You seem to misunderstand the CO2 cycle.
You see, in an ideal world, the cycle is neutral. It runs at 100%.
IE, what gets created gets pumped back into the system.
We could create 4% of what's atmosphere, 50%, or 0.02%.
It doesnt matter, cause what matters is that what we create is NOT PART OF THE CYCLE. IT'S IN ADDITION TO THE CYCLE.
That's what causes the problems. We add CO2 without removing it, increasing hte overall concentration over time, increasing hte ability of hte atmosphere to trap heat over time.
Short version: you're full of shit.
Long version:
1: Nope. What you said is just gibberish covered bullshit, with a side of ignorance.
2: Ah yes! The "secret data set no one has ever seen" myth. Actually try a few dozen different and separate lines of evidence, each with multiple scientists studying it, each with multiple data sets, NONE OF IT SECRET.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
3: Nope. The models are good.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
No, temps have not stalled or declined.
No, you have nothing coherent, factual, or worthwhile to say.
Yes, you are an ignorant buffoon just spreading more BS.
the only thing false here is everything you spew.
Increased CO2 is NOT a response to global warming caused by something else.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
bullshit.
nothing you just stated is true.
Increased CO2 is NOT a response to global warming caused by something else.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Also, historically speaking, we haven't seen any periods where warming has caused mass famine and/or extinction
Ever since WSJ became part of the Fox noise/BS/disinformation machine, nothing the WSJ says is relevant.
If they say the sky is blue, I recommend checking first.
troll be trolling.
or troll needs to learn to read a graph:
http://static.skepticalscience...
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/...
Courtesy: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
and yet you missed the part where it rated it "false", and gave the background on it.
Although Vice-President Gore's phrasing might have been a bit clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet in the sense of having designed or implemented it, but rather that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings: the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone's thinking up or implementing an idea.
Emphasis added.
But a spirited defense of Gore's statement penned by Internet pioneers Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf (the latter often referred to as the "father of the Internet") in 2000 noted that "Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development" and that "No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution [to the Internet] over a longer period of time"
If President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while president, "took the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System," he would not have been the subject of dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he "invented" the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.
He was one of the early visionaries to see the potential of these projects.
He did secure the passage of key legislature (ie, they were his bills) that led to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
He is one of the key figures in its history, such that even the fathers of the internet acknowledge his role:
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/L...
You're confusion about what was actually predicted, doesnt make it reality.
The prediction are, and have been, that:
-Artcic sea ice will decrease (it is)
-Antarctic sea ice will increase (it is)
-Antarctic land ice will decrease (it is)
The two antarctica ones are linked. Which if you read the article, you owuld understand.
Who mods this garbage insightful?
1) It's not "completely" covered in ice.
2) You're misquoting Gore. The full statement he made is:
"Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. Seven years from now."
You and Mi, if you're not the same person, are two of the biggest liars and misinformers on this subject on this site.
Being higher than a record low is not "recovering".
Fox news...
Ya.....nope. At best, in court, it would be hearsay. As in "my friend said that jonny said that beth said..."
Here's what actual science has to say on the subject:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
ah yes.
"we got stuck in ice, therefore GW is not real"...
who keeps modding this fool informative?
wow are you an idiot.
Arctic ice has long been predicted to decrease. And it has been. We've already covered how you are wrong about it "increasing". It's not. YOu're wrong.
Antarctic SEA ice has long been predicted to increase. And it has been.
Antacrtic LAND ice has long been predicted to decrease. And it has been.
The two are connected.
The predictions HAVE BEEN materializing.
You have yet to post anything approaching a factual statement.
Your continued posts on the subject only serve to further expose your ignorance of the subject.
Neutrinos have bad breadth.
