13 Times the Scientific Consensus Was WRONG

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And they have so much, cheap, renewable energy, that they pay triple the rate we do.

Wow! And that's due to renewable costs?

It's something else?

We're about to find out, when you tell us. Wait, you don't know? Weird...kinda makes your point...well...useless, doesn't it?

I knew you didn't know.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And they have so much, cheap, renewable energy, that they pay triple the rate we do.

Wow! And that's due to renewable costs?

It's something else?

We're about to find out, when you tell us. Wait, you don't know? Weird...kinda makes your point...well...useless, doesn't it?

I knew you didn't know.

We're about to find out,

Excellent!

Be sure to ping me when you find out why cheaper renewables makes German energy prices higher.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And they have so much, cheap, renewable energy, that they pay triple the rate we do.

Wow! And that's due to renewable costs?

It's something else?

We're about to find out, when you tell us. Wait, you don't know? Weird...kinda makes your point...well...useless, doesn't it?

I knew you didn't know.

We're about to find out,

Excellent!

Be sure to ping me when you find out why cheaper renewables makes German energy prices higher.

...and spoonfeed to you the information you pretended to know, to troll for attention. Gotcha. Thats pretty much a standing invite from you.

 

[skookerasbil]

I can cook food over less expensive and cleaner renewable energy

Is that why rates are so much higher in Germany?

Because their renewable energy is cheaper?

Doesn't bother the Germans, why should it bother you?

Doesn't bother the Germans, why should it bother you?

You're right, Germany's renewable energy stupidity doesn't bother me.
Neither does your confusion about the cost of renewables.
Feel free to make a similar expensive mistake with your own money.

Leave me, and taxpayer dollars, out of it.

First, YOU don't live in Germany.

YOU live in America where coal costs more than renewable energy.

So, YOU claiming to speak for taxpayers is laughable.

Additionally, you have no concept of total cost of ownership.

Do you coal boy.

First, YOU don't live in Germany.

German renewable energy is more expensive, but American renewable energy is cheaper? Link?

YOU live in America where coal costs more than renewable energy.

Can you prove that? Or are you just repeating a talking point?

The Coal Cost Crossover: 74% Of US Coal Plants Now More Expensive Than New Renewables, 86% By 2025

Fake

Cost analysis at the end of production is ghey…….and how do we know?

Because if renewables were so cost effective, why will they still be fringe by mid-century!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Doesn't bother the Germans, why should it bother you?

Doesn't bother the Germans, why should it bother you?

You're right, Germany's renewable energy stupidity doesn't bother me.
Neither does your confusion about the cost of renewables.
Feel free to make a similar expensive mistake with your own money.

Leave me, and taxpayer dollars, out of it.

First, YOU don't live in Germany.

YOU live in America where coal costs more than renewable energy.

So, YOU claiming to speak for taxpayers is laughable.

Additionally, you have no concept of total cost of ownership.

Do you coal boy.

First, YOU don't live in Germany.

German renewable energy is more expensive, but American renewable energy is cheaper? Link?

YOU live in America where coal costs more than renewable energy.

Can you prove that? Or are you just repeating a talking point?

The Coal Cost Crossover: 74% Of US Coal Plants Now More Expensive Than New Renewables, 86% By 2025

Fake

Cost analysis at the end of production is ghey…….and how do we know?

Because if renewables were so cost effective, why will they still be fringe by mid-century!!

Don't you understand?

The proof that renewables are cheaper is that every country that has a larger percentage of renewables pays much higher rates than we do.

Liberal math!!!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

...and were before renewables. But The Todderino is hoping everyone reading this is as ignorant as he is.

 

[SSDD]

...and were before renewables. But The Todderino is hoping everyone reading this is as ignorant as he is.

https://www.rheinpfalz.de/cgi-bin/c...box.html&path=/rhp/lokal&id=RON_1317468892744

CLIP: "Covering the entire German energy demand of 2500 billion kwh per year – that includes heating, transportation and a large part of industry – with green technology would be impossible says the expert of the University of Konstanz. That would entail additional costs of 800 euros per household per month, and that is unaffordable,’ says Ganteför.”

