each. Nothing anthropogenic about it.

While there is still some uncertainty, it is quite amazing how much climate scientists have learned.

William Teach: But, we were told in 1988 that the world was going to burn unless we Did Something based on 9 years of warming.

The science isn’t based on just nine years of warming. It’s a mechanistic model which was first developed from first principles over a century ago. See

Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid {CO2} in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground, Philosophical Magazine 1896.

 
Comment by Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-22 13:24:39

Comment by Zachriel 2013-07-22 12:32:02

Not at all. The Earth has experienced many periods of globally warmer and cooler climate due to a variety of causes, including changes in solar irradiance, orbital variations, atmospheric content, continental drift, volcanism, albedo, and the occasional object slamming into the Earth.

Good to know that you are a climate realist then. For a few moments there you had us worried that you were a cult follower.

While there is still some uncertainty, it is quite amazing how much climate scientists have learned.

You are correct. As a realist, am sure you are aware how hard it is to get cultists to believe that the science is not settles. It never will be settled. It can’t be settled and still be called science. Scientists who believe that they have something to learn will always modify and change their hypothesies based upon available data.

Fake cult scientists will deny real data, attack opposing views, forcibly remove offending data and commit crimes to maintain their cult following. But you know this already being a realist, right?

The science isn’t based on just nine years of warming. It’s a mechanistic model which was first developed from first principles over a century ago.

Oh dear!

You do realize what you are saying, right? you are saying that climate science that man is at fault for the global temperature change is found based on first principles? First principles being: theories that “starts directly at the level of established science and does not make assumptions such as empirical model and fitting parameters.”

Unfortunately normal people like to say, “Coincidence does not causality make.”

JUST because temps rose during a period of time when advanced nations began advancing even more and third world nations began to become advancing nations, does not mean that those advancements are in any way responsible for the advancing temperatures.

If you would have us believe this, then you believe that butterflies can cause hurricanes.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-22 13:55:39

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: As a realist, am sure you are aware how hard it is to get cultists to believe that the science is not settles. It never will be settled.

The word “settled” implies stasis, and climate science is an active field of research. For that matters, so is gravitational physics. On the other hand, it’s fairly well established that the Earth does move.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: you are saying that climate science that man is at fault for the global temperature change is found based on first principles?

The physics of greenhouse warming were derived on first principles. See Arrhenius 1896. However, there are a number of other factors that can also affect climate which must be accounted for.

 
Comment by Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-22 20:05:34

Good to hear that you are a climate realist. You seemed to have started on shaky ground. But, then you came out ahead.

Anyone who recognizes that science is not static, that the only way science works is through continuous learning and revising of previous known knowledge. Science is assumption. Science is theory. There is nothing that can be known fully. Just look at molecular and atomic physics. At one point we think we know everything about cells, and then we find there are things smaller and deeper. Smaller and deeper our knowledge delves.

And, while it is strange that our knowledge of The Greenhouse Effect” started off with a fairly good understanding of its processes, over the last 30 years we de-evolved our thinking and our insights. We began to teach our kids that their breathing causes the world to boil. We taught them that their desire to have a phone or a hot bath would make some kid in Africa burn to death or a child in India drown without mercy.

And they hit upon a winning time in our world history when people have become too lazy to think for themselves, to strive to find their own knowledge, or to check the sciences that affect their tax base. Our people were bred to become sheep and sheep are what most of us are now.

Fortunately, we still have some bright shining shepherds who can help protect us from those ravening wolves.

Glad to know that you are not one of those treacherous wolves whose only point is to deceive and destroy liberty. You understand that science is about continuous learning, that CO2 does not cause runaway global temperature change, that there are other, hundreds, of things that affect local and global temperatures. The sun and our infinite space being two of them. The Earth being a third. Are they not larger than man? Man’s folly has always been to imagine himself greater than GOD.

 
Comment by William Teach
2013-07-22 20:14:20

Ah, but Hansen and Gore were proclaiming doom based on a short term warming trend of 9 years (remember Hansen testifying in front of Congress in 1988?) after a roughly 25 year period of cooling. So, yes, the Warmist hysteria started based on 9 years.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-22 20:19:54

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: We began to teach our kids that their breathing causes the world to boil.

Can’t imagine where anyone teaches that. Animal respiration is carbon neutral.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: You understand that science is about continuous learning, that CO2 does not cause runaway global temperature change, that there are other, hundreds, of things that affect local and global temperatures.

Runaway global warming is unlikely. However, CO2 is still a significant climate forcing and is projected to lead to substantial warming.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-22 20:22:20

William Teach: Ah, but Hansen and Gore were proclaiming doom based on a short term warming trend of 9 years (remember Hansen testifying in front of Congress in 1988?) after a roughly 25 year period of cooling. So, yes, the Warmist hysteria started based on 9 years.

Modern theories of anthropogenic climate change are mechanistic, not based on naïve correlation.

 
Comment by Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-22 23:44:58

Now you’ve gone off the rails again. I can’t keep up with you. one post your pro-reality, the next your pro-illogic.

Stick to one thing and get good at it.

Sorry, but have you been to a school lately, or a school board meeting where they talk about curriculum? Have you heard of the kind of drivel being taught to kids and college students these days? They teach this claptrap.

Runaway global warming is unlikely. However, CO2 is still a significant climate forcing and is projected to lead to substantial warming.

Which is it? You can’t have it both ways. CO2 is not a “significant climate forcing”. There are other more “significant and in greater quantities. CO2 is just a trace gas with a trace level of effect. Else, we’d see a positive correlation between temp and CO2. CO2 if anything is a follower of temperature.

WTH? animals are carbon neutral??!?! Guess that means man is too. WOOT. Problem has been solved. Mark this date down and give this man a twinkie. He’s answered the world’s most vexing illusionary problem.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-23 07:16:18

Zachriel: Runaway global warming is unlikely. However, CO2 is still a significant climate forcing and is projected to lead to substantial warming.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: Which is it? You can’t have it both ways.

