CO2 is used to keep things COLD

[elektra]

The laws of physics DO say man is causing warming.

That is a lie, go ahead and explain, explain as in do not use google to give us some bullshit link.

IN YOUR OWN WORDS, go!

 

[elektra]

And the whole of the American Institute of Physics says otherwise. Now who to believer, a psychologist with basically little science education, or physicists concerning the laws of physics.

AIP, wow Old Crock, the AIP uses the word PHYSICS, they must be really smart, huh.

They actually do not do Science though, do they. At best, they publish other people's stuff. But who exactly do you speak of old crock, what are their names, or is AIP all we need to believe in to follow your religion of AGW.

 

[Boss]

And the whole of the American Institute of Physics says otherwise.

This is just basic LIES 101.

AIP is a 501(c) organization founded in the '30s under FDR to encourage physics. They have about two dozen member organizations and few dozen more affiliated organizations in various specialties of science. They publish some science journals, which specifically, and from a purely ethical standpoint, eliminates the ability of their organization to formally give an opinion.

People who write articles published in their journals may hold a particular view, this does not reflect the views of AIP or any of it's member organizations. But what the butt-hurt liberals do is read some op-ed written by one of their science geek buddies, and then claim "the whole of AIP" supports the clown. It's just simply not true.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[BULLDOG]

The laws of physics DO say man is causing warming.

No, I assure you, they do not.

Damn boss, you need to let it go.
TubeChop - Disney s Frozen 00 14

 

[Boss]

The laws of physics DO say man is causing warming.

No, I assure you, they do not.

Damn boss, you need to let it go.
TubeChop - Disney s Frozen 00 14

I'll be glad to let it go as soon as we stop this attempt to shake down capitalists for something that isn't happening. Until then, you're going to have me in your face with the thermometer readings from the last quarter century, showing you there is no "warming" happening.

Physics does not say man is causing global warming. Physics doesn't speak, it's a discipline of science and it doesn't draw conclusions on things, it continues to explore probability. MAN draws conclusions. MAN decides that "physics has spoken" when it hasn't. Once you have uttered the phrase: "Science has concluded..." then whatever is to follow is forever divorced from science because it is a faith. Science can't do anything with something concluded and believed as faith.

 

[Old Rocks]

And the whole of the American Institute of Physics says otherwise.

This is just basic LIES 101.

AIP is a 501(c) organization founded in the '30s under FDR to encourage physics. They have about two dozen member organizations and few dozen more affiliated organizations in various specialties of science. They publish some science journals, which specifically, and from a purely ethical standpoint, eliminates the ability of their organization to formally give an opinion.

People who write articles published in their journals may hold a particular view, this does not reflect the views of AIP or any of it's member organizations. But what the butt-hurt liberals do is read some op-ed written by one of their science geek buddies, and then claim "the whole of AIP" supports the clown. It's just simply not true.

LOL. Well, Mr. Psychologist, you just graduated from skeptic to liar. And demonstrated that you are a 'Conservative' fruitloop that knows nothing of the scientific community.

The American Geophyisical Union is a member of the AIP, now here is where you can see what their evidence, not opinion, is on this matter.

 

[Old Rocks]

My, my, another lying dumb fuck. No, we are sure of this because of all the scientists that are presenting evidence for it, and the lack of scientists presenting evidence that this is not occurring.

 

[Old Rocks]

The laws of physics DO say man is causing warming.

No, I assure you, they do not.

Damn boss, you need to let it go.
TubeChop - Disney s Frozen 00 14

I'll be glad to let it go as soon as we stop this attempt to shake down capitalists for something that isn't happening. Until then, you're going to have me in your face with the thermometer readings from the last quarter century, showing you there is no "warming" happening.

Physics does not say man is causing global warming. Physics doesn't speak, it's a discipline of science and it doesn't draw conclusions on things, it continues to explore probability. MAN draws conclusions. MAN decides that "physics has spoken" when it hasn't. Once you have uttered the phrase: "Science has concluded..." then whatever is to follow is forever divorced from science because it is a faith. Science can't do anything with something concluded and believed as faith.

My,my, you are so full of shit your eyes have turned brown. I have concluded from scientific observations that if you jump out that window on the 100th floor of that building that you are going to hit the ground at sufficient speed to end your days. Not only that, I have concluded that I can tell you within a few mph the speed at which you will hit the ground. Simple physics.

And the simple physics of the absorption spectra of the GHGs states that adding them to the atmosphere will drive up the temperature here on Earth. Observation from paleontological data confirms that physics. The geological record has many periods where a rapid change in GHGs in the atmosphere, up or down, created rapid temperature changes. Many times, these were periods of extinction.

Your understanding of what science is is ridicoulous. According to what you just posted we obviously cannot use science for any kind of engineering, because that would involve basing a conclusion on the science.