CLIP: " …considerable change of lifestyle for every individual. Individual transportation and business production would have to be massively scaled back.”


Die Sonne im April 2019 und der € 4500 Milliarden Flop | Die kalte Sonne

CLIP: "In this case, the installed capacity of wind power and photovoltaics would have to be increased sevenfold compared to today (with the same energy consumption).”

CLIP: "The buffer capacity of the electric fleet is in the range of a few hours"

CLIP: "So the parents of Fridays for the future understand the 4600 billion: 153 billion are in the year, at 40 million households in Germany every household paid €319 per month in the month - net. And when it comes to Gretl and their followers, namely 15 years 100% to reach renewable energy, then €628 would be the month - when it is because not previously come to a collapse of the German energy, what is very likely. €628 are 33% at a monthly average salary in Germany NET €1890. So, then, these households fall below the poverty threshold (60% of the average net income). Brave new world."

It is clear that you aren't really interested in science, but here is an analysis of what renewables would actually cost for poorer service.

Are renewables affecting income distribution and increasing the risk of household poverty? - ScienceDirect

It is possible to go on and on and on with article and study after article and study on the extreme cost and inefficiency of renewables...how much more would you like to see? Or is there any amount of analysis of the failure of renewables that would alter your suicidal wish to go green? Are you completely determined to see all world economies go over the cliff like a bunch of lemmings?

Just as a side note....how are your survival skills? Do you believe you could live and prosper as a hunter gatherer?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...and were before renewables. But The Todderino is hoping everyone reading this is as ignorant as he is.

Carbon Crossroads: Can Germany Revive Its Stalled Energy Transition?

Geez, only an extra $181 billion over just the last five years to install some of those
groovy, cheaper wind turbines. Extra. Not less.

 

[SSDD]

...and were before renewables. But The Todderino is hoping everyone reading this is as ignorant as he is.

they believe


View attachment 266851

Carbon Crossroads: Can Germany Revive Its Stalled Energy Transition?

Geez, only an extra $181 billion over just the last five years to install some of those
groovy, cheaper wind turbines. Extra. Not less.

They believe in renewabes like you believe in spontaneous two way energy flow between objects of different temperatures...no amount of observed measured evidence will ever convince them otherwise. It is a matter of faith and evidence rarely says faith.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

...and were before renewables. But The Todderino is hoping everyone reading this is as ignorant as he is.

they believe


View attachment 266851

Carbon Crossroads: Can Germany Revive Its Stalled Energy Transition?

Geez, only an extra $181 billion over just the last five years to install some of those
groovy, cheaper wind turbines. Extra. Not less.

They believe in renewabes like you believe in spontaneous two way energy flow between objects of different temperatures...no amount of observed measured evidence will ever convince them otherwise. It is a matter of faith and evidence rarely says faith.

Did you ever post your list of spontaneous photon sources in the solar system?
Using your moronic definition, there can't be too many.

Be sure to post more of your emails with professors. Haven't had a good laugh lately.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

...and were before renewables. But The Todderino is hoping everyone reading this is as ignorant as he is.

https://www.rheinpfalz.de/cgi-bin/c...box.html&path=/rhp/lokal&id=RON_1317468892744

CLIP: "Covering the entire German energy demand of 2500 billion kwh per year – that includes heating, transportation and a large part of industry – with green technology would be impossible says the expert of the University of Konstanz. That would entail additional costs of 800 euros per household per month, and that is unaffordable,’ says Ganteför.”

CLIP: " …considerable change of lifestyle for every individual. Individual transportation and business production would have to be massively scaled back.”


Die Sonne im April 2019 und der € 4500 Milliarden Flop | Die kalte Sonne

CLIP: "In this case, the installed capacity of wind power and photovoltaics would have to be increased sevenfold compared to today (with the same energy consumption).”

