Australia See's the Light...

[Foxfyre]

No I don't think so Abraham. You just demonstrated a serious reading comprehension dysfunction. I prefer to believe it is that rather than to accuse you of deliberate dishonesty when you report what I posted.

 

[Papageorgio]

Human emit roughly 135 TIMES as much CO2 as all the world's volcanoes. While humans put out enough CO2 to fill the gas tanks in seven full size SUVS, the world's volcanoes would put out enough to fill one milk jug.

Got a link for that?

Hmmmmm........

Several. Try Google

Sorry can't find a reliable source.

 

[westwall]

When was CO2 shown to have zero effect on global temperatures?

When every "model" failed its projections against observation. Global temperatures remain within the margin of error for over 15 years and yet CO2 emissions have skyrocketed.

There is a correlation problem between CO2 and temperature. Leaving much skepticism as to whether or not CO2 drives temperatures at all. I'm inclined to agree that temperatures actually drive CO2 instead of vice versa.

And there is also research out there to compliment this assertion.

1) The effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is based on basic physics. It does not require models to support the assertion.
2) The only thing models have missed has been the recent change in the sequestration location of thermal energy. The ToA imbalance shows the Earth is still accumulating energy at a pace that has increased if anything.
3) NO model that does NOT assume the greenhouse effect can come anywhere near reproducing the climate's behavior over the last 150 years.

If you have research that refutes the greenhouse effect, let's see it.

No, the effect of CO2 is "theorized". It has not been proven in any way. The fact that observations don't agree with the computer models (which is what the theory is based on) and the very well reported fact that CO2 lags temperature increases by hundreds of years, very much puts the nail in the coffin of AGW theory.

You guys made extraordinary claims and were unable to support them with empirical data.

'Nuff said.

 

[Unkotare]

I heard that this prime minster hates boat people too.

Looks like someone that would post on stormfront!

Noomi, is racist against Indians. Maybe she could use stormfront.

She is racist against humans.

 

[Abraham3]

Got a link for that?

Hmmmmm........

Several. Try Google

Sorry can't find a reliable source.

Then that would be an epic papageorgio fail.

 

[Abraham3]

When every "model" failed its projections against observation. Global temperatures remain within the margin of error for over 15 years and yet CO2 emissions have skyrocketed.

There is a correlation problem between CO2 and temperature. Leaving much skepticism as to whether or not CO2 drives temperatures at all. I'm inclined to agree that temperatures actually drive CO2 instead of vice versa.

And there is also research out there to compliment this assertion.

1) The effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is based on basic physics. It does not require models to support the assertion.
2) The only thing models have missed has been the recent change in the sequestration location of thermal energy. The ToA imbalance shows the Earth is still accumulating energy at a pace that has increased if anything.
3) NO model that does NOT assume the greenhouse effect can come anywhere near reproducing the climate's behavior over the last 150 years.

If you have research that refutes the greenhouse effect, let's see it.

No, the effect of CO2 is "theorized". It has not been proven in any way. The fact that observations don't agree with the computer models (which is what the theory is based on) and the very well reported fact that CO2 lags temperature increases by hundreds of years, very much puts the nail in the coffin of AGW theory.

You guys made extraordinary claims and were unable to support them with empirical data.

Based on computer models? Really?

From Wikipedia's article on the Greenhouse Effect:

History

The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[12][13]
In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]
**********************************************************************
These models must have been run on Babbage's analytic engine. Can't have been particularly fine-grained.

I didn't say AGW - though it comes close to being provable by basic principle and direct measurement. I said our knowledge regarding the absorption of IR by CO2 and other greenhouse gases was founded on basic physics.

And don't make yourself look more the idiot than you already do and come to us talking about mandating proof in the natural sciences.

Any source to which you care to refer will agree that increasing temperature will increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere. But this is not a reason for celebration, it is a reason for increased concern. You're returning to an argument from decades back that didn't work then and will work even less well now. That increased temperature releases CO2 into the atmosphere does not refute CO2's greenhouse nature. Releasing CO2 into the atmosphere - which we have done by the teratonnes - increases global temperature.