Of course you can. It’s the difference between pushing a cart on a flat surface and on a downhill slope. In the former case, if you stop pushing the cart eventually comes to a halt. In the latter case, the cart keeps on moving. The actual landscape is still unknown, but is unlikely to be downhill forever.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: CO2 is just a trace gas with a trace level of effect.

CO2 represents up to 25% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

Kiehl & Trenberth, Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 1997.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: Else, we’d see a positive correlation between temp and CO2.

There are many influences on climate, so we don’t expect a monotonic increase in surface temperature. Not sure where you got that idea.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/NCDC_Escalator.gif

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: CO2 if anything is a follower of temperature.

The apparent lag may be an observational artifact.

Parrenin et al., Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming, Science 2013

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: WTH? animals are carbon neutral??!?!

Animal respiration is carbon neutral. The carbon animals exhale into the atmosphere was fixed from the atmosphere by plants.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-07-23 11:03:29

Animal respiration is carbon neutral. The carbon animals exhale into the atmosphere was fixed from the atmosphere by plants.

So you believe that plants can distinguish between CO2 exhaled from people / animals and CO2 from other sources?

One thing you can always count on is cult (any cult) members who simply regurgitate what they read or are told without understanding or applying any critical thinking to the subject.

Thanks for proving you’re a cult member.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-23 11:16:43

gitarcarver: So you believe that plants can distinguish between CO2 exhaled from people / animals and CO2 from other sources?

We were referring to the net, not the particular molecules. With or without fossil fuels, animals respiration is carbon neutral.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-23 11:22:15

Regardless of the source of atmospheric CO2, the carbon that animals exhale came from recent plant fixation.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-07-23 12:58:57

We were referring to the net, not the particular molecules. With or without fossil fuels, animals respiration is carbon neutral.

Repeating the same ridiculous statement over and over does not mean it is any more true than when you uttered it previously.

The fact of the matter is that animal respiration does add to the “net” levels of CO2 (as you put it) thus proving Gumballs’ statement.

Secondly, as animals themselves do not have a mechanism of removing the CO2 they produce, they are not “carbon neutral.”

Thirdly, as you should agree, trees and plant life cannot differentiate between CO2 produced by animals, and CO2 produced by other means. It is dishonest to say that animals are carbon neutral based on the idea that plant life only removes CO2 produced by animals. That simply cannot be shown to be true.

Once again, your assertion here shows a complete lack of the subject matter. If you don’t understand basics, then you can never understand nor speak with authority on other, more complex parts of the issue.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-23 13:05:05

gitarcarver: The fact of the matter is that animal respiration does add to the “net” levels of CO2 (as you put it) thus proving Gumballs’ statement.

Sorry, that is incorrect. Each atom of carbon that is exhaled was fixed by a plant from the atmosphere. That means there is no net change in atmospheric carbon, even if the atmosphere were composed of only the emissions from fossil fuels.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-23 13:06:33

To demonstrate your case, you have to show that animals exhale more carbon than what came from the fixation of carbon by plants.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-07-23 16:26:31

Each atom of carbon that is exhaled was fixed by a plant from the atmosphere.

Once again your assertion does not make this true. Apparently you don’t understand what “net” means.

For your belief to be true, the plants would have to be to discern which CO2 molecule comes from an animal compared to other sources. You have admitted that is not possible.

By definition, “net” is the aggregate or in this case, the TOTAL amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. An animal’s respiration adds to that net, therefore your basic assertion is flawed.

To demonstrate your case, you have to show that animals exhale more carbon than what came from the fixation of carbon by plants.

No I don’t. I don’t have to prove the negative. However, I will say that there are articles on this very blog citing AGW believers who say that the mere presence of people on the earth – irrespective of their activities – adds to AGW.

The AGW position is that people, by merely breathing add to AGW.

People are animals, aren’t they?

Clearly, you don’t have a grasp of the terms or the science in this discussion.

You are the perfect example of the GIGO principle.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-23 16:38:40

gitarcarver: For your belief to be true, the plants would have to be to discern which CO2 molecule comes from an animal compared to other sources.

It doesn’t matter. Even if all atmospheric CO2 had its origin in fossil fuels, animal respiration would still be carbon neutral. That’s because every carbon atom exhaled by an animal comes from a plant, or from an animal that ate a plant. And that carbon was removed from the atmosphere by the plant to make sugars and other organic molecules.

This is the basic process:
Plant: 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy → C6H12O6 + 6O2
Animal: C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy

Plants fix atmospheric carbon. Animals burn the carbon. Note that atmospheric carbon is conserved. There is no net change in CO2 due to animal respiration.

gitarcarver: By definition, “net” is the aggregate or in this case, the TOTAL amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. An animal’s respiration adds to that net, therefore your basic assertion is flawed.

The carbon that is being exhaled by the animal comes from the food it consumes. And that food has its origin in photosynthesis whereby carbon in the atmosphere is fixed. It’s the very same carbon.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-07-23 16:45:27

Let’s end this right now.

There is no way your belief that if every animal in the world died, it would not have an effect on the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Sorry.

You are just flat out wrong on this.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-07-23 17:32:20

By the way Zachriel, it did not escape notice that you did not address the AGW position on man as an animal.

Cult members don’t like inconvient facts and being show how illogical they are.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-23 18:31:13

gitarcarver: it did not escape notice that you did not address the AGW position on man as an animal.

Of course humans are animals. They consume other organisms for energy and nutrients.

A plant takes a carbon atom out of the atmosphere. Animals eat the plant, and burn the carbon atom for energy which is released back into the atmosphere. For every carbon atom exhaled by animals, there was one fixed by plants. Hence, animal respiration is carbon neutral.