CLIP: "The buffer capacity of the electric fleet is in the range of a few hours"

CLIP: "So the parents of Fridays for the future understand the 4600 billion: 153 billion are in the year, at 40 million households in Germany every household paid €319 per month in the month - net. And when it comes to Gretl and their followers, namely 15 years 100% to reach renewable energy, then €628 would be the month - when it is because not previously come to a collapse of the German energy, what is very likely. €628 are 33% at a monthly average salary in Germany NET €1890. So, then, these households fall below the poverty threshold (60% of the average net income). Brave new world."

It is clear that you aren't really interested in science, but here is an analysis of what renewables would actually cost for poorer service.

Are renewables affecting income distribution and increasing the risk of household poverty? - ScienceDirect

It is possible to go on and on and on with article and study after article and study on the extreme cost and inefficiency of renewables...how much more would you like to see? Or is there any amount of analysis of the failure of renewables that would alter your suicidal wish to go green? Are you completely determined to see all world economies go over the cliff like a bunch of lemmings?

Just as a side note....how are your survival skills? Do you believe you could live and prosper as a hunter gatherer?

Of course, not one word of that refuted what I said.

Furthermore, we onow we cant do it with existing tech. Thank you, Captain Obvious. But...brace for it numbnuts ...tech gets better. Especially when we heavily subsidize it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Geez, only an extra $181 billion over just the last five years to install some of those
groovy, cheaper wind turbines. Extra. Not less.

Well gee, if i were stupid enough to argue from a position of tech never improvong or getting more.economical or of never learning from these projects, i might be disconverted. But, since I am not putting on a act for attention whereon a pretend to be very stupid, I am not disconcerted.

By the way, morons like you were doing the same thing over 100 years ago, when the wright brothers were failing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Geez, only an extra $181 billion over just the last five years to install some of those
groovy, cheaper wind turbines. Extra. Not less.

Well gee, if i were stupid enough to argue from a position of tech never improvong or getting more.economical or of never learning from these projects, i might be disconverted. But, since I am not putting on a act for attention whereon a pretend to be very stupid, I am not disconcerted.

By the way, morons like you were doing the same thing over 100 years ago, when the wright brothers were failing.

I'd be more than happy to invest in more nuke plants.
Reliable and zero CO2.

 

[SSDD]

...and were before renewables. But The Todderino is hoping everyone reading this is as ignorant as he is.

https://www.rheinpfalz.de/cgi-bin/c...box.html&path=/rhp/lokal&id=RON_1317468892744

CLIP: "Covering the entire German energy demand of 2500 billion kwh per year – that includes heating, transportation and a large part of industry – with green technology would be impossible says the expert of the University of Konstanz. That would entail additional costs of 800 euros per household per month, and that is unaffordable,’ says Ganteför.”

CLIP: " …considerable change of lifestyle for every individual. Individual transportation and business production would have to be massively scaled back.”


Die Sonne im April 2019 und der € 4500 Milliarden Flop | Die kalte Sonne

CLIP: "In this case, the installed capacity of wind power and photovoltaics would have to be increased sevenfold compared to today (with the same energy consumption).”

CLIP: "The buffer capacity of the electric fleet is in the range of a few hours"

CLIP: "So the parents of Fridays for the future understand the 4600 billion: 153 billion are in the year, at 40 million households in Germany every household paid €319 per month in the month - net. And when it comes to Gretl and their followers, namely 15 years 100% to reach renewable energy, then €628 would be the month - when it is because not previously come to a collapse of the German energy, what is very likely. €628 are 33% at a monthly average salary in Germany NET €1890. So, then, these households fall below the poverty threshold (60% of the average net income). Brave new world."

It is clear that you aren't really interested in science, but here is an analysis of what renewables would actually cost for poorer service.

Are renewables affecting income distribution and increasing the risk of household poverty? - ScienceDirect

It is possible to go on and on and on with article and study after article and study on the extreme cost and inefficiency of renewables...how much more would you like to see? Or is there any amount of analysis of the failure of renewables that would alter your suicidal wish to go green? Are you completely determined to see all world economies go over the cliff like a bunch of lemmings?

Just as a side note....how are your survival skills? Do you believe you could live and prosper as a hunter gatherer?

Of course, not one word of that refuted what I said.

Furthermore, we onow we cant do it with existing tech. Thank you, Captain Obvious. But...brace for it numbnuts ...tech gets better. Especially when we heavily subsidize it.

So your whole argument rests on pie in the sky technology that doesn't exist and to which there is no real profit motive to develop. The fact is that everywhere renewables are placed, energy costs go up and energy security falls through the floor.

 

[otto105]

Doesn't bother the Germans, why should it bother you?

Doesn't bother the Germans, why should it bother you?

You're right, Germany's renewable energy stupidity doesn't bother me.
Neither does your confusion about the cost of renewables.
Feel free to make a similar expensive mistake with your own money.

Leave me, and taxpayer dollars, out of it.

First, YOU don't live in Germany.

YOU live in America where coal costs more than renewable energy.

So, YOU claiming to speak for taxpayers is laughable.

Additionally, you have no concept of total cost of ownership.

Do you coal boy.

First, YOU don't live in Germany.

German renewable energy is more expensive, but American renewable energy is cheaper? Link?

YOU live in America where coal costs more than renewable energy.

Can you prove that? Or are you just repeating a talking point?

The Coal Cost Crossover: 74% Of US Coal Plants Now More Expensive Than New Renewables, 86% By 2025

Let me know when Germany's prices are lower than ours, instead of three times ours.
Because they have tons of renewables.

Doesn't bother the Germans, why should it bother you?

You're right, Germany's renewable energy stupidity doesn't bother me.
Neither does your confusion about the cost of renewables.
Feel free to make a similar expensive mistake with your own money.

Leave me, and taxpayer dollars, out of it.

First, YOU don't live in Germany.

YOU live in America where coal costs more than renewable energy.

So, YOU claiming to speak for taxpayers is laughable.

Additionally, you have no concept of total cost of ownership.

Do you coal boy.

First, YOU don't live in Germany.

German renewable energy is more expensive, but American renewable energy is cheaper? Link?

YOU live in America where coal costs more than renewable energy.

Can you prove that? Or are you just repeating a talking point?

The Coal Cost Crossover: 74% Of US Coal Plants Now More Expensive Than New Renewables, 86% By 2025

Fake

Cost analysis at the end of production is ghey…….and how do we know?

Because if renewables were so cost effective, why will they still be fringe by mid-century!!

Don't you understand?

The proof that renewables are cheaper is that every country that has a larger percentage of renewables pays much higher rates than we do.

Liberal math!!!

And when renewable here in the US are cheaper than polluted coal....I'm sure that you will gladly switch over to the future.

 

[otto105]

Geez, only an extra $181 billion over just the last five years to install some of those
groovy, cheaper wind turbines. Extra. Not less.

Well gee, if i were stupid enough to argue from a position of tech never improvong or getting more.economical or of never learning from these projects, i might be disconverted. But, since I am not putting on a act for attention whereon a pretend to be very stupid, I am not disconcerted.

By the way, morons like you were doing the same thing over 100 years ago, when the wright brothers were failing.

I'd be more than happy to invest in more nuke plants.
Reliable and zero CO2.

Sure, we can we bury the waste in your backyard.

 

[SSDD]

I have provided 7 peer reviewed, published papers which state pretty clearly that our contribution to the atmospheric CO2 concentration is so negligible so as to be nearly undetectable..

No you haven't, you shameless little liar.

Clearly you wouldn't recognize science if it bit you on the ass...you are laughable...

 

[SSDD]

I know what it means

Hmm, no,i don't think you do. That's why you can't tell me.

Still playing dumb, of course you are.


.

He isn't playing....he is as dumb as a post....that is how he came to be such a top shelf dupe...you don't get fooled as badly as he has been fooled by "playing" dumb.

 

[SSDD]

Here is what we know. We look at the rise in CO2 concentrations & we do know that the vast majority is due to man made emissions.

The only fantasy is your thinking you know more than the scientists.

Actually, we know no such thing. The fact is that our effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere is very hard to detect. You guys like to say what you believe as if it were actual science, but unlike you warmers....we skeptics can actually provide real science to support our positions. I am a skeptic because the actual evidence, the real science simply doesn't add up to impending catastrophe...I don't hold my position based on politics....I hold my position because I take time to look at the science and what science says, and what the media and politicians report are two very different things.

Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim.

You continue to believe what you like...it is clear by now that is precisely what you will do...but the information above is peer reviewed and published by climate scientists...and supports my claim that we are no the ones driving the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere. I am pretty sure that you will disregard all the data above in favor of what you want to believe...which makes you the denier...not me. I can provide actual published science to support my claim...published science which you will deny in favor of your belief and political leaning.

I always enjoy pointing out who the real deniers are. Now if you can produce some actual peer reviewed, published science that supports your claim that we are the ones who are to blame for CO2 levels increasing, I would like to see it.

You quote a known skeptic.

We know that the Earth removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Do you think it always removes the same amount??? This guy thinks that the more man emits, it must reflect in the total amount but is this necessary the case???

I have provided 7 peer reviewed, published papers which state pretty clearly that our contribution to the atmospheric CO2 concentration is so negligible so as to be nearly undetectable...do you have any particular problem with either the data or the methodology? Obviously the peer reviewers didn't, nor did the publishers..and in so far as I know, none of the papers have been retracted because of errors...do you have any actual science that calls the findings in the papers into question? Or do you just have an uninformed opinion?

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


Maybe YOU should challenge the scientists from NASA.

Here is what we know. We look at the rise in CO2 concentrations & we do know that the vast majority is due to man made emissions.

The only fantasy is your thinking you know more than the scientists.

Actually, we know no such thing. The fact is that our effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere is very hard to detect. You guys like to say what you believe as if it were actual science, but unlike you warmers....we skeptics can actually provide real science to support our positions. I am a skeptic because the actual evidence, the real science simply doesn't add up to impending catastrophe...I don't hold my position based on politics....I hold my position because I take time to look at the science and what science says, and what the media and politicians report are two very different things.

Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim.

You continue to believe what you like...it is clear by now that is precisely what you will do...but the information above is peer reviewed and published by climate scientists...and supports my claim that we are no the ones driving the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere. I am pretty sure that you will disregard all the data above in favor of what you want to believe...which makes you the denier...not me. I can provide actual published science to support my claim...published science which you will deny in favor of your belief and political leaning.

I always enjoy pointing out who the real deniers are. Now if you can produce some actual peer reviewed, published science that supports your claim that we are the ones who are to blame for CO2 levels increasing, I would like to see it.

You quote a known skeptic.

We know that the Earth removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Do you think it always removes the same amount??? This guy thinks that the more man emits, it must reflect in the total amount but is this necessary the case???

I have provided 7 peer reviewed, published papers which state pretty clearly that our contribution to the atmospheric CO2 concentration is so negligible so as to be nearly undetectable...do you have any particular problem with either the data or the methodology? Obviously the peer reviewers didn't, nor did the publishers..and in so far as I know, none of the papers have been retracted because of errors...do you have any actual science that calls the findings in the papers into question? Or do you just have an uninformed opinion?

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


Maybe YOU should challenge the scientists from NASA.

I asked you before what part of that steaming pile you linked to represents actual published science...to date, you haven't responded...we both know why...you know and I know that there is nothing there...it is an opinion piece published by the people who wrote it...nothing more...nothing less...

 

[SSDD]

ernie, the Earth called and it wants us to stop pushing the temperature higher.

What do you think happens to the temperature when the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age?

And I asked you before, what the ideal temperature is for life on planet earth...What's the matter? No idea? You think an ice age is the ideal climate for life on this planet?

We have thru man-made burning of fossil fuels already have decided that the Earth's temp should be higher. Why have YOU decided that is your decision?

Got any actual evidence to support that statement? Didn't think so.