CO2 fun facts

[CrusaderFrank]

Did you know that:

1. Until 1860 CO2 lagged temperature on both increase and decrease! In fact there is a 450,000 year long data set that proves this. Moreover at the times when CO2 is peaking, temperatures are falling and continues to fall for 10,000 years.
2. Chinese CO2 is different. American CO2 is melting the ice caps, causing floods and fires (don't ask), causes the oceans to rise and started the 6th Mass Extinction (How Dare You! You stole Greta's childhood). Chinese CO2, because it enters the air on a per capita basis (again, don't ask, this is how climate science is done) is not the same threat as American CO2. Chinese industries must be left to grow and thrive and emit more CO2 than 2 USAs
3. CO2 is terrified of a lab. Whenever called upon to show the temperature increase by raising CO2 from 280 to 400PPM, CO2 is MIA. This applies to both Chinese and American CO2. It just happens, it's killing all human life but has a Labaphobia.
4. This thing all things devours:
   Birds, beasts, trees, flowers;
   Gnaws iron, bites steel;
   Grinds hard stones to meal;
   Slays king, ruins town,
   And beats high mountain down. Can you guess the answer?

And yet it is causing global warming. Go figure.

Based on what, your feelz? Can you show us in a lab how much "warming" is caused by increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM? I'm pretty sure that answer is 0 and stays 0 unless and until you show us the lab work saying otherwise

 

[Pete7469]

The bed wetters are going full throttle against any lucid voices.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I note how many deniers here are so damned proud of their lack of education. And that lack of education definitely shows in their discussion of anything scientific.

What's the "scientific explanation" behind CO2 magical transformation from lagging temperature on a 450,000 year data set to driving temperature starting in 1860?

 

[Pete7469]

Can't go over Big Oil if you don't call every greenhouse gas CO2 whether it is CO2 or not.

Methane is far worse a greenhouse gas.

You fuckin bed wetters... always moving the goal posts.

So now that people are realizing you've been full of shit about CO2 for 40 years, and that the more of it we have, the faster the fuckin plants grown, NOW THE PROBLEM IS "METHANE"?

And where do you suppose that comes from?

There are six major sources of atmospheric methane: emission from anaerobic decomposition in

(1) natural wetlands; Which you turds howled about empowering the EPA to declare every puddle in the country a "wetland" so you could prevent people from building homes on their own property.

(2) paddy rice fields; Oh I'm sure 4 billion people in Asia can't wait to change their main source of carbohydrates to wheat just so you can get through the night on a dry mattress

(3) emission from livestock production systems (including intrinsic fermentation and animal waste); This is just red tofu for the fuckin vegans, but hey, lets get rid of the cattle industry, tear down all the fences and bring back the 100 milion head of wild bison. They taste better anyway.

(4) biomass burning (including forest fires, charcoal combustion, and firewood burning); Sounds like another reason to grill some meat tonight.

(5) anaerobic decomposition of organic waste in landfills; Because NONE OF THAT SHIT would have ever decomposed if we didn't put it in a landfill, contain the gas and use it for fuel like you environazi's mandated right? just a few years ago, that was "renewable green energy" remember?

(6) fossil methane emission during the exploration and transport of fossil fuels; Hey... Retard... Methane is a natural gas. When you burn it, it creates CO2 THAT PLANTS CRAVE, you moonbats made metropolitan cities switch their public transport buses to a natural gas fleet, and now we can't use the shit no more?

That's why I despise these sniveling, mindless drones. It's not enough that they're stupid, and repeat inane shit without any desire to think about it, they have to interfere with everyone else's lives while pushing their bullshit agenda, and that's what MMGW is all about.


.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I note how many deniers here are so damned proud of their lack of education. And that lack of education definitely shows in their discussion of anything scientific.

Second request: What's the "scientific explanation" behind CO2 magical transformation from lagging temperature on a 450,000 year data set to driving temperature starting in 1860?

 

[jc456]

And yet it is causing global warming. Go figure.

where?

 

[jc456]

I note how many deniers here are so damned proud of their lack of education. And that lack of education definitely shows in their discussion of anything scientific.

you have failed to represent your argument in every thread you invade. Answer Frank's question and be a human being.

 

[Pete7469]

I note how many deniers here are so damned proud of their lack of education. And that lack of education definitely shows in their discussion of anything scientific.

Second request: What's the "scientific explanation" behind CO2 magical transformation from lagging temperature on a 450,000 year data set to driving temperature starting in 1860?

 

[Dekster]

Can't go over Big Oil if you don't call every greenhouse gas CO2 whether it is CO2 or not.

Methane is far worse a greenhouse gas.

You fuckin bed wetters... always moving the goal posts.

So now that people are realizing you've been full of shit about CO2 for 40 years, and that the more of it we have, the faster the fuckin plants grown, NOW THE PROBLEM IS "METHANE"?

And where do you suppose that comes from?

There are six major sources of atmospheric methane: emission from anaerobic decomposition in

(1) natural wetlands; Which you turds howled about empowering the EPA to declare every puddle in the country a "wetland" so you could prevent people from building homes on their own property.

(2) paddy rice fields; Oh I'm sure 4 billion people in Asia can't wait to change their main source of carbohydrates to wheat just so you can get through the night on a dry mattress

(3) emission from livestock production systems (including intrinsic fermentation and animal waste); This is just red tofu for the fuckin vegans, but hey, lets get rid of the cattle industry, tear down all the fences and bring back the 100 milion head of wild bison. They taste better anyway.

