Here's the fraud

[mamooth]

How does CO2 in the atmosphere cause more CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere ... magical forcings? ...

CO2 raises temperatures.

The oceans get warmer.

That causes the oceans to release more CO2.

 

[mamooth]

Except it didn't. Correlation does not prove causation.

And nobody ever said it did, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up.

You have mistakenly correlated the recent warming trend to CO2 despite the geologic record being littered with warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.

"Forest fires used to always happen naturally, therefore human beings can't cause forest fires!"

That's an idiot argument. You're using the same argument, just substituting "warming" for "forest fires".

Arguing that there can be no other causes for the recent warming trend is disingenuous.

Which is why nobody has done that. You're just making up a strawman to attack.

The human origin of the warming isn't proven by correlation. It's proven by the stratospheric cooling, the polar amplification, the increase in backradiation, the decrease in outgoing longwave in the greenhouse gas bands, the greater warming at night and during winter.

None of those things have any natural explanation, therefore your "natural cycles" theory is wrong. It's that simple. The observed data says you're wrong, so you're wrong. Your sincere belief that your religion must be correct doesn't change that.

Show me using the so called radiative forcing components which natural causes can cause warming and cooling trends USING THE RADIATIVE FORCING THAT IS SHOWN IN THAT GRAPHIC FOR NATURAL CAUSES.

In English? I don't think anyone can figure out what you're babbling about there.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

CO2 raises temperatures.

The oceans get warmer.

That causes the oceans to release more CO2.

Sounds serious!

What happened the last time that occurred?

Did everything die?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know Cortez has said we only have 12 years left but that was like 2019, so we are down to 9 years left according to her.

I heard she was talking out of her big Latino booty.......

 

[ReinyDays]

CO2 raises temperatures.

The oceans get warmer.

That causes the oceans to release more CO2.

That's only true if the oceans are saturated with carbon dioxide ... and this wouldn't be the case unless the atmosphere is 100% carbon dioxide ... right now, the concentration in the ocean will be in equilibrium with the concentration in the atmosphere ... it has to do with the physics of one substance dissolving in another ... yes, increasing temperatures will drive CO2 out, but only if we're already at saturation ... the ocean isn't like soda pop ... slightly warmer temperatures isn't going to be degassing the oceans ...

Some of the carbon dioxide is destroyed by biology ... encapsulated for long periods of time ... warmer oceans mean more biology ... where's the balance? ....

 

[mamooth]

That's only true if the oceans are saturated with carbon dioxide ... and this wouldn't be the case unless the atmosphere is 100% carbon dioxide ...

No, that's not how it works. Water will dissolve CO2 (or any gas) at a level based on temperature and on what the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is. That is, it will get "saturated" for that temperature and pressure. Raise the temperature, and it will outgas CO2.

 

[ReinyDays]

No, that's not how it works. Water will dissolve CO2 (or any gas) at a level based on temperature and on what the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is. That is, it will get "saturated" for that temperature and pressure. Raise the temperature, and it will outgas CO2.

Right, it's the partial pressure of CO2 that's insignificant ... even using the 725 ppm(mass) value this is just a tiny amount ... CO2 has an outsized radiative effect for it's mass, or so says AGW theory ... any effect based on only CO2's mass will be tiny ... like pressure ...

It's been this warm and warmer in the past .. where is your evidence that oceans degassed back then? ... and how are you factoring in the ongoing biology? ... that has the ability to remove the carbon dioxide before it gets precipitated back into the atmosphere ...

 

[ding]

And nobody ever said it did, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up.

Because people like you keep arguing the correlation proves causation. The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing.

"Forest fires used to always happen naturally, therefore human beings can't cause forest fires!"

That's an idiot argument. You're using the same argument, just substituting "warming" for "forest fires".

But you are the one who excludes natural causes for the recent warming trend. I don't dispute deforestation, urban heat island effect and the GHG effect of CO2. I only dispute the silly notion that climate sensitivity (i.e. increased water vapor due to increased CO2) is 2 to 3 times the GHG effect of CO2 alone. You on the other hand throw out every natural cause as possible reasons for the recent warming trend. So your analogy doesn't hold true. Except for your position of course.

Which is why nobody has done that. You're just making up a strawman to attack.

The human origin of the warming isn't proven by correlation. It's proven by the stratospheric cooling, the polar amplification, the increase in backradiation, the decrease in outgoing longwave in the greenhouse gas bands, the greater warming at night and during winter.

None of those things have any natural explanation, therefore your "natural cycles" theory is wrong. It's that simple. The observed data says you're wrong, so you're wrong. Your sincere belief that your religion must be correct doesn't change that.

Of course they have done that. The IPCC routinely tunes out natural causes in their models. And they include the urban heat island effect and use a low variability solar output dataset. They have done everything they can to stack the deck.

In English? I don't think anyone can figure out what you're babbling about there.

The radiative forcing values for natural causes in their models are so low that they would never have been able to cause warming and cooling trends. And yet we know that the geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends. They are employing circular logic in their models.

 

[Crick]

Have you posted any proof that nearly every word from every skeptic was based on GCC work?

Nearly every word from every skeptic may be found in GCC works prior to the skeptics using them.

 

[Crick]

Right, it's the partial pressure of CO2 that's insignificant ... even using the 725 ppm(mass) value this is just a tiny amount ... CO2 has an outsized radiative effect for it's mass, or so says AGW theory ... any effect based on only CO2's mass will be tiny ... like pressure ...

It's been this warm and warmer in the past .. where is your evidence that oceans degassed back then? ... and how are you factoring in the ongoing biology? ... that has the ability to remove the carbon dioxide before it gets precipitated back into the atmosphere ...

The partial pressure is NOT insignificant. As Mamooth stated, the amount dissolved in the ocean is dependent on the CO2 solubility of sea water (a constant) and temperature and partial pressure. PP is a controlling factor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nearly every word from every skeptic may be found in GCC works prior to the skeptics using them.

So that means skeptics got them from the GCC?
Or that the info the GCC published made sense?

 

[ReinyDays]

The partial pressure is NOT insignificant. As Mamooth stated, the amount dissolved in the ocean is dependent on the CO2 solubility of sea water (a constant) and temperature and partial pressure. PP is a controlling factor.

Show me ... temperatures are higher today than they were 40 years ago ... the oceans should be degassing right this minute ... so show me ... they're not because partial pressure and temperature are the only factors ...

The excuse you used for where the missing carbon dioxide was "the oceans are absorbing it" ... now you say the oceans are degassing ... which of these lies are true? ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the amount dissolved in the ocean is dependent on the CO2 solubility of sea water (a constant) and temperature and partial pressure.

Ummm......what?

 

[Crick]

Show me ... temperatures are higher today than they were 40 years ago ... the oceans should be degassing right this minute ... so show me ... they're not because partial pressure and temperature are the only factors ...

The excuse you used for where the missing carbon dioxide was "the oceans are absorbing it" ... now you say the oceans are degassing ... which of these lies are true? ...

First, the oceans are not all one temperature. The oceans as a whole are currently absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. As the average temperature of the oceans has increased, the rate at which CO2 is absorbed has slowed. And, I'm sorry, but I don't recall ever having said the world's oceans were outgassing. Additionally, though the world's oceans have absorbed enormous amounts of thermal energy, due to the total mass of the oceans and the heat capacity of water, the average temperature of the world's oceans have only increased by 0.67C since 1880, a change of 0.024%

And, of course, once again the actual topic of a thread has been cast aside since it shows AGW deniers to be nothing but useful idiots passing on the line of bullshit they've been fed. Greenhouse warming is real and the source of virtually every iota of increased CO2 in our atmosphere is the human combustion of fossil fuels. The fossil fuel industry is the biggest player in this debate, secretly feeding the denier side of the debate. That has been my position since this debate started but you fools think it more likely that every single scientists on the planet is involved in a massive, unanimous conspiracy that has been telling perfect lies to the world for the last 30 years. How fucking stupid can you BE?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First, the oceans are not all one temperature. The oceans as a whole are currently absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. As the average temperature of the oceans has increased, the rate at which CO2 is absorbed has slowed. And, I'm sorry, but I don't recall ever having said the world's oceans were outgassing. Additionally, though the world's oceans have absorbed enormous amounts of thermal energy, due to the total mass of the oceans and the heat capacity of water, the average temperature of the world's oceans have only increased by 0.67C since 1880, a change of 0.024%

And, of course, once again the actual topic of a thread has been cast aside since it shows AGW deniers to be nothing but useful idiots passing on the line of bullshit they've been fed. Greenhouse warming is real and the source of virtually every iota of increased CO2 in our atmosphere is the human combustion of fossil fuels. The fossil fuel industry is the biggest player in this debate, secretly feeding the denier side of the debate. That has been my position since this debate started but you fools think it more likely that every single scientists on the planet is involved in a massive, unanimous conspiracy that has been telling perfect lies to the world for the last 30 years. How fucking stupid can you BE?

the average temperature of the world's oceans have only increased by 0.67C since 1880, a change of 0.024%

First, you probably don't want to use percentages when discussing temperature.

Second, check your math better before you mistakenly use percentages.

The fossil fuel industry is the biggest player in this debate, secretly feeding the denier side of the debate.

Oh please. If you twats just wanted to whine about rising temperatures, we could ignore you, but you have to come up with the worst policy prescriptions to fix the "problem".

Europeans are going to die this winter because of the green idiocy they've been implementing.

How fucking stupid can you BE?

Well, not as stupid as the greens. I know, low bar.

