Does the O-CO2 Satellite once and for all end the Manmade CO2 Hysteria?

[BackAgain]

That would explain why the AGW Cult mamooth et.al. NEVER give us a real, non imaginary number for the temperature “increase” from an increase in CO2 from 280 to 400ppm. They lie and lie and lie and curse and mock and lie and lie

And also (this shouldn’t go unsaid) they lie.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And so you're back to babbling.

If "slash-and-burn agriculture" is causing a massive increase in CO2 (405 instead of 400 in the USA), should the focus be there instead of on cars and gas stoves?

Also, how must addition heat is generated when CO2 increases from 400 in the USA to 405 in the Congo? What does your lab work show?

 

[mamooth]

If "slash-and-burn agriculture" is causing a massive increase in CO2 (405 instead of 400 in the USA),

It's not. Agricultural emissions in total are 10% of CO2 emissions, and slash-and-burn is just a fraction of that.

should the focus be there

There is quite of focus on it. It's just not the main focus, because it's not the main source.

instead of on cars

Transportation is 28% of emissions, so of course it needs to be focused on.

and gas stoves?

Nobody is saying to get rid of gas stoves because of CO2 emisssions. Where did you come up with that fantasy? A ban on new construction gas stoves is because gas stoves make for unhealthy indoor air.

Also, how must addition heat is generated when CO2 increases from 400 in the USA to 405 in the Congo? What does your lab work show?

Now you're just whining and trolling, so fuck off.

 

[mamooth]

And also (this shouldn’t go unsaid) they lie.

I've told frank the answer many times. He always just cries and runs, then repeats the same question I just answered.

Like you, he's always down on his knees pleasuring the Lord of Lies. Because you both act like cowardly trolls, you get the respect you deserve.

 

[BackAgain]

I've told frank the answer many times. He always just cries and runs, then repeats the same question I just answered.

Like you, he's always down on his knees pleasuring the Lord of Lies. Because you both act like cowardly trolls, you get the respect you deserve.

Nobody with a brain gives a rat’s ass about what you consider “deserved” or about whoever you “respect” or about anything you label a “lie.”

You’re a known quantity, manboob. You are a liar and a fucking imbecile.

And maybe your fake-ass answers are rejected because a shitstain like you can’t add up 2 + 2.

Go play in traffic, you scumbag.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's not. Agricultural emissions in total are 10% of CO2 emissions, and slash-and-burn is just a fraction of that.


There is quite of focus on it. It's just not the main focus, because it's not the main source.



Transportation is 28% of emissions, so of course it needs to be focused on.


Nobody is saying to get rid of gas stoves because of CO2 emisssions. Where did you come up with that fantasy? A ban on new construction gas stoves is because gas stoves make for unhealthy indoor air.


Now you're just whining and trolling, so fuck off.

The satellite shows virtually no difference at all in CO2 anywhere on the planet, the difference is 5 PPM between high and low

It does NOT show that industrial areas in China, India and the US are outpouring thousands of PPM, it’s a rounding error of difference. So what if we shut the world economy down again like we did during Covid? THERE WILL STILL BE NO CHANGE IN CO2

Moreover, CO2 does NOTHING to temperature on planet Earth

 

[abu afak]

Nobody with a brain gives a rat’s ass about what you consider “deserved” or about you whoever you “respect” or about anything you label a “lie.” You’re a know quantity, Manboob. You are a liar and a Fucking Imbecile.
And maybe your Fake Ass answers are rejected because a Shitstain like you can’t add up 2 + 2. Go play in traffic, you Scumbag.

Seven pages BackAgain made 3 posts. (#47, #121, #125.)
NO TOPICAL CONTENT.
Just Cursing out a warming proponent. (who stays on topic and without ad hom)

BackAgain is An angry and Unmoderated jerk Allowed, even Cultivated, by Inept/Biased USMB Mods.
`
`

 

[BackAgain]

Seven pages BackAgain made 3 posts. (#47, #121, #125.)
NO TOPICAL CONTENT.
Just Cursing out a warming proponent. (who stays on topic and without ad hom)

BackAgain is An angry and Unmoderated jerk Allowed, even Cultivated, by Inept/Biased USMB Mods.
`
`

I protest. There is no topical content in apu afuk’s above quoted post!! This is an outrage!



