Proof of AGW fraud

[BlindBoo]

Well duh, sure we do, we breathe.

Breathing doesn't increase the CO2 concentration. Life is part of the carbon cycle. Burning long sequestered carbon as fuel is not part of that cycle.

 

[RealDave]

Dave,

you ignored my post in reply to a post you made, maybe you will reply to this one?

How much of the IR spectrum does CO2 actually absorb in?

I don't care. It ks not relevant to the discussion at hand. CO2 levels are up, man is a reason, & this is making temperatures rie.

THIS is important.

 

[jc456]

Are you under the impression that was science? If so, I see how you came to be such a dupe. I asked for some actual science to support your claims and that is really the best you can do? What a doofus...

Everything that you need has already been provided. YOU choose to deny and that is your burden.

Sorry but nothing has been provided except unsupportable opinions...thus far, I am the only one who has provided any actual peer reviewed, published science and none of you wackos has provided anything like actual science stating otherwise...let me guess, you believe your opinion is actual science...what a dupe...

Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

So, just how do natural causes cause CO2 to spike to 410+ppm when they have not ever just naturally exceeded 300ppm in the last 400,000 years?

dude, you keep evading the question of answering why the atmosphere had twice to three times CO2 pre man? why?

Dude,. it was answered several times.

what post number?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Dave,

you ignored my post in reply to a post you made, maybe you will reply to this one?

How much of the IR spectrum does CO2 actually absorb in?

I don't care. It ks not relevant to the discussion at hand. CO2 levels are up, man is a reason, & this is making temperatures rie.

THIS is important.

Really you are going continue to ignore evidence that CO2 has a very small presence in the energy budget?

My question is actually highly relevant to the debate:

How much of the IR spectrum does CO2 actually absorb in?

Why aren't going you answer it?

You sound more and more like a propagandist every day....

 

[BlindBoo]

Dave,

you ignored my post in reply to a post you made, maybe you will reply to this one?

How much of the IR spectrum does CO2 actually absorb in?

I don't care. It ks not relevant to the discussion at hand. CO2 levels are up, man is a reason, & this is making temperatures rie.

THIS is important.

But the small amount of warming that can be attributed to man is still within the margin of natural variability. There is little conclusive evidence that this small amount of warming so far has changed any major weather patterns or caused a massive increases in storm strength or frequency. Not saying there isn't any influence, they just can't be measured yet.

 

[SSDD]

How do we know? Because we can check the other sources & see that have not increased to any extent to cause this current rise.

Really? We know that termites produce more CO2 than we do...how might we determine whether or not there has been an increase or a decrease in termite CO2 production? We know that decay of organic materials release CO2...how might we measure the amount of CO2 being produced by organic decay in any given year? We know that the main source of CO2 in the atmosphere is the ocean...how might we determine whether or not the amount of CO2 from the ocean has increased or decreased in any given year? We now know that we have grossly underestimated the amount of CO2 being emitted by undersea volcanoes...the number of undersea vents and volcanoes, according to science is somewhere between a few hundred thousand and a million...so which is it? A few hundred thousand or more than a million?...and how might we determine how much is actually being emitted? And how might we determine how much that amount varies from year to year?

Clearly you don't have a clue, but I would be interested in hearing how you think we might calculate any of the above with anything like a reasonable degree of accuracy.

I suspect that if we had this monstrous termite explosion, we would be aware of it. Insurance companies would be raising the rates & Terminex stock would be going through the roof.

Actually, those things are studied & yes we would know,

Are you claiming the number of underseas eruptions have increased

We pretty much know.

You suspect? You think? Do you think all termites, even a substantial percentage of termites live in houses? Are you really that ignorant?

And if those things have been studied, by all means, lets see the science...you keep making claim after claim after claim but don't seem to be able to post up even the first bit of actual science to support any of them.

Gee, so
ince you claimed this termite explosion was so great to cause the current rise in CO2 levels, I figured it would be where people live & not in some isolated location.