 
Comment by Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-23 19:58:18

Ok, I’ve missed alot here. Let me sum up and then get off this cult-love-train we seem to have gotten on.

CO2 represents up to 25% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

Kiehl & Trenberth, Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 1997.

You do realize that Trenberth is a crackpot anti-science zealot who helped create this cult that you’re following? And, pasting a supposed textual title of your citation is not gonna cut it here.

There are many influences on climate, so we don’t expect a monotonic increase in surface temperature. Not sure where you got that idea.

Dang, your spins are making my head hurt. You just said that CO2 is a MAJOR component of global warming due to its greenhouse effect, and now you claim it is one of “many influences”? And then you claim that your cult does not believe in CO2 causes temperature? Dude, have you listened to your cult leaders over the last 30 some years? THis is their basis for their religion. It’s the foundational doctrine.

And that graph you keep linking to.. .is a “climate realist” graph. Not one of Trenberth’s. The trendline is from your side. Ours points to the fact that temperature increases are not “monotonic” (wth sp? That doesn’t mean what you think it means)

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: CO2 if anything is a follower of temperature.

The apparent lag may be an observational artifact.

DUDE!!! Now I know you’re trolling. You are denouncing the clear finding that CO2 follows temperature with the obtuse excuse that it “may be an observational artifact”, all the while defending the opposite claim (that temp follows CO2) as gospel truth?

Animal respiration is carbon neutral. The carbon animals exhale into the atmosphere was fixed from the atmosphere by plants. With or without fossil fuels, animals respiration is carbon neutral. Regardless of the source of atmospheric CO2, the carbon that animals exhale came from recent plant fixation.

I’m guessing you don’t realize how completely moronic you sound right now. Animals breath out the CO2 that plants fixed. Right? I’m guessing you are referring to even meat-eaters since they eat the plant-eaters. But yet, the Carbon that we exude is only from…. where? Are we using a special Carbon? Or, are we CREATING Carbon out of thin air?(which has no Carbon since we are creating new Carbon here, right?)

I know, you are going to say since we are burning fossil fuels that ADDS Carbon to the atmosphere that wouldn’t normally be there. That’s the typical belief of the cult. Yet, what is petroleum? Is it not CARBON based? And, you folk believe that plants and animals (who fixed the carbon in their systems) died over the course of millions of years to decay and create this oil and gas. So, when we burn it, it is in essence digested\changed\caloricaly used and the remnant exuded back to the atmosphere.

So, Zac, tell me how there any difference from when a plant uses Carbon from the ground that another plant fixed there when it died, or when an animal died, or when man died, or when man buried something there, or when man just dumped carbon-containing stuff there AND when a plant sucks Carbon out of the atmosphere AND when man sucks Carbon out of the ground????

When you exhale, how is that not helping plants and the environment? If you say otherwise, then why are you still here?

But then, your statement about “Carbon Neutral” is rather interesting. You are saying that plants and only 4-legged animals utilize the carbon that they themselves introduce? Or is it that the carbon that they used to grow is later returned without a net increase back to mother GAIA? Again I ask, how are we human animals any different?

Isn’t all carbon already in the ecosystem?? All biological systems just move it around from one place to another? Isn’t the whole of all systems carbon neutral then?

Each atom of carbon that is exhaled was fixed by a plant from the atmosphere.

Ok, I’m seeing a problem here. I take it that you don’t realize that plants take in CO2 and release O2. They actually FIX carbon (as you lightly mentioned above in passing). They either fix carbon in their fibrous matter, or their seeds, or their fruit, or their tubers. Or, they even fix some of it to the ground itself. Yes, some CO2 is released back to the atmosphere, but most of the Carbon is FIXED by plants.

If what you were saying were true, then our world would be full of CO2 from plants and bacteria, not O2. Your cult creators don’t even believe this hogwash your trying to spew.

That means there is no net change in atmospheric carbon, even if the atmosphere were composed of only the emissions from fossil fuels.

OK. good to know. you have no problem with the emissions from burning of fossil fuels, or as most people calls them petroleum products. There is some debate on whether it can be created by natural deep earth processes. But, I digress….

To demonstrate your case, you have to show that animals exhale more carbon than what came from the fixation of carbon by plants.

But, you just said animals were carbon neutral. And GC was not making that point. Nice deflection.

gitarcarver: For your belief to be true, the plants would have to be to discern which CO2 molecule comes from an animal compared to other sources.

It doesn’t matter.

Nice deflection again. You were the one that suggested that plants could discern the source of Carbon in the CO2 molecule they take in.

That’s because every carbon atom exhaled by an animal comes from a plant

Wrong again Zac ol buddy. That is one source of Carbon. Animals also take in carbon when they breath. Or when they drink. Or when they eat things outside of the plant cycle.

Plants fix atmospheric carbon.

There ya go. Now you are learning.

Animals burn the carbon.

Oh dear. One step forward, one step back. You are educational neutral my friend. First, you claim that plants are carbon neutral by themselves. Now you claim that animals are part of that neutrality? Plants need animals to be carbon neutral? YOu need to keep your stories straight. You are not story-neutral. BTW, you can’t burn carbon. Animals burn the energy that the Carbon atom is tied to. Carbon is then removed in that chemical process. Carbon is then either fixed or exhaled. And say it with me.. humans are animals too. Thanks. I knew that you could.

And that food has its origin in photosynthesis whereby carbon in the atmosphere is fixed. It’s the very same carbon.

But you said while ago that plants emit Carbon. Glad to know you’re getting your story straightened out. And no, sorry, it isn’t the exact same Carbon that the plant just took in the inhalation step that it exhales when it no longer needs or is capable of fixing carbon. It could be. But not always.

Of course humans are animals. They consume other organisms for energy and nutrients.

BINGO!!!!!!! ding ding ding. WE have a winner. He has come full circle and has come back to realzville. OK. So now you’re on our side and have left the cult. Welcome to logic and reality.