Oh, shit. This one might miss-out on topical content, too. So. Back ON topic

If anyone cares to dispute the thread headline, kindly state the factual basis for your counter-claim. I ask because I haven’t seen the actual evidence for the counterclaim.

And, if it turns out that apu afuk is the one who offers actual facts, cool. But, please remember to stick to that and not, instead, engaging in ad hominem and off-topic nonsense, as you so often do,

 

[westwall]

What you're seeing there is the results of slash-and-burn agriculture.

As is the case with every basic concept, you faceplant at it.

No, dumbfuck, it's the result of rainforests, ants, termites, and all of the other 95.6% of the NATURAL CO2 that is created by mother nature every year.

 

[westwall]

Seven pages BackAgain made 3 posts. (#47, #121, #125.)
NO TOPICAL CONTENT.
Just Cursing out a warming proponent. (who stays on topic and without ad hom)

BackAgain is An angry and Unmoderated jerk Allowed, even Cultivated, by Inept/Biased USMB Mods.
`
`

Shut up ah-poo, you add nothing to the conversation but the blathering of a mad cultist.

 

[psikeyhackr]

If mankind were a major contributor to planetary CO2 you would see numbers EXCEEDING the current average, right? If mankinds output is below the average, reducing mankinds output will not move the needle on global CO2. We saw that in 2020 and 2021 when shutting the global economy did NOTHING to CO2 readings

Can this get any dumber?!

Just ignore the CO2 flucuating between 180 and 280 for 800,000 years before 1700. Of course there was no satellite data then with weekly details. Curious how that 100 ppm change took 10,000 years to go up and 90,000 years to go down multiple times.

Then it goes up another 100 ppm in 300 years. 30 times faster than ever before. I wonder why.

Oh yeah, no satellites to collect the data. Must be some kind of observational error.

 

[BackAgain]

Which is true, and pretty much what I said. The simple fact is Earth is an open system. Greenhouses only work when you close the windows.

There are no windows to close on Earth.

Off topic. But, westwall, your avie just cracked me up!

On topic:

What is the scientific test that explains how we can know if the Earth is a closed system or an open system? I ask because I think that’s the key question.

 

[westwall]

Off topic. But, westwall, your avie just cracked me up!

On topic:

What is the scientific test that explains how we can know if the Earth is a closed system or an open system? I ask because I think that’s the key question.

Can things enter the atmosphere. That's the test. If they can, it's an open system.

 

[BackAgain]

Can things enter the atmosphere. That's the test. If they can, it's an open system.

?

Reverse that; for me to ask my question.

Would that test also include “whether things can leave the system?”

 

[westwall]

?

Reverse that; for me to ask my question.

Would that test also include “whether things can leave the system?”

If they can enter, they can leave. The only thing preventing an object leaving Earth is gravity. Attain 17,000 mph and you can leave Earth. That is the escape velocity you need.

 

[jc456]

And so you're back to babbling.

what a debater says when he has no data.

 

[jc456]

It's not. Agricultural emissions in total are 10% of CO2 emissions, and slash-and-burn is just a fraction of that.

but you just said all that CO2 was from slash and burn, nothing else. Are you changing your argument now?

 

[jc456]

Transportation is 28% of emissions, so of course it needs to be focused on.

yet the photo showed not.

 

[jc456]

Nobody is saying to get rid of gas stoves because of CO2 emisssions. Where did you come up with that fantasy? A ban on new construction gas stoves is because gas stoves make for unhealthy indoor air.

hahaahahahaahahahaahahahahahaahaha unhealthy air qualified by whom? What's the exposure rate? Are you saying electric stoves don't create smoke? Or are you saying frying bacon is now not allowed, or a steak or chicken or whatever? It's clear you have no idea what burning is.

 

[1srelluc]

Now you have nut-job states wanting the EPA to regulate wood stoves.

10 states plan to sue EPA over standards for residential wood-burning stoves

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Attorneys general from 10 states plan to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, saying its failure to review and ensure emissions standards for residential wood-burning stoves has allowed the continued sale of appliances that could worsen pollution. That means...

ktvz.com

Now tell me how the climate chance cult/religion is not try to control us.....Here folks have a cheap and renewable way to heat or even cook if need be and 10 states want to give up their state rights to Big Daddy Government to get their way.