Clearly you don't know jack about termites....most termites live where people don't...they are one of the driving forces behind organic decay...Have you ever actually researched anything or do you live by unsupportable opinion alone?

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...you have been fed a bill of goods and apparently you gobbled it up. The fact is that natural sources provide the same isotopes as fossil fuels because fossil fuels, are in fact, natural sources...you were lied to ...

What the fuick does the isotopes have to do with it???????? It has to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The lack of knowledge is astounding...do you ever read anything even resembling science? Even though the whole isotope claim is falling flat, for a while it was important to the warmer argument till it was found out that there are plenty of natural sources of CO2 which have the same isotope signature as the CO2 produced by bringing fossil fuels...all those measurements thought to be measuring our CO2 were just measuring CO2 with no way to distinguish ours from that coming from natural sources...

My point, Mr Science id that the isotopes don't matter when it comes to the greenhouse effect. They don't matter in the fact that the CO2 concentration is higher. It does not matter to the future effects of AGW.

Second, you are 100% wrong on your analysis. You know it. Quit being dishonest.

You are either dishonest or too fucking stupid to get that it is not if man produces more CO2 than natural causes or not. What matters is the man's addition throuigh emissions pushed us past the point where the Earth can balance the CO2 concentrations and drive the rise.

You keep posting your bullshit. But it is just bullshit.

Will you finally just STFU.

There is no AGW...There has never been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured,quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...you have been duped and it is sad.

You are, without a doubt, the biggest fool here.

I'm sticking with NASA.

Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Again...which part of that steaming pile you linked to do you believe is observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

What's the matter? is it that you don't want to admit that there is no such evidence there or is it that you wouldn't know what observed measured evidence looked like if it bit you in the ass?

 

[SSDD]

nothing. ever hear of an ice age? we're supposed to be coming out of one. as we do, the oceans release CO2. that is why CO2 follows temps. as already proven to you all.

all you need to do is prove CO2 is bad.

The Ice Age that ended 11,700 years ago??? That one?

More CO2 => Heightened greenhouse effect => higher temnps

proven science.

Say what we are still coming out of the last ice age and no it's not proven science that more C02 = higher temps, once again the planet Mars atmosphere is over 95% C02

.

Actually, the greenhouse effect is proven science.

So how do plants & people make out on Mars.

Actually it isnt... there isn't the first empirical measurement of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...but do feel free to look for such measurements...maybe your failure to find any such measurements will clue you in to the pseudoscientific nature of climate alarmism.

Greenhouse effect is proven science.

So you keep saying...lets see the science that proves it...

I wager that no such science will be forthcoming because no such science exists..the greenhouse effect is still a hypothesis and a piss poor one at that. You really don't have even the first clue about this topic do you?

 

[SSDD]

Say what we are still coming out of the last ice age and no it's not proven science that more C02 = higher temps, once again the planet Mars atmosphere is over 95% C02

.

Actually, the greenhouse effect is proven science.

So how do plants & people make out on Mars.

You missing the Forrest from the trees?

Is Mars as hot as Venus with an atmosphere of 95% C02?

Mars has a much thionner atmosphere than Earth or Venus & is much further from the Sun.

You do know I just set you up right?



So now you claiming the Sun has an effect? How astute of you ....

Lol...you stupid.


.

The sun supplies the heat you stupid shit. So, if you are now going to claim solar cyclers, show me where the sun's radiance has increased.

The sun was at the peak of a solar cycle at the end of the 20th century when there was actual measurable warming...warming that didn't require heavy adjusment of the data merely to claim that this year or that year was the warmest eval by 100th of a degree...

then the sun began to grow quiet..and the pause began...and the sun continues to remain quite and the fact is that cooling has begun..