A plant takes a carbon atom out of the atmosphere. Animals eat the plant, and burn the carbon atom for energy which is released back into the atmosphere.

oh dear. one step forward, one step back again. please re-read my statements above about the Carbon pathway. The path Carbon takes is not set, it is not circular and it is not ever flowing. Your logic falls on bacteria and ground-dwelling and below sun-level organisms? Your argument for a circular plant-based Carbon cycle falls there.

For every carbon atom exhaled by animals, there was one fixed by plants. Hence, animal respiration is carbon neutral.

WOOT. And welcome back. WOW. You can Two-Step faster than my grandad could when he was in his dancing prime. He was a clodder that one was. But you put him to shame.
But, its good to have you back in reality, if not till the next sentence you type.

A suggestion: Next time, get your stories straight before you try to argue with us. I’ll smack you down and GC will cover you with concrete, smooth it over and make it perty.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-23 20:58:50

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: You do realize that Trenberth is a crackpot anti-science zealot who helped create this cult that you’re following?

Sure. The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society publishes crackpot papers. In any case, did you have a specific objection about the methodology in the paper? Or do you prefer handwaving?

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: You just said that CO2 is a MAJOR component of global warming due to its greenhouse effect, and now you claim it is one of “many influences”?

Major ≠ Only.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: And then you claim that your cult does not believe in CO2 causes temperature?

Temperature is a measure of thermal energy. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will warm the surface and lower atmosphere while cooling the stratosphere.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: The trendline is from your side. Ours points to the fact that temperature increases are not “monotonic”

In other words, a strawman. Climate scientists don’t posit that temperatures will continuously increase.

It’s the same graph in both cases. Skeptics see only the short term decreases and ignore the long term increase. Here’s another illustration of the principle.

“For years we have been told the Earth is melting like a Popsicle, and that humanity will would soon be boiled alive in a rising sea. Well, today that lie stands exposed with evidence that any child can understand. I give you frozen water, falling from the sky.”
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-10-2010/unusually-large-snowstorm

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: That doesn’t mean what you think it means

monotonic, having the property either of never increasing or of never decreasing as the values of the independent variable or the subscripts of the terms increase
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monotonic

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: You are denouncing the clear finding that CO2 follows temperature with the obtuse excuse that it “may be an observational artifact”

We provided you scientific evidence, which you ignored. Here it is again,

Parrenin et al., Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming, Science 2013

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: Animals breath out the CO2 that plants fixed.

Yes.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: the Carbon that we exude is only from…. where?

The carbon humans exhale was recently fixed by plants.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: So, when we burn it, it is in essence digested\changed\caloricaly used and the remnant exuded back to the atmosphere.

That’s right, which causes atmospheric CO2 to increase significantly. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so the Earth’s surface warms.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: tell me how there any difference from when a plant uses Carbon from the ground that another plant fixed there when it died, or when an animal died, or when man died, or when man buried something there, or when man just dumped carbon-containing stuff there AND when a plant sucks Carbon out of the atmosphere AND when man sucks Carbon out of the ground????

Plants get their carbon from the air. As for fossil fuels, they’ve been sequestered for millions of years, so burning fossil fuels changes the composition of the atmosphere that humans and their civilization have evolved in.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: When you exhale, how is that not helping plants and the environment?

Animal respiration is carbon neutral, but it is an important part of the carbon cycle. Plants and animals have coevolved.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: Isn’t all carbon already in the ecosystem??

No. A lot of carbon has been sequestered for millions of years in geological formations.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: Isn’t the whole of all systems carbon neutral then?

Naturals systems generally are carbon neutral over human time spans. However, over geological time periods, there are processes that add carbon to the atmosphere, such as volcanoes; and processes that remove carbon from the atmosphere, such as through weathering.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: I take it that you don’t realize that plants take in CO2 and release O2.

As we said above, this is the basic process of photosynthesis:
Plant: 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy → C6H12O6 + 6O2
Animal: C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: They actually FIX carbon (as you lightly mentioned above in passing).

As we have said repeatedly.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: If what you were saying were true, then our world would be full of CO2 from plants and bacteria, not O2.

That’s exactly backwards. Plants absorb net CO2 and exhale net O2, so the atmosphere has become depleted in CO2 and replete in O2.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: you have no problem with the emissions from burning of fossil fuels

That is not what we said. What we did say was that animal respiration is carbon neutral regardless of the source of atmospheric CO2.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: you just said animals were carbon neutral.

No. We said animal respiration was carbon neutral. That’s because animal respiration can only occur when they eat food, and that food comes from photosynthesis.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: Animals also take in carbon when they breath. Or when they drink. Or when they eat things outside of the plant cycle.

Animals generate CO2 through metabolism of food and excrete it through their respiratory system or equivalent. Animals metabolize other organisms, not CO2 or rocks.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: First, you claim that plants are carbon neutral by themselves.

No, plants fix carbon as they grow.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: Plants need animals to be carbon neutral?

No, animals need plants.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: humans are animals too.

Of course humans are animals. They consume other organisms for energy and nutrients.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/11/humans-are-animals.html

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-07-23 21:51:26

For every carbon atom exhaled by animals, there was one fixed by plants. Hence, animal respiration is carbon neutral.

Once again, we see the cult mentality in your response.

First, you use the term “fixed” to describe the process. There is nothing being “fixed” as nothing is broken.

Secondly, the problem is that you make a statement that cannot be proven unless you want to say that plants can discern where the CO2 compound came from – and you have admitted that is not the case.

Third, let’s take the example of a car putting out 20 lbs of CO2 per year. If the owner of the car installed plants that consumes 20 lbs of CO2 per year, no one would say the car is “carbon neutral.”

Now take the same car and plants and add a cute little bunny. The bunny puts out 1 pound of CO2 per year.