(4) biomass burning (including forest fires, charcoal combustion, and firewood burning); Sounds like another reason to grill some meat tonight.

(5) anaerobic decomposition of organic waste in landfills; Because NONE OF THAT SHIT would have ever decomposed if we didn't put it in a landfill, contain the gas and use it for fuel like you environazi's mandated right? just a few years ago, that was "renewable green energy" remember?

(6) fossil methane emission during the exploration and transport of fossil fuels; Hey... Retard... Methane is a natural gas. When you burn it, it creates CO2 THAT PLANTS CRAVE, you moonbats made metropolitan cities switch their public transport buses to a natural gas fleet, and now we can't use the shit no more?

That's why I despise these sniveling, mindless drones. It's not enough that they're stupid, and repeat inane shit without any desire to think about it, they have to interfere with everyone else's lives while pushing their bullshit agenda, and that's what MMGW is all about.


.

If you weren't so childish you would realize that I was criticizing the Cult of Carbon, Fuckin' Bedwetter.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Can't go over Big Oil if you don't call every greenhouse gas CO2 whether it is CO2 or not.

Methane is far worse a greenhouse gas.

You fuckin bed wetters... always moving the goal posts.

So now that people are realizing you've been full of shit about CO2 for 40 years, and that the more of it we have, the faster the fuckin plants grown, NOW THE PROBLEM IS "METHANE"?

And where do you suppose that comes from?

There are six major sources of atmospheric methane: emission from anaerobic decomposition in

(1) natural wetlands; Which you turds howled about empowering the EPA to declare every puddle in the country a "wetland" so you could prevent people from building homes on their own property.

(2) paddy rice fields; Oh I'm sure 4 billion people in Asia can't wait to change their main source of carbohydrates to wheat just so you can get through the night on a dry mattress

(3) emission from livestock production systems (including intrinsic fermentation and animal waste); This is just red tofu for the fuckin vegans, but hey, lets get rid of the cattle industry, tear down all the fences and bring back the 100 milion head of wild bison. They taste better anyway.

(4) biomass burning (including forest fires, charcoal combustion, and firewood burning); Sounds like another reason to grill some meat tonight.

(5) anaerobic decomposition of organic waste in landfills; Because NONE OF THAT SHIT would have ever decomposed if we didn't put it in a landfill, contain the gas and use it for fuel like you environazi's mandated right? just a few years ago, that was "renewable green energy" remember?

(6) fossil methane emission during the exploration and transport of fossil fuels; Hey... Retard... Methane is a natural gas. When you burn it, it creates CO2 THAT PLANTS CRAVE, you moonbats made metropolitan cities switch their public transport buses to a natural gas fleet, and now we can't use the shit no more?

That's why I despise these sniveling, mindless drones. It's not enough that they're stupid, and repeat inane shit without any desire to think about it, they have to interfere with everyone else's lives while pushing their bullshit agenda, and that's what MMGW is all about.


.

If you weren't so childish you would realize that I was criticizing the Cult of Carbon, Fuckin' Bedwetter.

How come you ignored post 15?

You have yet to support your CH4 claims....., I pointed out that it absorbs very little IR in the first place in the very low energy area of the IR window.

Do you even know what the warm forcing numbers are for CO2 and CH4?

Which one has bigger number, CO2 or your favorite sniffing gas CH4?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've compiled all of the explanations describing how, beginning in 1860, CO2 suddenly flipped from lagging temperature to driving temperature:


End of list

 

[jc456]

I've compiled all of the explanations describing how, beginning in 1860, CO2 suddenly flipped from lagging temperature to driving temperature:


End of list

Just as I expected

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So now the building collapse Miami was because of -- you guessed it Gullible Warning

 

[jc456]

So now the building collapse Miami was because of -- you guessed it Gullible Warning

It was sinking in 1993

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So now the building collapse Miami was because of -- you guessed it Gullible Warning

It was sinking in 1993

Exactly as predicted by our retroactive models!

 

[Sunsettommy]

CO2 main role are to support the Photosynthesis process.

CO2 slows down RADIATIVE COOLING process, it doesn't generate or trap heat.

It is the Sun/Ocean effects that drives the planets weather.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Jo Nova​

​

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed​

October 2011

Excerpt:

Carbon dioxide follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores​

In the 1990’s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.

It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years so I have regraphed the data from the original sources, CO2 Data here and Temperature data here (Petit 1999), and scaled the graphs out so that the lag is visible to the naked eye. What follows is the complete set from 420,000 years to 5,000 years before the present.

LINK

 

[ding]

Here's a CO2 fun fact. CO2 did not cause any of these temperature fluctuations. No one. So why did these temperatures fluctuate up and down? Could the reason these temperatures fluctuated up and down be the same reason for our recent warming trend?

GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And yet it is causing global warming. Go figure.

Based on what, your feelz?

Can you reproduce the "heat" generated by increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM in a lab?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Jo Nova​

​

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed​

October 2011

Excerpt:

Carbon dioxide follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores​

In the 1990’s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.

It’s impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years so I have regraphed the data from the original sources, CO2 Data here and Temperature data here (Petit 1999), and scaled the graphs out so that the lag is visible to the naked eye. What follows is the complete set from 420,000 years to 5,000 years before the present.

LINK

Modern CO2- it's just different.