 

[SSDD]

Sorry but nothing has been provided except unsupportable opinions...thus far, I am the only one who has provided any actual peer reviewed, published science and none of you wackos has provided anything like actual science stating otherwise...let me guess, you believe your opinion is actual science...what a dupe...

Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

So, just how do natural causes cause CO2 to spike to 410+ppm when they have not ever just naturally exceeded 300ppm in the last 400,000 years?

First and foremost, there is no reliable proxy that can demonstrate that CO2 has not exceeded 400ppm in the past 400,000 years. CO2 trapped in ice is simply not a good enough proxy to make such a claim...so you fail right out of the gate. Sorry guy. Like I said, there is no actual science to support your claims.

And the fact that you believe that site is actual science is truly pathetic. Have you looked at it? Can you pick a single piece of observed, measured data out of that whole site that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? Go ahead and try....

I get it. NO Research ever done on the past climate is valid because there might be something that happened that we don't know about.

Therefore, we should call AGW "FAKE NEWS" and do nothing about it.

The mantra of the stupid, ignorant dumbass AGW deniers.

You keep talking about all the research but dont seem to be able to produce any to support your position...I dont have any problem providing actual research to support my position...why cant you?

I produced NASA. Yiou know, the people that study Climate Change?

You produced Shit.

You produced an opinion piece produced by nasa...which part of that do you believe was actual research, providing actual data and any real examination of the data? Is that sort of crap what passes for science in your mind? A piece produced, reviewed by, and published by the same people? Really? That is science in your mind?

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...you have been fed a bill of goods and apparently you gobbled it up. The fact is that natural sources provide the same isotopes as fossil fuels because fossil fuels, are in fact, natural sources...you were lied to ...

What the fuick does the isotopes have to do with it???????? It has to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The lack of knowledge is astounding...do you ever read anything even resembling science? Even though the whole isotope claim is falling flat, for a while it was important to the warmer argument till it was found out that there are plenty of natural sources of CO2 which have the same isotope signature as the CO2 produced by bringing fossil fuels...all those measurements thought to be measuring our CO2 were just measuring CO2 with no way to distinguish ours from that coming from natural sources...

My point, Mr Science id that the isotopes don't matter when it comes to the greenhouse effect. They don't matter in the fact that the CO2 concentration is higher. It does not matter to the future effects of AGW.

Second, you are 100% wrong on your analysis. You know it. Quit being dishonest.

You are either dishonest or too fucking stupid to get that it is not if man produces more CO2 than natural causes or not. What matters is the man's addition throuigh emissions pushed us past the point where the Earth can balance the CO2 concentrations and drive the rise.

You keep posting your bullshit. But it is just bullshit.

Will you finally just STFU.

There is no AGW...There has never been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured,quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...you have been duped and it is sad.

So you now think reposting helps?

Some poor souls require that a thing be told to them multiple times in order to grasp what is being said. Since there has never been any such paper published, exactly how is it that you came to think that AGW was proven science. Don't you think that if it were proven science, there would be at least one published paper in which the warming was measured, quantified and blamed on greenhouse gasses?...at least one paper?

 

[jc456]

nothing. ever hear of an ice age? we're supposed to be coming out of one. as we do, the oceans release CO2. that is why CO2 follows temps. as already proven to you all.

all you need to do is prove CO2 is bad.

The Ice Age that ended 11,700 years ago??? That one?

More CO2 => Heightened greenhouse effect => higher temnps

proven science.

Say what we are still coming out of the last ice age and no it's not proven science that more C02 = higher temps, once again the planet Mars atmosphere is over 95% C02

.

Actually, the greenhouse effect is proven science.

So how do plants & people make out on Mars.

You missing the Forrest from the trees?

Is Mars as hot as Venus with an atmosphere of 95% C02?

Not much water vapor in Mar's atmosphere.

I thought CO2 caused water vapor? no?

 

[SSDD]

Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities.

"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?