Because the rabbit has added CO2 to the system, it is not, and cannot be considered “carbon neutral.” The only way that claim could be made is if the plants suddenly said “hey! Let’s consume the bunny’s CO2 first!”

We know that doesn’t happen.

Therefore, animals are not “carbon neutral.”

The problem is, like most cultists, that you want to use and define terms outside of conventional and accepted use. You want to define something as “carbon neutral” when unless the object emits no CO2, it is not “carbon neutral.” The instant the item adds CO2 to the system, it is not carbon neutral. At best, a defined system or sub system may be “carbon neutral.”

But animals are not a system or subsystem.

Once again, if animals are “carbin neutral,” and you removed all the animals from the earth, would CO2 in the atmosphere drop, rise or remain the same?

 
Comment by Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-23 22:35:25

Climate scientists don’t posit that temperatures will continuously increase.

You sir, are a liar.

GC, this guy continuously changes definitions of words. Even in the same paragraph.

He now claims “fixed” means to emit.
He now claims “climate scientists” don’t constantly predict ever increasing temperatures.
He claims that animals are carbon neutral, humans are animals, but humans are NOT carbon neutral.
He claims monotonic means a slow steady increase yet mathematicians know different.

His flopping around is now explained by his use of “we”. Clearly he is a multiple-personality. There’s the sane side and the insane troll side.

That’s exactly backwards. Plants absorb net CO2 and exhale net O2, so the atmosphere has become depleted in CO2 and replete in O2.

I.. I. … speechless. I am speechless.

If the atmosphere has become depleted of CO2, then what the hell are we doing here???!!?

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-07-23 23:36:49

GC, this guy continuously changes definitions of words. Even in the same paragraph.

That’s what cultists do Gumballs. They change definitions so as to feel they have “special knowledge.”

I have always believed that for the most part, “truth” is consistent, easy to explain, and often easy for people to understand. For the most part, even complex issues can be broken into easy to understand, consistent segments.

The moment people start changing definitions or using words outside of their accepted and well understood meanings, they are trying to hide the truth and get you to be a part of their cult

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-24 07:59:25

gitarcarver: First, you use the term “fixed” to describe the process. There is nothing being “fixed” as nothing is broken.

Oh gee whiz.

Carbon fixation, (Science: plant biology) The process by which photosynthetic organisms such as plants turn inorganic carbon (usually carbon dioxide) into organic compounds (us. Carbohydrates).
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Carbon_fixation

gitarcarver: Secondly, the problem is that you make a statement that cannot be proven unless you want to say that plants can discern where the CO2 compound came from – and you have admitted that is not the case.

Our claim doesn’t concern where plants get their carbon, but where animals get their carbon. They get it from plants which get it from photosynthetic fixation.

gitarcarver: Third, let’s take the example of a car putting out 20 lbs of CO2 per year. If the owner of the car installed plants that consumes 20 lbs of CO2 per year, no one would say the car is “carbon neutral.”

Yes, that’s exactly what they would say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutrality

gitarcarver: Because the rabbit has added CO2 to the system, it is not, and cannot be considered “carbon neutral.”

The rabbit has to be fed or it won’t add CO2 to the atmosphere. The rabbit doesn’t manufacture carbon, but consumes plants which have fixed carbon from the atmosphere. There is no additional CO2 because of the rabbit.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-24 08:15:31

Zachriel: Climate scientists don’t posit that temperatures will continuously increase.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: You sir, are a liar.

We assure you, we are telling the truth as we know it. In any case, natural variability doesn’t disappear even if there is a positive trend. It’s silly to claim that climate scientists think temperatures have risen without pause in the last century, especially considering they are the ones who are making the measurements.

http://warmingplanet.net/images/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: He now claims “fixed” means to emit.

Oh gee whiz.

Carbon fixation, (Science: plant biology) The process by which photosynthetic organisms such as plants turn inorganic carbon (usually carbon dioxide) into organic compounds (us. Carbohydrates).
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Carbon_fixation

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: He now claims “climate scientists” don’t constantly predict ever increasing temperatures.

They never did. Climate is a very noisy system, so the mean global temperature will vary from year to year. Nor do most scientists consider warming will continue for-ever before countervailing processes predominate.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: He claims that animals are carbon neutral, humans are animals, but humans are NOT carbon neutral.

We said, repeatedly, that animal *respiration* is carbon neutral.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: He claims monotonic means a slow steady increase yet mathematicians know different.

monotonic, having the property either of never increasing or of never decreasing as the values of the independent variable or the subscripts of the terms increase
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monotonic

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: If the atmosphere has become depleted of CO2, then what the hell are we doing here???!!?

deplete, to lessen markedly in quantity, content, power, or value

CO2 is near the minimum necessary for most plants.

O2 is highly reactive, and will not persist in the atmosphere over geological time periods without plants pumping additional O2 into the atmosphere.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-24 08:18:24

gitarcarver: The moment people start changing definitions or using words outside of their accepted and well understood meanings

We are generally quite orthodox in our use of terminology. We have provided definitions for the terms you expressed confusion about, including carbon fixation and carbon neutral. See above.

 
Comment by William Teach
2013-07-24 09:17:00

We assure you, we are telling the truth as we know it. In any case, natural variability doesn’t disappear even if there is a positive trend. It’s silly to claim that climate scientists think temperatures have risen without pause in the last century, especially considering they are the ones who are making the measurements.

Say what? Your first comment, Zachriel, included a GIF meant to show that the temperature was a constantly rising thing.

Furthermore, “Climate scientists”, the AGW believing ones, constantly predict that Mankind, animals, plants, sea life, the very earth, are dooooomed from temperature rise that is coming any day now. They constantly predict that the Earth will see a minimum 2C increase by 2100. Their computer models show this.