 

[Old Rocks]

The laws of physics DO say man is causing warming.

That is a lie, go ahead and explain, explain as in do not use google to give us some bullshit link.

IN YOUR OWN WORDS, go!

Absorption spectra of GHGs

 

[Vigilante]

My, my, another lying dumb fuck. No, we are sure of this because of all the scientists that are presenting evidence for it, and the lack of scientists presenting evidence that this is not occurring.

Bullshit!

Climate scientists told to cover up the fact that the Earth s temperature hasn t risen for the last 15 years Daily Mail Online

 

[Boss]

Physics does not say man is causing global warming. Physics doesn't speak, it's a discipline of science and it doesn't draw conclusions on things, it continues to explore probability. MAN draws conclusions. MAN decides that "physics has spoken" when it hasn't. Once you have uttered the phrase: "Science has concluded..." then whatever is to follow is forever divorced from science because it is a faith. Science can't do anything with something concluded and believed as faith.

My,my, you are so full of shit your eyes have turned brown. I have concluded from scientific observations that if you jump out that window on the 100th floor of that building that you are going to hit the ground at sufficient speed to end your days. Not only that, I have concluded that I can tell you within a few mph the speed at which you will hit the ground. Simple physics.

And this illustrates how utterly foolish and stupid you are to draw conclusions. I could indeed jump out of that 100th floor window and land safely on the ground by using a wind foil of some kind, like a hang glider or parachute. Ooops! Your conclusion was absolutely WRONG!

Again, try to grasp the point in that little pea-sized brain... Science is what? The observation and investigation of the physical universe. Once you have drawn a conclusion, you are no longer investigating or studying observation, you have made up your mind on a conclusion. Science is done. You've stopped practicing science the instant you made your conclusion, it has no other function, can do nothing else. You are now practicing FAITH.

And the simple physics of the absorption spectra of the GHGs states that adding them to the atmosphere will drive up the temperature here on Earth. Observation from paleontological data confirms that physics. The geological record has many periods where a rapid change in GHGs in the atmosphere, up or down, created rapid temperature changes. Many times, these were periods of extinction.

Your understanding of what science is is ridicoulous. According to what you just posted we obviously cannot use science for any kind of engineering, because that would involve basing a conclusion on the science.

Simple physics states no such thing. You are making assumptions and drawing conclusions based on a small amount of scientific data while disregarding all other scientific data present and future. Previous mass extinction events had absolutely nothing to do with man-made GHGs because man wasn't here yet. In fact, I will dispute that you can prove such events were caused by GHGs at all. In the case of the mass extinction event which wiped out the dinosaurs, scientists believe this was the result of a large meteor hitting the planet near the Yucatan Peninsula. Debris from that impact filled the atmosphere, blocking the sun and heat, causing years of sub-freezing temperatures. By the way, that is not a conclusion, it's only what scientists believe happened.

I've never said that man can't base a conclusion on science. I said you are no longer practicing science once you've drawn a conclusion. Engineers are not constructing buildings as science projects to observe whether or not principles of physics are true. We don't design an airplane based on theory and then put passengers on it saying... well science says it should fly! We try the idea first and observe whether it does or doesn't work. We build models, test them in various conditions, not because we don't believe the science which suggests the plane should fly, but because we can't jump to conclusions when human lives are involved. Sometimes, we may even conclude the design is sound only to find out later, after some horrific crash, that the science was flawed, there was a factor we didn't calculate or anticipate.

Your understanding of science is dangerous and potentially detrimental to mankind. You tend to adopt faith in science that hasn't concluded anything. You tend to draw false conclusions based on limited science theory which has not been observed. Once you've adopted your faith, you are no different than the biggest bible-thumping theocrat. You've abandoned science through your hubris and arrogance. It is precisely this attitude which has hindered scientific discovery in the past. In short, you are a mouth-breathing knuckle-dragger who doesn't understand what science is.

 

[mamooth]

Boss, we directly measure the heat flux of the atmosphere. More heat goes in than out.

We also see the backradiation increasing, a smoking gun that greenhouse gases are the cause.

The directly measured evidence says human-caused global warming is a fact.

You fail hard at the science, and your cult has ordered you to keep failing, so that's what you'll do. You're emotionally incapable of admitting you were fooled, so you will continue to be totally wrong, forever.

 

[elektra]

The laws of physics DO say man is causing warming.

That is a lie, go ahead and explain, explain as in do not use google to give us some bullshit link.

IN YOUR OWN WORDS, go!

Absorption spectra of GHGs

old crock, you posted that CO2 vibrates in the "ether". How about explaining that before you dig a deeper hole.

 

[Boss]

Boss, we directly measure the heat flux of the atmosphere. More heat goes in than out.

We also see the backradiation increasing, a smoking gun that greenhouse gases are the cause.

The directly measured evidence says human-caused global warming is a fact.

You fail hard at the science, and your cult has ordered you to keep failing, so that's what you'll do. You're emotionally incapable of admitting you were fooled, so you will continue to be totally wrong, forever.

The directly measured evidence says human-caused global warming is a fact.
NONSENSE!

You didn't seem to like my previous graph which showed there is no warming happening, maybe you'll appreciate this one more...

Src: The European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA)
Multinational European project for deep ice core drilling in Antarctica.

Here is the graph which shows both the average global temp as well as CO2 concentration and dust, over the course of the last 500k years. As we can clearly see, there have been periods of warming and cooling, and there have also been periods of high and low CO2 in the atmosphere. Curiously, we are currently at about the same exact levels from 500k years ago.

Now, I can hardly believe the evil Koch brothers were 'polluting' the atmosphere with evil CO2 back 500k years ago. It's because it happens to be 499.5 thousand years before human industrialization. Despite the fact there were no liberal socialist pinheads screaming about the climate 500k years ago, the CO2 level managed to reduce itself to 180ppm. Then, about 350k years ago, (or 349.5k years before human industrialization) the CO2 levels spiked again, this time to near 300ppm. Again it does this 240k and 140k years ago... yet, no Kochs churning out evil man-made CO2... humans are still thousands and thousands of years from industrialization.

So now that we can see the sky certainly isn't falling and we are not in the midst of some unprecedented and catastrophic global warming or dangerous levels of CO2 in our atmosphere, let's look at a smaller segment of the timeline and see what we can observe...

Now this chart covers your evil "robber baron" times through the wicked Koch brothers and greedy capitalism. The black line represents carbon dioxide levels, mind you, the chart makes no determination on where the increase comes from, it's just showing us the raw data of how much there was in the atmosphere. We can clearly see the black line spike upward. Now look at the purple line... that is the average temps... they simply are not rising with the increased CO2 level. In fact, the trend since the most recent natural warming event seems to be cooling.

RUH ROH!

 

[Old Rocks]

Incredible. And you claim a degree. No, the present CO2 level is not the 280+ ppm shown on the graph, it is 400 ppm. It has not been that high for several million years.

What Does This Number Mean The Keeling Curve

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, natural climate variations caused atmospheric CO2 to vary between about 200 ppm during ice ages and 300 ppm during the warmer periods between ice ages. At the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, around the year 1780, the CO2 concentration was about 280 ppm, so CO2 had already risen by around 40 ppm before Keeling began his measurements. Anyone who has breathed air with less than 300 ppm CO2 is now over 100 years old! An even longer but much less accurate record of atmospheric CO2 can be obtained using other geochemical methods. These suggest that the last time atmospheric CO2 was over 400 ppm was at least as far back as the Pliocene, three to five million years ago, before humans roamed the earth and when the climate was considerably warmer than today.
.

 

[Old Rocks]

The laws of physics DO say man is causing warming.

That is a lie, go ahead and explain, explain as in do not use google to give us some bullshit link.

IN YOUR OWN WORDS, go!

Absorption spectra of GHGs

old crock, you posted that CO2 vibrates in the "ether". How about explaining that before you dig a deeper hole.

So that is how you interpret "absorption spectra of GHGs". LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

Physics does not say man is causing global warming. Physics doesn't speak, it's a discipline of science and it doesn't draw conclusions on things, it continues to explore probability. MAN draws conclusions. MAN decides that "physics has spoken" when it hasn't. Once you have uttered the phrase: "Science has concluded..." then whatever is to follow is forever divorced from science because it is a faith. Science can't do anything with something concluded and believed as faith.

My,my, you are so full of shit your eyes have turned brown. I have concluded from scientific observations that if you jump out that window on the 100th floor of that building that you are going to hit the ground at sufficient speed to end your days. Not only that, I have concluded that I can tell you within a few mph the speed at which you will hit the ground. Simple physics.

And this illustrates how utterly foolish and stupid you are to draw conclusions. I could indeed jump out of that 100th floor window and land safely on the ground by using a wind foil of some kind, like a hang glider or parachute. Ooops! Your conclusion was absolutely WRONG!

Again, try to grasp the point in that little pea-sized brain... Science is what? The observation and investigation of the physical universe. Once you have drawn a conclusion, you are no longer investigating or studying observation, you have made up your mind on a conclusion. Science is done. You've stopped practicing science the instant you made your conclusion, it has no other function, can do nothing else. You are now practicing FAITH.

And the simple physics of the absorption spectra of the GHGs states that adding them to the atmosphere will drive up the temperature here on Earth. Observation from paleontological data confirms that physics. The geological record has many periods where a rapid change in GHGs in the atmosphere, up or down, created rapid temperature changes. Many times, these were periods of extinction.

Your understanding of what science is is ridicoulous. According to what you just posted we obviously cannot use science for any kind of engineering, because that would involve basing a conclusion on the science.

Simple physics states no such thing. You are making assumptions and drawing conclusions based on a small amount of scientific data while disregarding all other scientific data present and future. Previous mass extinction events had absolutely nothing to do with man-made GHGs because man wasn't here yet. In fact, I will dispute that you can prove such events were caused by GHGs at all. In the case of the mass extinction event which wiped out the dinosaurs, scientists believe this was the result of a large meteor hitting the planet near the Yucatan Peninsula. Debris from that impact filled the atmosphere, blocking the sun and heat, causing years of sub-freezing temperatures. By the way, that is not a conclusion, it's only what scientists believe happened.

I've never said that man can't base a conclusion on science. I said you are no longer practicing science once you've drawn a conclusion. Engineers are not constructing buildings as science projects to observe whether or not principles of physics are true. We don't design an airplane based on theory and then put passengers on it saying... well science says it should fly! We try the idea first and observe whether it does or doesn't work. We build models, test them in various conditions, not because we don't believe the science which suggests the plane should fly, but because we can't jump to conclusions when human lives are involved. Sometimes, we may even conclude the design is sound only to find out later, after some horrific crash, that the science was flawed, there was a factor we didn't calculate or anticipate.

Your understanding of science is dangerous and potentially detrimental to mankind. You tend to adopt faith in science that hasn't concluded anything. You tend to draw false conclusions based on limited science theory which has not been observed. Once you've adopted your faith, you are no different than the biggest bible-thumping theocrat. You've abandoned science through your hubris and arrogance. It is precisely this attitude which has hindered scientific discovery in the past. In short, you are a mouth-breathing knuckle-dragger who doesn't understand what science is.

δ13Corg chemostratigraphy of the Permian‐Triassic boundary in the Maitai Group, New Zealand: Evidence for high‐latitudinal methane release

Download full text
Free access
DOI:
10.1080/00288306.2000.9514868
E. S. Krulla, G. J. Retallackb, H. J. Campbellc & G. L. Lyonc
pages 21-32

Publishing models and article dates explained

• Received: 18 Dec 1998
• Accepted: 14 Sep 1999
• Published online: 23 Mar 2010

Abstract
Carbon isotopic studies from marine organic matter of the Permian‐Triassic Maitai Group, New Zealand, reveal a significant δ13Corg shift toward more negative values within the Little Ben Sandstone Formation. These isotopic data chemostratigraphically define the previously debated position of the Permian‐Triassic boundary in the Maitai Group. The Permian‐Triassic record of the Maitai Group is also important because of its high paleolatitudinal setting and the deposition at intermediate depths in the ocean (c. 400 m) within a volcanic arc‐related basin. Marine Permian‐Triassic strata deposited at water depths deeper than shelf areas are rare. High latitude Permian‐Triassic boundary sections document a significantly larger isotopic offset across the boundary compared with lower latitude settings.

Carbon isotopic values decrease rapidly by an average of 7%0 from homogeneous values (x ‐25%0) in the Tramway and lower Little Ben Sandstone Formation to highly fluctuating and very depleted values (x ‐32%0) within the Little Ben Sandstone Formation. The lowermost Big Ben and Tramway Formations are considered to be Permian in age, based on their homogeneous and comparably heavier carbon isotopic values and supported by fossil atomo‐desmatinid bivalves. Based on the distinct δ13Corg excursion toward negative values and the concurrent onset of strong isotopic fluctuations, the Permian‐Triassic boundary is placed in the lower half of the Little Ben Sandstone Formation.

Very depleted δ13C values in the Little Ben Sandstone Formation of‐38%0 indicate a contribution from isotopically light methane. A possible methane source is clathrates, released by large submarine slides or warming‐induced melting of permafrost. The Little Ben Sandstone Formation has been interpreted as a massive event deposit from a submarine slide (Landis 1980). This hypothesised methane release could have been in part responsible for the larger Permian‐Triassic isotopic shift in high latitudes compared with low latitudes because large volumes of clathrates are trapped in continental shelves and high‐latitude permafrost.

OK, Mr. degreed Psychologist, that is how you present evidence. You do some research and cite papers from scientists that study in that discipline. Amazing you finished college without learning that.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now there are a many more papers confirming the very rapid rise during the PT Extinction Event. Very easy to find, just use Google Scholar, and put in "Evidence for the increase of GHGs during the PT Extinction Event". What a shame that an old millwright has to teach this to a supposedly educated man.

 

[Boss]

Ooo... lots of fancy symbols and high-tech words and more papers to view!

Look dummy, I gave you raw data from ice core samples from the past 500k years. They don't lie.

It really doesn't matter if we are at 300ppm or 500ppm or even 600ppm, the average temperature is not increasing with larger CO2 concentrations. In fact, it seems to be cooling.

So your whole entire argument is a failure to start with.