If you want to argue that the excess CO2 in the atmosphere was released by heating from some other cause, you have three hurdles to clear:

1) what caused the heating that began with the Industrial Revolution

2) why does the isotopic signature of the excess CO2 clearly indicate it came from the combustion of fossil fuel

3) what happened to the trillions of tons of CO2 produced by the fossil fuel we have burned since the Industrial Revolution?

I'll be waiting for answers to those three questions. And don't come talking to us about the last 15 years unless you ALSO have an explanation for the unchanged ToA imbalance.

 

[Papageorgio]

Several. Try Google

Sorry can't find a reliable source.

Then that would be an epic papageorgio fail.

Nah, it's just more of your laziness.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I hope he builds 50 nuclear plants.

That would do more to curve co2 emissions!

I hope he builds one right across the street from noomi.

 

[flacaltenn]

Uhh....

o Ethanol is a stupid initiative
o Ethanol is genuinely hurting people
o Ethanol is possibly doing more harm than good
o Alternative energy sources are expensive except where they are practical and efficient
o The government should not hinder us from maximizing our exploitation of natural resources (conservation BAD)
o We can use oil and natural gas as fast as we like because SOMETHING will turn up

Wow...

Eco-whacks tend to screw up like this a lot.. It's not an isolated example of bitchin and moaning for something and then AFTER THEY WARNED OF CONSEQUENCES, and the damage is done -- they admit it was not a great idea..

See Large HydroElectric for instance. Or the MTBE mandate. Or Biomass conversion in Great Britain. Guaranteed, that list of mea culpas is gonna grow quickly in the next decade. CFL bulbs are soon gonna make the list.

Alternatives to oil and nat gas HAVE turned up.. It's just that govt funding of OTHER approaches has hinder the progress.

WTF are YOU talking about? The bulleted points all came from Foxfyre's post. I was pointing out the incredible density of contradictions she had reached.

The ethanol comments of course.. And youre still lying about the 97% propaganda I see.

No clear thinking person believes that study is worth a crqp. Doesnt even say what you say it says.. Propaganda so bad ------ u have to lie about.

 

[westwall]

1) The effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is based on basic physics. It does not require models to support the assertion.
2) The only thing models have missed has been the recent change in the sequestration location of thermal energy. The ToA imbalance shows the Earth is still accumulating energy at a pace that has increased if anything.
3) NO model that does NOT assume the greenhouse effect can come anywhere near reproducing the climate's behavior over the last 150 years.

If you have research that refutes the greenhouse effect, let's see it.

No, the effect of CO2 is "theorized". It has not been proven in any way. The fact that observations don't agree with the computer models (which is what the theory is based on) and the very well reported fact that CO2 lags temperature increases by hundreds of years, very much puts the nail in the coffin of AGW theory.

You guys made extraordinary claims and were unable to support them with empirical data.

Based on computer models? Really?

From Wikipedia's article on the Greenhouse Effect:

History

The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[12][13]
In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]
**********************************************************************
These models must have been run on Babbage's analytic engine. Can't have been particularly fine-grained.

I didn't say AGW - though it comes close to being provable by basic principle and direct measurement. I said our knowledge regarding the absorption of IR by CO2 and other greenhouse gases was founded on basic physics.

And don't make yourself look more the idiot than you already do and come to us talking about mandating proof in the natural sciences.

Any source to which you care to refer will agree that increasing temperature will increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere. But this is not a reason for celebration, it is a reason for increased concern. You're returning to an argument from decades back that didn't work then and will work even less well now. That increased temperature releases CO2 into the atmosphere does not refute CO2's greenhouse nature. Releasing CO2 into the atmosphere - which we have done by the teratonnes - increases global temperature.

If you want to argue that the excess CO2 in the atmosphere was released by heating from some other cause, you have three hurdles to clear:

1) what caused the heating that began with the Industrial Revolution

2) why does the isotopic signature of the excess CO2 clearly indicate it came from the combustion of fossil fuel

3) what happened to the trillions of tons of CO2 produced by the fossil fuel we have burned since the Industrial Revolution?