And double furthermore, most of the Warmist scientists tend to minimize and/or blow up natural variability, expect when it helps them continue to push their cult. IPCC and other models tend to ignore the effects of the Sun and water vapor, under sea volcanoes, and other natural processes.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-24 09:27:34

William Teach: Your first comment, Zachriel, included a GIF meant to show that the temperature was a constantly rising thing.

The chart shows no such thing! It shows annual global mean temperatures going *up and down*, though tending up over time. Perhaps the problem is that you don’t know how to read a graph.

William Teach: Furthermore, “Climate scientists”, the AGW believing ones, constantly predict that Mankind, animals, plants, sea life, the very earth, are dooooomed from temperature rise that is coming any day now.

Doomed is an interesting word. Everyone must face their doom (destiny or judgment). Life will persist. Humans will adapt. But there could be widespread disruption of human civilization, desertification, water shortages, inundation of fertile coastal regions, migration, political instability, etc.

William Teach: They constantly predict that the Earth will see a minimum 2C increase by 2100. Their computer models show this.

Substantial empirical evidence puts climate sensitivity at about 2-5°C.

William Teach: IPCC and other models tend to ignore the effects of the Sun and water vapor, under sea volcanoes, and other natural processes.

Climate scientists are quite aware of the effects of the Sun and volcanoes on climate, and extensive investigations have been made of both. As for water vapor, that’s considered the primary amplifier of greenhouse warming.

 
Comment by Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-24 09:31:09

Zachy’s multiple personalities are showing again.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-24 09:57:17

William Teach: Your first comment, Zachriel, included a GIF meant to show that the temperature was a constantly rising thing.

Here’s a simpler graph, which only shows the annual mean, not the monthly means. Note that temperature is not monotonic over time, but goes up and down.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/208488main_global_temp_change.jpg

 
Comment by Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-24 10:14:19

Ok, I can’t let this one pass.

Perhaps the problem is that you don’t know how to read a graph.

Careful, you are a guest on his blog. you were the one that brought the graph up to support your supposition that the temps are rising. Now once again you attack your own graph. Skitzo again.

Comment by Zachriel 2013-07-22 09:38:58
Climate scientists posit multiple influences on climate, so do not predict a monotonic increase in global mean surface temperatures.

So, they will continually increase?

Climate scientists don’t posit that temperatures will continuously increase.

Oh dear. flipping around again I see. You really need to get a handle on your meds. You keep referring to yourself in a plural. That’s a sign of mental disorder. Please seek professional (non cult members) help.
Your last graph, while cut off at 1880, only shows what happens when a world like ours exits from a glacial period. Also, it does not show a continual rise in temperatures, like your cult leaders have been predicting, that will simultaneously occur with rising CO2 levels.

Substantial empirical evidence puts climate sensitivity at about 2-5°C.

Wrong again. There is no empirical evidence, not even substantial, for climate sensitivity. It is all model based and theoretical. And wrong again again. The current estimate for climate sensitivity is 1.5 or lower.

Doomed is an interesting word.

And yet what you hypothetically lay out is what your doomsayers hypothesize will occur.

Climate scientists are quite aware of the effects of the Sun and volcanoes on climate,

Ummm, dude. Really? Your climate scientists negate the effects of the sun and volcanoes upon our climate. Many of your most esteemed leaders go so far as to say the sun has no to negligible effect upon our climate. And no, your leaders and their prayed-to models do not take in to account clouds, water vapor, or undersea volcanoes like Teach mentioned and you diverged away from.

As for water vapor, that’s considered the primary amplifier of greenhouse warming.

Very good. Water vapor in the form of what? Followed by what and by what percentage contribution?

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-24 10:56:59

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: you are a guest on his blog.

And we appreciate the hospitality. That doesn’t mean the graph is being read correctly.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: you were the one that brought the graph up to support your supposition that the temps are rising.

No, we introduced the graph to illustrate how people misread the data by focusing on short term trends and ignoring long term trends. The graph does show, however, that the trend since the 1970s has been positive.

What’s interesting is that this thread has demonstratedanother misreading of the graph, that climate scientists posit an monotonic increase in temperature even though it is evident the annual mean temperature is noisy, and goes up and down over time.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: So, they will continually increase?

Temperatures will go up and down, but are projected to trend up over the next century. A lot depends on human responses to the problem.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: There is no empirical evidence, not even substantial, for climate sensitivity.

Well, no. There’s a variety of empirical tests for climate sensitivity. It’s a very active area of study, as it is crucial to understanding how quickly the climate will change. Here’s a smattering:

Volcanic forcing
Wigley et al., Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research 2005.

Earth Radiation Budget Experiment
Forster & Gregory, The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data, Journal of Climate 2006.

Paleoclimatic constraints
Schmittner et al., Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science 2011.

Bayesian probability
Annan & Hargreaves, On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity, Climate Change 2008.

Review paper
Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: The current estimate for climate sensitivity is 1.5 or lower.

You forgot the citation.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: Your climate scientists negate the effects of the sun and volcanoes upon our climate.

Not at all. Climate scientists have studied volcanic effects extensively. In particular, they have used the Mt. Pinatubo eruption to provide an empirical test of climate sensitivity.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: Many of your most esteemed leaders go so far as to say the sun as no to negligible effect upon our climate.

Solar activity is believed to have had a profound effect on climate in the past, but does not explain the current warming trend.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: Water vapor in the form of what?

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The question is the change in greenhouse effect. See Dessler et al., Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, Geophysical Research Letters 2008.