Sorry guy...you have been fed a bill of goods and apparently you gobbled it up. The fact is that natural sources provide the same isotopes as fossil fuels because fossil fuels, are in fact, natural sources...you were lied to ...

Those natural sources didn't start producing extra CO2 beginning 150 years ago. I mean those volcanoes have been under the oceans a long time.

got any actual evidence of that or are you just expressing an unsupportable opinion?

The evidence of the relatively stable isotope ratio is found in the ice core samples.

Except that even now science is finding that gasses trapped in ice don't provide any meaningful information...science moves on and what was once thought to be true, turns out to have been not true at all...

 

[SSDD]

You seem not to be able to differentiate the difference between molecules striking a surface and energy transfer.

Nope it's the second law that doesn't distinguish the difference.
Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
You have to understand it from context that it doesn't refer to kinetic energy of a waterfall. That means the sentence is ambiguous the way it is. Fortunately the Hyperphysics site cleared that up.

.refer to the time you tried to claim that blowing cold air molecules against a warm wall was proof of energy radiating from cold to warm...what an idiot.

You are a shameless liar. I never said that. I said the molecules with random kinetic energy in a cold gas must strike an adjacent hotter surface. I did not say nor imply anything about radiation.

.

Sorry doofus...the second law doesn't distinguish between kinds of energy...and of course you claimed that cold air striking a warm wall was evidence of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...you spout so much bullshit that you just can't keep up with it all.

Here is the post where you first made that stupid claim...

Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....

"
Nope. Your tedium permeates this forum. Many here have shown you many references, excerpts from texts, original papers, and references. We have shown you mechanisms and counter examples to your bizarre physics such as,

Chemical light stick.
Slow decay phosphorescence
Gamma decay of technetium, et al.
Luminescence from plants and animals
Cosmic microwave background
Sunlight passing through hotter corona.
Molecules of a cold gas hitting a warm surface.

the rest of your idiot examples were shown to be idiot examples as well...

Since you are wrong here, lying through your teeth, and in a serious denial of science, I will post my response in the thread especially made for you by flacaltenn.

Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

.

been through it all before...don't intend to endure the tedium of it again...you lied..you are a liar, and I am not interested in rehashing your defeats over and over to satisfy some masochistic personality quirk you have acquired.

 

[SSDD]

Actually it isnt... there isn't the first empirical measurement of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...but do feel free to look for such measurements...maybe your failure to find any such measurements will clue you in to the pseudoscientific nature of climate alarmism.

Greenhouse effect is proven science.

Just for you dumb Dave..


em·pir·i·cal
/əmˈpirik(ə)l/

adjective

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
   "they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"
   synonyms: observed, seen, factual

Average Global Temperatures have been measured

Carbon Content Measures

CO2 emissions from man, measured

What else should there be measured?

Average Global Temperatures have been measured

link!!! we've been through this already, temperatures can't be measured. just can't. dude, feel free to post that link.

Those lying fuck weathermen on TV!!!! Lying to us for years. And and and those Fake Thermometers they been selling.

Do you really think that one thermometer per 10,000 square miles gives you a meaningful picture of the global temperature? Really? Do you think there is actually any single 10,000 square mile chunk of land on the entire planet where the temperature is uniform across its entirety?...

How much actual meaning do you think an average global temperature has on a globe on which the maximum temperature and the minimum temperature on any given day is something like 200 degrees?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Say what we are still coming out of the last ice age and no it's not proven science that more C02 = higher temps, once again the planet Mars atmosphere is over 95% C02

.

Actually, the greenhouse effect is proven science.

So how do plants & people make out on Mars.

Actually it isnt... there isn't the first empirical measurement of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...but do feel free to look for such measurements...maybe your failure to find any such measurements will clue you in to the pseudoscientific nature of climate alarmism.

Greenhouse effect is proven science.

Just for you dumb Dave..


em·pir·i·cal
/əmˈpirik(ə)l/

adjective

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
   "they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"
   synonyms: observed, seen, factual

Average Global Temperatures have been measured

Carbon Content Measures

CO2 emissions from man, measured

What else should there be measured?

Just 30 years or less of global temperatures Is good enough for you on a planet 4.5 billion years old?

 

[SSDD]

First and foremost, there is no reliable proxy that can demonstrate that CO2 has not exceeded 400ppm in the past 400,000 years. CO2 trapped in ice is simply not a good enough proxy to make such a claim...so you fail right out of the gate. Sorry guy. Like I said, there is no actual science to support your claims.

And the fact that you believe that site is actual science is truly pathetic. Have you looked at it? Can you pick a single piece of observed, measured data out of that whole site that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? Go ahead and try....

I get it. NO Research ever done on the past climate is valid because there might be something that happened that we don't know about.

Therefore, we should call AGW "FAKE NEWS" and do nothing about it.

The mantra of the stupid, ignorant dumbass AGW deniers.

You keep talking about all the research but dont seem to be able to produce any to support your position...I dont have any problem providing actual research to support my position...why cant you?

I produced NASA. Yiou know, the people that study Climate Change?

You produced Shit.

Dave, THAT NASA link has obvious propaganda elements in it, plus the obvious falseness and errors of statements such as this one:

"warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space." Atmosphere doesn't absorb "heat", it absorbs IR Energy

and,

"On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere." Meaningless since its absorption bands are negligible and at much lower energy levels

and,

"A stronger greenhouse effect will warm the oceans...." No, the SUN is the only significant source of energy, the Greenhouse effect doesn't get stronger.

and,

"Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly." Highly misleading, since TSI is not the only important measure of Solar outflow

These are a few of the most obvious errors in the link, don't be so easily snowed by their propaganda.

Here is an honest report on Glacier Bay and the retreat of Glaciers that most warmists never read:

Repeat Photography: Capturing Change

Notice the lack of propaganda or misleading statements?

Just honest straightforward observations is what we read.

So if the temperature is "x" without the greenhouse effect But "X+y" with a greenhouse effect but the sun output is constant, isn't the higher temp caused by the greenhouse effect?

I wish you morons would quit being such jackasses.

Which greenhouse effect is that? Can you show me any empirical measurement of it? My bet is that you can't...because it has never been measured...what you believe to be truth is really nothing but the output of an unmeasurable, unobservable, untestable mathematical model...

 

[SSDD]

Well duh, sure we do, we breathe.

Breathing doesn't increase the CO2 concentration. Life is part of the carbon cycle. Burning long sequestered carbon as fuel is not part of that cycle.

And yet, our contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 is so small so as to be the next thing to undetectable...I have provided the peer reviewed, published science which says so...thus far, I have seen nothing from you guys which says otherwise other than some outdated hypothetical musings which have since been found to be inaccurate...

 

[SSDD]

Dave,

you ignored my post in reply to a post you made, maybe you will reply to this one?

How much of the IR spectrum does CO2 actually absorb in?

I don't care. It ks not relevant to the discussion at hand. CO2 levels are up, man is a reason, & this is making temperatures rie.

THIS is important.

Still waiting for some actual science which says that we are the reason CO2 levels are up..you keep saying it but you aren't providing any evidence to support the claim..I certainly had no problem providing peer reviewed published science to support my claim that we are not the reason CO2 levels are up...you are all talk and no evidence

 

[jc456]

Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities.

"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?

Sorry guy...you have been fed a bill of goods and apparently you gobbled it up. The fact is that natural sources provide the same isotopes as fossil fuels because fossil fuels, are in fact, natural sources...you were lied to ...

Those natural sources didn't start producing extra CO2 beginning 150 years ago. I mean those volcanoes have been under the oceans a long time.

got any actual evidence of that or are you just expressing an unsupportable opinion?

The evidence of the relatively stable isotope ratio is found in the ice core samples.

how far back?