 

[ReinyDays]

First, the oceans are not all one temperature. The oceans as a whole are currently absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. As the average temperature of the oceans has increased, the rate at which CO2 is absorbed has slowed. And, I'm sorry, but I don't recall ever having said the world's oceans were outgassing. Additionally, though the world's oceans have absorbed enormous amounts of thermal energy, due to the total mass of the oceans and the heat capacity of water, the average temperature of the world's oceans have only increased by 0.67C since 1880, a change of 0.024%

And, of course, once again the actual topic of a thread has been cast aside since it shows AGW deniers to be nothing but useful idiots passing on the line of bullshit they've been fed. Greenhouse warming is real and the source of virtually every iota of increased CO2 in our atmosphere is the human combustion of fossil fuels. The fossil fuel industry is the biggest player in this debate, secretly feeding the denier side of the debate. That has been my position since this debate started but you fools think it more likely that every single scientists on the planet is involved in a massive, unanimous conspiracy that has been telling perfect lies to the world for the last 30 years. How fucking stupid can you BE?

The oceans as a whole are currently absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Then why are you defending Mamooth's claim they are degassing? ... you want a conversation about fraud ... how fraudulent is it to defend someone you know is wrong? ... she's claiming rising temperature must drive out CO2, and that's only true with 100% CO2 atmosphere ... "As Mamooth stated, the amount dissolved in the ocean ..."

What information do you think Big Oil is secretly feeding the denialist community? ... this is borderline paranoia ... especially since the denialist community arguments are based on what we observe ... not on what we're told ... we see the changes one degree rise causes, and one more degree won't cause anything else ... this is too little of a difference to matter ... 0.024% over the past 140 years, call it 0.048% over the next 140 years ...

I think you're confusing fraud with fiduciary ... Big Oil has a legal responsibility to put their shareholders financial interests ahead of the interest of the executive staff ... what they've discovered about carbon-as-pollution through private research is just that, private ... and a legal responsibility to keep it private if public release would harm the shareholders ... capitalism at it's finest ... the 1993 Snake Oil Protection Act allows Big Oil to claim natural gas is today's green alternative ... haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw ...

You know I hate Big Oil because my children work at oil refineries ... rebel brats ...

 

[jc456]

A scheme cooked up by a PR firm and the fossil fuel industries 30 years ago that has provided all you deniers nearly every word you've ever posted.

The audacious PR plot that seeded doubt about climate change

Thirty years ago, a bold plan was hatched to persuade people that climate change was not a problem.

www.bbc.com

Why is global warming restricted to isolated places?

 

[Crick]

the average temperature of the world's oceans have only increased by 0.67C since 1880, a change of 0.024%

First, you probably don't want to use percentages when discussing temperature.

Second, check your math better before you mistakenly use percentages.

The fossil fuel industry is the biggest player in this debate, secretly feeding the denier side of the debate.

Oh please. If you twats just wanted to whine about rising temperatures, we could ignore you, but you have to come up with the worst policy prescriptions to fix the "problem".

Europeans are going to die this winter because of the green idiocy they've been implementing.

How fucking stupid can you BE?

Well, not as stupid as the greens. I know, low bar.

You're right. I was off. The average temperature of the world's oceans is ~20C. So...

293.67/293.0 = 0.0023%

And I'm perfectly correct to use percent to describe a temperature increase. Let me know when you've passed thermodynamics and heat transfer.

The green measures the Europeans are not causing them to experience unprecedented heat waves.

Disagreeing with 99+% of the world's PhD climate scientists is not a demonstration of superior intelligence. It's a clear demonstration of being one of the fossil fuel industry's useful idiots.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're right. I was off. The average temperature of the world's oceans is ~20C. So...

293.67/293.0 = 0.0023%

And I'm perfectly correct to use percent to describe a temperature increase. Let me know when you've passed thermodynamics and heat transfer.

The green measures the Europeans are not causing them to experience unprecedented heat waves.

Disagreeing with 99+% of the world's PhD climate scientists is not a demonstration of superior intelligence. It's a clear demonstration of being one of the fossil fuel industry's useful idiots.

You're right. I was off. The average temperature of the world's oceans is ~20C. So...

293.67/293.0 = 0.0023%

You're still off.

That's an increase of 0.23%

And I'm perfectly correct to use percent to describe a temperature increase.

LOL!

What's the percentage increase in Farenheit? In Celsius?

Let me know when you've passed thermodynamics and heat transfer.

Let me know when you've passed percentages.

The green measures the Europeans are not causing them to experience unprecedented heat waves.

No, but the green measures are gonna kill some people this winter.

 

[ReinyDays]

Disagreeing with 99+% of the world's PhD climate scientists is not a demonstration of superior intelligence. It's a clear demonstration of being one of the fossil fuel industry's useful idiots.

There's your fraud ... 104.6+% of the world's climate scientists say "individual weather events are not climate" ... at least 104.6% of climate scientists who speak on National Public Radio's "All Thing Considered" are saying that ... "No smoking gun yet" ...

You believe heat waves have never struck anyplace until 1980 ... I'm sorry, 112.73+% of the world's scientists (older than 50-years-old) disagree with you ... no surprise there ...

=====

I'm watching the NASCAR race today ... for the same reason I hang out at airports ... the sound and smell of high-performance piston engines screaming ... [shivers] ... anyway, the commercial said burning propane doesn't produce carbon dioxide ... Big Oil expects you to believe this ...

136.827++% of all the world's adults do ...

Makes yearn to heat up my ice pick and gouge out my eyes to think Crick might have a good point here ...