 
Comment by Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-24 11:27:13

we introduced the graph to illustrate how people misread the data by focusing on short term trends and ignoring long term trends. The graph does show, however, that the trend since the 1970s has been positive.

and yet you point to a short term trend to make your point. Try LONG term trend. Such as thousands of millenia. A couple of decades does not a climate make. Our current temps are no where near as warm where past inter-glacials have been. And again, you are ignorant of your cult’s beliefs and the reality. it is WE, the realists, who point to long term trends. It is you and yourself, and however many other people are in your head, that point to short-term rises in temp and demand that it is due to one… ONE single trace gas.

that climate scientists posit an monotonic increase in temperature even though it is evident the annual mean temperature is noisy, and goes up and down over time.

which means exactly the same thing. But, you are wrong again. Climate scientists of your ilk believe that temps have been and WILL continue to rise on a compounding scale. If you deny this then you are a liar and not worth our time in discussing each other’s ideas. oh, and BTW, “monotonic increase” is an oxy-moron. Learn english.

A lot depends on human responses to the problem.

OH? DO tell Zach. No, I’m talking to the other Zach now. No, not that one, the other one. What “responses” do you propose that man conduct to PREVENT the globe from warming following the global ice age?

Solar activity is believed to have had a profound effect on climate in the past, but does not explain the current warming trend.

So, you confirm the cult belief that the sun has no impact upon our climate. What, the sun took a vacation when modern man came around? Did we invent a solar space shade and only you super smart cult people know about it?

In particular, they have used the Mt. Pinatubo eruption to provide an empirical test of climate sensitivity.

Yep, and that is only one of a couple they have studied and even GOT WRONG!

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-07-24 12:17:10

Carbon fixation, (Science: plant biology) The process by which photosynthetic organisms such as plants turn inorganic carbon (usually carbon dioxide) into organic compounds (us. Carbohydrates)

I know that you think you are correct, but the fact of the matter is that “carbon fixation,” a noun, is not the same thing as “fixed,” a verb.

Our claim doesn’t concern where plants get their carbon, but where animals get their carbon. They get it from plants which get it from photosynthetic fixation.

Well that’s simply ridiculous as it is not the plants that are increasing the CO2, but the animals. The claim you have made is that animals are carbon neutral. Using your definitions and logic, they are not yet you continue to cling to the notion they are.

Yes, that’s exactly what they would say.

No, they would not. The car itself is not “carbon neutral.” (Even your own cite proves that.) It is only when the car is within a system that the sysyem is carbon neutral, but the car itself never is.

The rabbit has to be fed or it won’t add CO2 to the atmosphere.

The moment the rabbit enters the system as we have defined it, it is breathing and producing CO2 whether the rabbit eats anything from the system at that point in time doesn’t matter.

Secondly, the system was balanced between the car and the plants. By adding an additional thing to the system which produces CO2, not only is the rabbit not carbon neutral, the system is no longer carbon neutral as the plants cannot handle the combined output of CO2 generated by the cars and the rabbit.

We are generally quite orthodox in our use of terminology. We have provided definitions for the terms you expressed confusion about, including carbon fixation and carbon neutral. See above.

See above yourself. You used the terms in error and not even as defined by your own citations.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-24 14:03:28

gitarcarver: I know that you think you are correct, but the fact of the matter is that “carbon fixation,” a noun, is not the same thing as “fixed,” a verb.

Gee Willikers.

“Organisms that grow by fixing carbon are called autotrophs—plants for example.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fixation

“The Calvin Cycle is the MOST Common Pathway for Carbon Fixation. Plant Species that fix Carbon EXCLUSIVELY through the Calvin Cycle are known as C3 PLANTS.”
http://www.biologycorner.com/APbiology/cellular/notes_alternative_paths.html

“Chloroplasts Capture Energy from Sunlight and Use It to Fix Carbon.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26819/

The notion of fixed comes from the sense of being set in place rather than free.

gitarcarver: it is not the plants that are increasing the CO2, but the animals

That’s right. Animals release the carbon that was recently fixed by plants.

gitarcarver: The car itself is not “carbon neutral.”

That’s right. Most cars burn fossil fuels, which release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which had been sequestered for millions of years. This can be offset, but it takes a lot of new trees to offset even a single car. Fossil fuels have the advantage of being a very compact source of energy.

gitarcarver: The moment the rabbit enters the system as we have defined it, it is breathing and producing CO2 whether the rabbit eats anything from the system at that point in time doesn’t matter.

Unlike the car, any carbon the rabbit exhales was recently fixed by plants. The rabbit’s respiration is only releasing carbon that was in the atmosphere a short time before.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-24 14:23:49

Not sure why you are having difficulties with this. The plant absorbs an atom of carbon; atmospheric CO2 minus one. The animal eats the plant and metabolizes the atom of carbon; atmospheric CO2 plus one.

minus one plus one = carbon neutral

 
Comment by Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-24 15:13:50

C3 plants fix the Carbon atom that is taken in as part of the respiratory process that absorbs CO2 molecule. It either puts the Carbon in to the ground or as part of its fibrous tissues.

Eventually, that carbon makes its way in to the ground.

Once there, according to some, that Carbon is turned in to petroleum-based products.

Man comes along and releases that carbon and adds it back in to the air as CO2 for plants to utilize once again.

CARBON NEUTRAL.

“Not sure why you are having difficulties with this.”

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-07-24 15:26:06

Zachriel,

I am not having any problems with this at all. I have shown your statement and premise to be false. It is clear you don;t know what you are talking about and just parrot ideas without understanding.

First you said the car was carbon neutral, now it isn’t. You claimed the plants couldn’t discern where the CO2 came from, now you claim they can and do.

I am sorry you got exposed here for a fraud, but in the end, you should learn from it.

But I doubt you will.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-24 17:29:48

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: Man comes along and releases that carbon and adds it back in to the air as CO2 for plants to utilize once again.

Over geological time scales, atmospheric CO2 varies considerably. As we pointed out above, there are a variety of mechanisms that both add and subtract from atmospheric CO2 over such periods. Of course, that has nothing to do with whether fossil fuels are having an effect on CO2 concentrations in the present day.

gitarcarver: First you said the car was carbon neutral, now it isn’t.

