H2O vs. CO2 Yet another observation the AGW Cult will ignore

[abu afak]

As the dinosaurs roamed the planet, their flourished in co2 levels of 2,400ppm+, and the climate was 4 to 5 Deg Celsius higher than today. Then unfortunately, an asteroid wiped them out.

For some reason, 420ppm and the climate freaks we're going extinct in a matter of years.

And there were no Ice Poles, and ergo Sea Level would be 230 feet Higher.
Wiping out a Large part of our Cities/Coasts/Living Area.
You ldiot (in another ldiot's thread).
(Even at CO2 levels WAY LESS/a Fraction of 2400 PPM.)

`
`

 

[otto105]

Water vapor is a more powerful GHG that CO2. H2O is Mike Tyson and CO2 is Woody Allen

The "theory" of Manmade Global Climate Warming Change is that the relatively recent CO2 increase from 280 to 420PPM will cause an extinction level event rivaled by the dinosaur killing asteroid. "

But..."Water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas. It’s responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect — the process that occurs when gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap the Sun’s heat." Steamy Relationships: How Atmospheric Water Vapor Amplifies Earth's Greenhouse Effect – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

If H2O is more powerful where are the studies showing H2O back in 1850? What are they today? Does an additional 100PPM H2O raise temperature more that CO2

Guys, how long has the earth been flat fir you?

Are you still missing distant relatives who fell off?

 

[Crick]

Guys, how long has the earth been flat fir you?

Are you still missing distant relatives who fell off?

I really HATE when that happens...

 

[Dagosa]

Take your meds, AGW Cult Loon

Cult ? cults are composed of low mentality pin heads who worship a bullshit artist. Humpers, cultist…you’re all the same

 

[otto105]

I really HATE when that happens...

Apparently, it happens all the time with denialism.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Temperatures supposedly rise 3C for every doubling of CO2 but the AGW Cult can never produce any evidence of this because they’re just picking numbers out of the air.

The actual increase in temperature from doubling CO2 from 280 to 560PPM is much closer to .003C than it is to 3C

 

[Crick]

Temperatures supposedly rise 3C for every doubling of CO2 but the AGW Cult can never produce any evidence of this because they’re just picking numbers out of the air.

The actual increase in temperature from doubling CO2 from 280 to 560PPM is much closer to .003C than it is to 3C

Never produce any evidence? Are you braindead? Open your copy of AR6's Physical Science Basis. Go to Chapter 7.5 on page 992. There the discussion will begin on Equilbrium Climate Sensitivity and Tranient Climate Response (ECS and TCR). It goes on for another 19 pages. I guaran-goddamn-tee you that you will find some "evidence" there to support their conclusions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Never produce any evidence? Are you braindead? Open your copy of AR6's Physical Science Basis. Go to Chapter 7.5 on page 992. There the discussion will begin on Equilbrium Climate Sensitivity and Tranient Climate Response (ECS and TCR). It goes on for another 19 pages. I guaran-goddamn-tee you that you will find some "evidence" there to support their conclusions.

No, thanks!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs!!

The claim being made is that doubling CO2 from these levels will raise temperatures 3C, you need to show a proof of that!

 

[otto105]

Temperatures supposedly rise 3C for every doubling of CO2 but the AGW Cult can never produce any evidence of this because they’re just picking numbers out of the air.

The actual increase in temperature from doubling CO2 from 280 to 560PPM is much closer to .003C than it is to 3C

So, you believe in a very level earth.

can you see end to end then?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, you believe in a very level earth.

can you see end to end then?

I believe you’re using the squid ink defense

 

[otto105]

I believe you’re using the squid ink defense

Seriously, you can see end to end right.


Truth












































social...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Seriously, you can see end to end right.


Truth












































social...

Deeerrrrr is an acceptable answer!

Well done!

 

[Crick]

No, thanks!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs!!

The claim being made is that doubling CO2 from these levels will raise temperatures 3C, you need to show a proof of that!

There is an enormous difference between "no evidence" and "I'm not going to look at any evidence"

First, for the umpteenth time, there are no proofs in the natural sciences. There is evidence. When I tried to show you the specific evidence for the specific IPCC conclusion you were complaining about, you tell me you won't look at it. That is hypocrisy at its absolute finest. And that makes it a complete waste of time to talk to you about anything, doesn't it. It also makes you a bit of an ignorant, childish asshole.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is an enormous difference between "no evidence" and "I'm not going to look at any evidence"

First, for the umpteenth time, there are no proofs in the natural sciences. There is evidence. When I tried to show you the specific evidence for the specific IPCC conclusion you were complaining about, you tell me you won't look at it. That is hypocrisy at its absolute finest. And that makes it a complete waste of time to talk to you about anything, doesn't it. It also makes you a bit of an ignorant, childish asshole.

The central thesis of AGW is that CO2 "traps heat" and "raises temperature" Maybe it does, but way out in 3 decimal places at these low levels. There is not a single shred of evidence to support the 3C increase per doubling claim. It's absurd!

 

[Crick]

The central thesis of AGW is that CO2 "traps heat" and "raises temperature" Maybe it does, but way out in 3 decimal places at these low levels. There is not a single shred of evidence to support the 3C increase per doubling claim. It's absurd!

I showed you where you can find pages and pages of evidence but you refuse to look at it. So don't tell us there isn't shred of evidence because that is coming very, very close to a knowing and willful lie.

 

[Crick]

No, thanks!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs!!

The claim being made is that doubling CO2 from these levels will raise temperatures 3C, you need to show a proof of that!

And how would you know the evidence is not extraordinary if you refuse to look at it?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And how would you know the evidence is not extraordinary if you refuse to look at it?

You think I just started looking at this today?

I remember when Scarfetta and West randomly assigned only about 30% of the "warming" to the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky. Just a hunch, I think was their explanation

I've been looking since IPCC before IPCC had to add in the "heat trapped (like a rat! in the (deep) ocean)" to make up for the decline they were hiding!

I've been asking for evidence of CO2's magical temperature raising abilities for 30 years! I am unmoved by the models and paid-for studies.

 

[Crick]

You think I just started looking at this today?

You apparently have never read the portion of the AR6 Physical Science Basis that I pointed out despite the fact that it clearly and thoroughly explains the evidence and reasoning behind the change in ECS that you had JUST complained about.

I remember when Scarfetta and West randomly assigned only about 30% of the "warming" to the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky. Just a hunch, I think was their explanation

I've been looking since IPCC before IPCC had to add in the "heat trapped (like a rat! in the (deep) ocean)" to make up for the decline they were hiding!

I've been asking for evidence of CO2's magical temperature raising abilities for 30 years! I am unmoved by the models and paid-for studies.

It's very hard to take you seriously when you demand to see something and then refuse to look at it when THAT SPECIFIC THING is presented to you.

 

[otto105]

The central thesis of AGW is that CO2 "traps heat" and "raises temperature" Maybe it does, but way out in 3 decimal places at these low levels. There is not a single shred of evidence to support the 3C increase per doubling claim. It's absurd!

Dear Flat Earthers

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You apparently have never read the portion of the AR6 Physical Science Basis that I pointed out despite the fact that it clearly and thoroughly explains the evidence and reasoning behind the change in ECS that you had JUST complained about.

It's very hard to take you seriously when you demand to see something and then refuse to look at it when THAT SPECIFIC THING is presented to you.

Crick, I’ll read the 20 pages in IPCC. If there’s no proof and only computer models and nonsense, I’m going to ignore you