The definitive guide to the "Global Warming" scam

[ralfy]

The cooling trend happens every few years.

Bingo! Everything we’ve seen has been part of a natural cycle. All of it has been happening for thousands of years.

Actually, not bingo. What the chart does is show that your cooling trend is part of a long-term warming trend.

As for cycles, it's not just thousands of years but hundreds of thousands of years, as seen in ice core data. The problem is that in the same natural cycles, CO2 ppm peaked at 300.

It's now over 400.

 

[ralfy]

Happening for thousands of years? Here is 800,000 years worth of data. Show us

Ice core data show that CO2 ppm and surface temperature anomaly track each other, as seen in the chart presented here. That's the point also raised by NAS and other science organizations.

The question, then, is what happens to surface temp. anomaly if CO2 ppm exceeds 300, which is the maximum in natural cycles. And should ocean heat content also be considered?

 

[ralfy]

That shows that what is happening is NOT part of any cycle that's been taking place for thousands of years.

Nobody is arguing a larger volume of CO2. But here’s the thing, dummy. Mother Nature thrives off of CO2.



One only need see your posts to understand why it is so easy for the Dumbocrats to dupe you. It’s amazing that you didn’t know that plants take in CO2 like we take in oxygen. If you actually cared about the planet, you’d be calling for more and more CO2.

See the unprecedented rise at the right end of the graph?

See the unprecedented stupidity in your posts? Everyone else does.

The problem is that the world is not a simple laboratory. Plants and animal species exist and evolve given the natural cycle you stated earlier, but anything in excess counters that cycle. Given the complexity of ecosystems, increasing CO2 may have other effects, such as hampering evaporating cooling, cloud formation, etc. They can also increase ocean acidity, among others.

 

[ralfy]

Except that 1270 ppm CO2 would cause a 20-30 foot sea level rise

View attachment 253075

You are not even defending yourself by properly addressing points raised against you in your own thread! All you're now is trolling. There is no "definitive guide" in your points.

 

[P@triot]

Was the world starving in 1750 from being unable to grow crops? We do not NEED extra CO2 to feed ourselves.

You’re clearly not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, are you?

You people have spent decades crying about “deforestation”. The amount of trees that have been cut down since 1750 is in the hundreds of billions. That doesn’t include those destroyed by forest fires.

So yes, the plants desperately need more CO2 more than ever. To make sure what remains can flourish and expand.

 

[P@triot]

There is no "definitive guide" in your points.

Sure there is. Start on page #1, snowflake. Don’t come in on page #53 and pretend to know what was presented.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Happening for thousands of years? Here is 800,000 years worth of data. Show us

You never tire of putting a 5 year data plot on the end of a 500 year data plot... Tell me Crick, what happens when that massive rise is averaged into a 500 year plot, like it should be?

You lying pieces of shit pull every half assed deception to see if you can get some poor uneducated dupe to believe you...

 

[Billy_Bob]

The cooling trend happens every few years.

Bingo! Everything we’ve seen has been part of a natural cycle. All of it has been happening for thousands of years.

Actually, not bingo. What the chart does is show that your cooling trend is part of a long-term warming trend.

As for cycles, it's not just thousands of years but hundreds of thousands of years, as seen in ice core data. The problem is that in the same natural cycles, CO2 ppm peaked at 300.

It's now over 400.

Again the spatial resolution is insufficient to prove or disprove this. The question you should be asking is, are there spikes in CO2 rise in the record similar to today. High resolution proxies show leaps to above 400ppm in the last 100,000 years on many occasions. What we see today is neither unusual or unprecedented.

If the pattern continues to repeat, were about to see massive cooling and a rapid drop in atmospheric CO2. The shorter than 100 year spike will disappear in the 500 year average and emerge in the 300ppm range.

 

[SSDD]

Happening for thousands of years? Here is 800,000 years worth of data. Show us

You never tire of putting a 5 year data plot on the end of a 500 year data plot... Tell me Crick, what happens when that massive rise is averaged into a 500 year plot, like it should be?

You lying pieces of shit pull every half assed deception to see if you can get some poor uneducated dupe to believe you...

He doesn't seem to be aware...or perhaps he is aware, that he is only pointing out data that goes further back into an ice age....where the oceans were cold and were holding far more CO2 than the warmer oceans of the past century or so...

You never see these lying pieces of excrement post up a chart showing the 1000+ ppm atmospheric CO2 levels that existed WHEN THE ICE AGE BEGAN.

They invariably show the shortest period of geological time possible in an effort to promote their bullshit...he posts that graph either because he is completely ignorant of what the CO2 levels were before the onset of the ice age that the earth is presently clawing out of...or he wants to fool people who are unaware that cold oceans hold more CO2 than warm oceans and by showing a long period of time that remains in an ice age, he can show lower CO2 numbers.

The fact is that the earth has been warmer with higher CO2 numbers and the earth has descended into ice ages with higher CO2 numbers...that fact alone demonstrates the lack of correlation between CO2 and global temperature..

 

[SSDD]

The cooling trend happens every few years.

Bingo! Everything we’ve seen has been part of a natural cycle. All of it has been happening for thousands of years.

Actually, not bingo. What the chart does is show that your cooling trend is part of a long-term warming trend.

As for cycles, it's not just thousands of years but hundreds of thousands of years, as seen in ice core data. The problem is that in the same natural cycles, CO2 ppm peaked at 300.

It's now over 400.

Again the spatial resolution is insufficient to prove or disprove this. The question you should be asking is, are there spikes in CO2 rise in the record similar to today. High resolution proxies show leaps to above 400ppm in the last 100,000 years on many occasions. What we see today is neither unusual or unprecedented.

If the pattern continues to repeat, were about to see massive cooling and a rapid drop in atmospheric CO2. The shorter than 100 year spike will disappear in the 500 year average and emerge in the 300ppm range.

The real question he should be asking himself is how did the present ice age begin with atmospheric CO2 in the 1000ppm range if the hypothesis he believes is true.

And you don't need to go to proxies in order to see CO2 at numbers above 400ppm.
This graph is the product of over 90,000 actual measurements of atmospheric CO2...this graph wasn't produced by people with an agenda...it was produced by scientists who just wanted to know what percentage of the gas was in the atmosphere..and it wasn't measured from the top of a volcano...

And by the way...chemical measurement is far more accurate than spectrographic measurement...

 

[ralfy]

Sure there is. Start on page #1, snowflake. Don’t come in on page #53 and pretend to know what was presented.

You didn't address the point that he raised, which is why you're now resorting to memes.

 

[jc456]

Do I have anything to say? Sure! I've filled this thread with indisputable proof that "Global Warming" is a scam

No, everyone knows that's a lie. You've only posted links to debunked conspiracy babbling.

All the data backs us up, so we simply have to point at the data to win.

All the data says you're lying, so you have to ignore the data and deflect with conspiracy weeping.

We talk about science, because we can. You can't, so you whimper about politicians and throw insults. You're absolutely helpless in this debate.

then perhaps you show the observed empirical data that shows AGW vs natural warming.

How warm is natural 20ppm of CO2 vs 20 ppm of AGW CO2?

 

[jc456]

Except that 1270 ppm CO2 would cause a 20-30 foot sea level rise, the acidification of the oceans sufficient for a massive marine extinction event and would heat the planet by over 5C, killing crops everywhere south of Norway and drastically eliminating fresh water supplies. But hey, the algae could grow like gangbusters on our bloated corpses.

 

[jc456]

Were plants dying from a lack of CO2 when you were a child? Was the world starving in 1750 from being unable to grow crops? We do not NEED extra CO2 to feed ourselves. And we certainly do not NEED the other effects of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

show us the studies that prove that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does anything at all?

 

[jc456]

The cooling trend happens every few years.

Bingo! Everything we’ve seen has been part of a natural cycle. All of it has been happening for thousands of years.

Actually, not bingo. What the chart does is show that your cooling trend is part of a long-term warming trend.

As for cycles, it's not just thousands of years but hundreds of thousands of years, as seen in ice core data. The problem is that in the same natural cycles, CO2 ppm peaked at 300.

It's now over 400.

hasn't the earth been warming since the last ice age?

 

[jc456]

Sure there is. Start on page #1, snowflake. Don’t come in on page #53 and pretend to know what was presented.

You didn't address the point that he raised, which is why you're now resorting to memes.

sometimes posts are best answered by a quality meme. that one especially.

 

[P@triot]

Your religion drives you to corrupt actions.

Ohhhhh mammaries....

Former Vice President Al Gore said at a conference in 2009 that a scientist predicted a “75% chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice free within five to seven years.”

So either Al Gore lied to us (as you leftists always do), or he told the truth and the “scientists” lied (as you leftists always do), or Al Gore told the truth and the “scientists” are too incompetent to be taken seriously.

Either way...you’re fucked.

I don’t blame you for being so upset sweetie. I’d be mad too if I were so easily duped. It can’t be easy realizing how dumb you really are.

Here Are 5 Hysterical Environmentalist Claims in Modern History

 

[Billy_Bob]

I know, snowflake. It shows CO2 for a reason. I thought you would understand. I guess not. See the CO2 cycles? Those are your warming and cooling cycles. See the unprecedented rise at the right end of the graph? That shows that what is happening is NOT part of any cycle that's been taking place for thousands of years.

Here are both CO2 and temperature for the past 300,000 years. This graph comes from AGW denier WattsUpWithThat who took this opportunity to push a wee fib. Note the right end of the blue line, labeled "383". That point is not plotted to the same scale as the rest of the data. And they said nothing about it. That should be slightly further from "300", (the top of the right hand scale) than "220" is below it. It is not. The actual CO2 level in 2007 would be outside the boundaries of this graphic. Today's CO2 value is almost the full height of the graph above "300".

They have also spliced modern, instrumented CO2 data onto ice core data with no indication that they have done so. WattsUpWithThat has crucified climate scientists on multiple occasions for doing precisely that.

They have also NOT spliced modern instrumented temperature data onto the temperature trace, giving the impression that there has been no increase in temperature for the last few centuries.

One day you will stop posting this lie.... Tell me why you keep tacking on a five year data plot to a 250 year plot in CO2 and never do the same to temperature.. Your own graph calls you out a Liar, Deceiver, and Manipulator..

One is properly graphed.. the other is not..

 

[mamooth]

Ohhhhh mammaries....

Check it out, my sweet snowflake bottom is pout-stalking me again. It seems I humiliated him badly on another thread, so he's running over here to avoid the topic and cry at me.

So either Al Gore lied to us

Or he was mistaken. Remember, little liar, just because you lie more readily than most humans breathe, that doesn't mean anyone else does. We are not like you.

Also, Gore Rule invoked, little pajama boi. First person to bring up Gore forfeits the thread for their side. Those who can talk about science, do. Those who can't, they try to deflect by blubbering about politicians. That's you. You don't see any of us here on the rational talking about Gore.

I do understand why keep saying the stupid things you always say.

First, you're obviously quite butthurt.

Second, you're a remarkably stupid human being, You're just an astoundingly stupid human being. You simply lakc the brainpower to recognize idiot propaganda.

 

[P@triot]

So either Al Gore lied to us

Or he was mistaken.

Bwahahaha! Even when your side is caught lying, you still deny it.

How could he “mistaken” quote a “scientist”?