I'll be waiting for answers to those three questions. And don't come talking to us about the last 15 years unless you ALSO have an explanation for the unchanged ToA imbalance.

You're not very good at reading comprehension are you? I stated the theory of "AGW" has been proven false. That CO2 is a GHG is factual. That man has any effect on the global temp is the question and that question has been put to bed and the answer is "NO". AGW theory was based almost entirely on computer models.

Those models have been shown to be fatally flawed, that means their results are likewise fatally flawed. In other words, any model which has a built in bias (which they ALL do) is useless. End of story.

As I stated, you guys put forth the theory that mans paltry contribution of 5% of the Earths CO2 budget was the 'straw that broke the camels back' and empirical observations have shown that theory to be toast.

Time for you catastrophists to move on to something else. The rest of the world has, the IPCC is beginning to collapse under the weight of its silliness and willful ignorance, and outright suppression, of the scientific data that has been pouring in for the last decade.

 

[Abraham3]

From where do you think Fourier, Pouillet, Tyndall and Arrhenius thought the CO2 was coming?

 

[Abraham3]

And youre still lying about the 97% propaganda I see.

It's not a wise thing to call a man a liar without far better proof than you've got in your hands; when you know for a fact that the accusation makes you the one speaking dishonestly.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Abbot would make a good tea partier here in America

 

[flacaltenn]

And youre still lying about the 97% propaganda I see.

It's not a wise thing to call a man a liar without far better proof than you've got in your hands; when you know for a fact that the accusation makes you the one speaking dishonestly.

Why you ARE lying when you state that 97% represents ALL climate scientists as you did.

You told me not 2 days ago that those slimeballs C&N who wrote that POS even qualified their conclusion as "97% of Climate Scientists WHO EXPRESSED AN OPINION" (in their journal work). And that the BULK of the work was deemed by them to "express no opinion".. Whereupon --- I made sure you knew it would be immoral to continue to assert that the POS in question represented "ALL climate scientists".. But yet -- you continue to do their devious bidding and purposely MISREPRESENT their work. Which is what those 2 felons EXPECTED you to do when they CONCEIVED the evil plan..

As at Post #73 when you said...

AGW is not a religion. I have no religion. I bet you do, but I won't get into that. AGW is supported by enough evidence to have garnered acceptance by 97% of all active climate scientists.

Tsk.. Tsk... Tsk... Tsk...

What part of that is in dispute bud? And if it IS in dispute -- let's take this BACK to the appropriate place so you don't impose a DUMP on yet another thread with this issue of yours..

 

[Abraham3]

You're making me think you need professional psychiatric care.

First, as I've stated repeatedly now, Cook and Nuccitelli's work is the FIFTH survey to find support for AGW among climate scientists above 90%. Second, the set of all papers that express an opinion regarding AGW is a valid sample of all climate scientists working on - and therefore knowledgeable of - global warming.

Your opinion of your own worth and the worth of your posts here REALLY needs a reality check.

 

[lakeview]

You're making me think you need professional psychiatric care.

First, as I've stated repeatedly now, Cook and Nuccitelli's work is the FIFTH survey to find support for AGW among climate scientists above 90%. Second, the set of all papers that express an opinion regarding AGW is a valid sample of all climate scientists working on - and therefore knowledgeable of - global warming.

Your opinion of your own worth and the worth of your posts here REALLY needs a reality check.

Interesting wording. You just verified for me that what flacaltenn said was indeed accurate.

 

[Abraham3]

Good for you.

 

[lakeview]

Let me ask you a question, why would scientists who have an opinion to express choose the option 'No Opinion'?

 

[william the wie]

You keep trying to run that line ("lack of empirical evidence"). Even the deniers aren't following you on that one.

Where is the carbolic acid creation/destruction model for ice core samples? CO2 + H2O + energy = carbolic acid. Water and carbolic acid sink whereas CO2 rises so more recent samples will always contain more CO2 than ice subject to greater compressive heating lower down. I have never heard of this chemical process being mentioned in discussions of ice core sample analysis much less the margin of error for its actions. That is kind of bad.

 

[Abraham3]

Or it's a misunderstanding on your part. Do you actually think the world's chemists are unaware of such factors?