No, most cars are not carbon neutral, nor is that what we said. Here is your scenario:

gitarcarver: let’s take the example of a car putting out 20 lbs of CO2 per year. If the owner of the car installed plants that consumes 20 lbs of CO2 per year, no one would say the car is “carbon neutral.”

If you create an offset equal to the emissions, then it is considered carbon neutral, and we linked to a site that uses the term in exactly that manner. The net change in atmospheric CO2 is zero.

A similar example would be growing algae in giant vats to produce fuel, then burning the fuel in your car. That would also be considered carbon neutral. The net change in atmospheric CO2 is zero.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-07-24 19:41:54

No, your source did not back you up.

What you fail to understand is that neither the rabbit nor the car is “carbon neutral” as nether the car nor the rabbit by itself is able to change CO2 nor create”carbon offsets.”

By your own admission, it is only when either the car or the rabbit is part of a defined system in which their is another mechanism for converting CO2 that the defined system may be carbon neutral.

The rabbit is no different than the car in that both are CO2 producing machines – one totally mechanical and the other bio-mcehanical.

By themselves, neither are “carbon neutral.”

I have no idea why you won’t admit to that simple truth, but it is ckear that you are so wedded to an ideology that truth doesn’t matter to you.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-24 19:54:32

gitarcarver: By your own admission, it is only when either the car or the rabbit is part of a defined system in which their is another mechanism for converting CO2 that the defined system may be carbon neutral.

Um, that is what is meant by carbon neutral.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutrality

You have to consider the fuel source to determine carbon neutrality. With rabbits, it’s solar energy captured by plants.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-07-24 20:57:08

Once again, the rabbit is not carbon neutral by itself. Clearly you have not read or understand your own citation.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-24 21:09:10

We provided you the standard definition of carbon neutral. According to your very strained use of terminology, cars are carbon-neutral. They’re only carbon emitters when you add fuel to burn.

It doesn’t matter if you have one bunny or a million, there will be no net change in atmospheric CO2. That’s because the fuel for bunnies is solar energy captured by plants.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-07-24 22:05:22

No, you supplied a definition and then did not apply it to rabbits.

 
Comment by Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-24 23:53:39

It doesn’t matter if you have one bunny or a million, there will be no net change in atmospheric CO2. That’s because the fuel for bunnies is solar energy captured by plants.

Now we know that you all are complete idiots. All of you.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-25 07:16:04

gitarcarver: No, you supplied a definition and then did not apply it to rabbits.

Sure we did. And furthermore, even the very carbon of the rabbit itself was recently atmospheric CO2.

gitarcarver: All of you.

Plant: 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy → C6H12O6 + 6O2
Animal: C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-25 09:00:13

The last comment should have been attributed to Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-07-25 14:04:04

At this point in time Zachriel, we are tired of explaining to you that there is a difference between a rabbit as a system and a system containing both the rabbit and plants.

We bow and acknowledge not only your obstience but your entrenched ignorance.

Have a good day.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-25 14:29:35

gitarcarver: At this point in time Zachriel, we are tired of explaining to you that there is a difference between a rabbit as a system and a system containing both the rabbit and plants.

Yes, and according to your strained use of terminology, a car is carbon neutral.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2013-07-25 16:31:17

Yes,…..

So you agree there is a difference but won’t eamine what that difference means.

……. and according to your strained use of terminology, a car is carbon neutral.

What I said:

Comment by gitarcarver 2013-07-23 21:51:26

“…. no one would say the car is “carbon neutral.”

What you said:

Comment by Zachriel 2013-07-24 07:59:25

” Yes, that’s exactly what they would say” (the car is carbon neutral)

At this point in time, I am moving on.

Feel free to say what you want. Trust when I say I won’t read it.

Enjoy your cult.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-25 16:46:56

gitarcarver: …. no one would say the car is “carbon neutral.

Yes, that makes your position inconsistent. You want to separate the rabbit from its fuel, but not the gasoline-powered car. That’s clearly not how the term carbon neutral is used.

Saying that rabbits are carbon neutral means they don’t exhale any more carbon than is removed from the atmosphere by their fuel source. Indeed, a rabbit’s entire body is made from photosynthesizing organisms.

 
Comment by Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-25 16:49:02

Then so are we Zachriel. As well as anything that is produced using that logic.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-25 16:58:39

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: As well as anything that is produced using that logic.

Everything that is within the natural biosphere is carbon neutral (with a very few exceptions). Even traditional farming using horses and plows is essentially carbon neutral. That’s because horses are harnessed solar power. On the other hand, while fossil fuels have led to profound economic growth and prosperity, they also change the atmospheric concentration of CO2.

 
Comment by Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-25 21:06:52

And that good sirs, is why everyone knows your full of horse sh*t. all animals add CO2 to the atmosphere that wasn’t there just prior.

As well as cars and petroleum-burning machines.

However, if you are trying to claim that animals are carbon neutral (and thanks for again affirming that humans are carbon neutral and thus your whole cult is then moot), then so are cars. As cars burn previously sequestered carbon, they are also returning stored carbon back to the atmosphere in a similar way animals do. Animals burn food as fuel and expel the freed carbon. Cars burn their food as fuel and expel the freed carbon.

If you can’t see this, then you will not get one response ever again on this blog from the commentors.

 
Comment by Zachriel Subscribed to comments via email
2013-07-25 21:46:12

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: animals add CO2 to the atmosphere that wasn’t there just prior.

Typically, ingested within the last few days, from plants grown recently, so the net effect on atmospheric CO2 is zero.

Corrupted_White_Cracka_Gumballs: As cars burn previously sequestered carbon, they are also returning stored carbon back to the atmosphere in a similar way animals do

The difference , of course, is that fossil fuels have been sequestered for millions of years, so burning fossil fuels results in an increase in atmospheric CO2.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9578 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE