"Mr Right" wrote
The greenhouse effect, if it exists at all, is a weak effect which is
easily dominated by natural cycles like ENSO and PDO.

Meanwhile during this very cool phase of the PDO, last year was still the
9th warmest year on record.

Ahahahahahahahahah..............

Mr. Right, like all KKKonservatives = MMMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRROOOOONNNNN

I agree that humans are emitting large amounts of CO2.

alt.global-warming,sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.sk eptic,alt.conspiracy
That may be so, but unfortunately irrelevant.

Says the Lying Schizophrenic.



There is an 800 year lag between temperatures and CO2.

And zero lag between CO2 and temperature.

That confuses you doesn't it? **** Sack.

The climate system has many inputs, some major and some minor. Push on
the system with a non-CO2 input and the climate system's orbit changes and
CO2 and the other feedbacks follow. Push on the climate system with CO2,
and it must necessarily lead, the orbit changes and the other feedbacks
follow.

wrote
The Medieval Warming Period (starting in 1000)
is causing an increase of CO2, and has been causing it
since 1800, even before the industrial revolution.

Ya, but it's the magic invisible CO2 that's released, and that only you
can see when you are in your exceptionally delusional state.

Oh by the way, what happened to your little ice age that you claim
troughed in 1600? 600 years after your warm period?

Ahahahahaha.... Poor Bhanwaram... Can't count.

But as always we can count on him being a MMMMMOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNN

wrote
Which part is a lie?

All of it... **** Sucker.

"V for Vendicar" m
wrote in message news


I agree that humans are emitting large amounts of CO2.

alt.global-warming,sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.sk eptic,alt.conspiracy
That may be so, but unfortunately irrelevant.

Says the Lying Schizophrenic.



There is an 800 year lag between temperatures and CO2.

And zero lag between CO2 and temperature.

ROTFLMAO


That confuses you doesn't it? **** Sack.

You confused yourself **** sack.


The climate system has many inputs, some major and some minor. Push
on the system with a non-CO2 input and the climate system's orbit
changes and CO2 and the other feedbacks follow. Push on the climate
system with CO2, and it must necessarily lead, the orbit changes and
the other feedbacks follow.

On Jan 20, 7:30*am, wrote:
Green Turtle wrote:
wrote in message
....
...or maybe he doesn't have any original research to present and is
just going to re-hash the usual Denialist bull****....
The above explains how the small change in the sun can result is a larger
change on earth due to climate amplifiers...

Just how does this negate the greenhouse effect of the massive amounts
of CO2 humans are emitting and the huge global warming anomaly of the
last half century?

Are you saying you can only cope with the idea of one single factor
affecting climate changes?

And, if co2 was such a big driver, then why from 1940 to 1970 during the
HUGE industrial boom when all that co2 was being output was the tempatures
dropping?

Solar shading caused by particulate emission. Humans caused that and
humans fixed it by reducing particulate emissions.
Are you seriously admitting you didn't know that?

* And, why do we now see temperatures going down if co2 was such the
huge main

big devil driver it made out to me?

We aren't seeing temperatures going down. You're quoting a denialist
fantasy.

Another problem with the argument is the wording: "why do we see ..
etc. ... if CO2 was such the huge main big devil driver it was made
out to be?"

My sympathies to the Denier who wrote this and left in typos - I leave
too many typos in my work.

But "big devil driver" is loaded language, because "devil" is almost
always loaded language. Responsible and serious climate scientists
don't think of atmospheric CO2 as a "devil driver," they think of it
as a factor in the global climate system that's out of balance.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 04:30:10 -0800, sandy.bloxs wrote:



Green Turtle wrote:

wrote in message
...

...or maybe he doesn't have any original research to present and is
just going to re-hash the usual Denialist bull****....

The above explains how the small change in the sun can result is a
larger change on earth due to climate amplifiers...

Just how does this negate the greenhouse effect of the massive amounts of
CO2 humans are emitting and the huge global warming anomaly of the last
half century?

Are you saying you can only cope with the idea of one single factor
affecting climate changes?

So are you claiming there are a number of factors other than CO2 that
significantly affect climate? If so, can you list them all?

And, if co2 was such a big driver, then why from 1940 to 1970 during
the HUGE industrial boom when all that co2 was being output was the
tempatures dropping?

Solar shading caused by particulate emission. Humans caused that and
humans fixed it by reducing particulate emissions. Are you seriously
admitting you didn't know that?

And, why do we now see temperatures going down if co2 was such the
huge main
big devil driver it made out to me?

We aren't seeing temperatures going down. You're quoting a denialist
fantasy.

Six years is a pretty long fantasy. But trends don't really matter in
chaotic systems anyway. All we can know for sure is that temperature will
go up until it starts down and then eventually go up again to repeat the
process. The timing is unknowable.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:54:37 -0800, bhanwaram wrote:

On Jan 20, 10:46Â*am, "marcodbeast" wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 20, 5:44 am, Mr Right wrote:

Just how does this negate the greenhouse effect of the massive
amounts
of CO2 humans are emitting and the huge global warming anomaly of
the
last half century?

I agree that humans are emitting large amounts of CO2.

That may be so, but unfortunately irrelevant.

There is an 800 year lag between temperatures and CO2.

The Medieval Warming Period (starting in 1000) is causing an increase
of CO2, and has been causing it since 1800, even before the industrial
revolution.

Â* A completely insane lie.

Which part is a lie?

1) There was no Medieval Warming Period?

2) There is no 800-year lag?

3) The industrial revolution was fully operational
in 1800 and lots of cars were spewing CO2?

4) CO2 increase did not start in 1800?

That's just his way of saying he's out of ammunition. You may as well
ignore him - he has no rebuttal and knows it.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:41:51 -0500, James wrote:


"V for Vendicar" m
wrote in message news


I agree that humans are emitting large amounts of CO2.

alt.global-warming,sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.sk eptic,alt.conspiracy
That may be so, but unfortunately irrelevant.

Says the Lying Schizophrenic.



There is an 800 year lag between temperatures and CO2.

And zero lag between CO2 and temperature.

ROTFLMAO


That confuses you doesn't it? **** Sack.

You confused yourself **** sack.

Actually, Scotty's always been that way. He'd have to improve several
steps to reach confused.


The climate system has many inputs, some major and some minor. Push
on the system with a non-CO2 input and the climate system's orbit
changes and CO2 and the other feedbacks follow. Push on the climate
system with CO2, and it must necessarily lead, the orbit changes and
the other feedbacks follow.

Here he doesn't realize he's referring only to models, not the actual
climate. A truly sad case.

And zero lag between CO2 and temperature.


"James" wrote
ROTFLMAO

Not zero? Then what is the delay between the emission of a molecule of CO2
and it's absorption of an IR photon? And what is the delay between the
absorption of that photon and the generation of heat?

These questions confuse you, don't they? **** Sack.

Here ****tard, I'll answer one of the questions for you....

Light carries momentum hence the absorption of any photon by a molecule
produces heat. The manifestation of heat is coincident with the absorption.

Now answer the first question, you pathetic MORON.