Is Anthropogenic (Human-Caused) Global Warming/AGW Falsifiable?

[Dagosa]

Boy, you can’t even read correctly dufus.

Like when you read "Nat gas and nuclear are awesome!!!"

As "solar power is awesome"? DURR

You declared I referred to nuclear reactors…..that’s stupid.
Now you’re just babbling. We have been using nuclear “energy“:since man has been on earth. That you don’t even know how that is hilarious.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You declared I referred to nuclear reactors…..that’s stupid.
Now you’re just babbling. We have been using nuclear “energy“:since man has been on earth. That you don’t even know how that is hilarious.

You feel I meant solar. That's cute.

 

[Dagosa]

Simple. Because at these levels and pressures CO2 has no ability to raise temperature. If it did you would post the experiment every time we asked for it

That’s a stupid statement. No green house gas raises the temperature on its own. It traps more radiant energy which causes the temperatures to rise….it’s the available energy from the sun and other sources that causes temperatures to rise foolish. CO2 helps trap this energy. Why can’t you ask questions correctly. CO2 is a chemical compound.

 

[Dagosa]

You feel I meant solar. That's cute.

See what I said foolish.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

See what I said foolish.

I happy you can admit your shortfall.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That’s a stupid statement. No green house gas raises the temperature on its own. It traps more radiant energy which causes the temperatures to rise….it’s the available energy from the sun and other sources that causes temperatures to rise foolish. CO2 helps trap this energy. Why can’t you ask questions correctly. CO2 is a chemical compound.

I said you should stay out if it

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That doesn't explain those observations.

I don't understand that statement. Are you saying that CO2's performance anxiety in the lab must be to blame because we all KNOW that CO2 raises temperature?

 

[Crick]

I don't understand that statement.

Yes you do.

Are you saying that CO2's performance anxiety in the lab must be to blame because we all KNOW that CO2 raises temperature?

I'm asking everyone if they can come up with an alternative explanation for the matching observations that downwelling backscatter from the atmosphere displays the spectrum of the greenhouse gases and that the IR leaving the planet is reduced at the absorption frequencies of the greenhouse gases. If you can't think of an explanation other than the greenhouse effect, be a fucking normal human being and say so.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes you do.

I'm asking everyone if they can come up with an alternative explanation for the matching observations that downwelling backscatter from the atmosphere displays the spectrum of the greenhouse gases and that the IR leaving the planet is reduced at the absorption frequencies of the greenhouse gases. If you can't think of an explanation other than the greenhouse effect, be a fucking normal human being and say so.

I can relate to the thought process as it’s the exact same one applied to the existence of megalithic architecture the world over which to me and others indicates that there was a prior far advanced civilization.

With respect to AGW it seems more like accepting facts not in evidence. There are many variables affecting the weather and if we’re trying to get the world to accept that CO2 is raising temperatures, that’s something that should show up in evidence and it never does

Maybe mankind affects temperature more through aldebo thank CO2?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Ni!

 

[Crick]

Ni!

Is that a quote from one of the knights who... you know...

Succinct and to the point!

 

[jc456]

If you actually believe that, you've got some serious mental problems you need to deal with.

Actually, you still haven’t posted a climate scientist name who can back the IPCC

 

[jc456]

How do you explain the fact that more than 99 out of every 100 scientists would call those the opinions of an idiot?

Link

 

[jc456]

Yes you do.

I'm asking everyone if they can come up with an alternative explanation for the matching observations that downwelling backscatter from the atmosphere displays the spectrum of the greenhouse gases and that the IR leaving the planet is reduced at the absorption frequencies of the greenhouse gases. If you can't think of an explanation other than the greenhouse effect, be a fucking normal human being and say so.

Except, co2 can’t get warmer than the surface ir

 

[MisterBeale]

There is some debate about the origin of natural gas and oil.

Some now believe that the origins of this, are abiotic, and the result of very large celestial bodies.

This is why some believe, there are seas of methane on Titan. Surely Titan never had organic life, yes?

Titan’s surface organics surpass oil reserves on Earth​

Titan’s surface organics surpass oil reserves on Earth

Saturn’s orange moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, according to new Cassini data. The hydrocarbons rain from the sky, collecting in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes.

www.esa.int

Synthesis of hydrocarbons under upper mantle
conditions: Evidence for the theory of abiotic deep
petroleum origin

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

Deep-seated abiogenic origin of petroleum: From geological assessment to physical theory

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008RG000270

What may be the largest source of abiotic methane gas on Earth

Methane (CH4), the chief constituent of natural gas, is one of the most widely used "clean" fuels. Although methane is usually considered to originate from organic matter, recently, more and more evidence shows that methane can be produced by abiotic processes.

phys.org

Development of oil formation theories and their importance for peak oil

This paper reviews the historical development of both biogenic and non-biogenic petroleum formation. It also examines the recent claim that the so-cal…

www.sciencedirect.com

The abiotic theory, has traditionally, come out of Ukraine, Russia, and China. There is a reason, that for the past century and an half, the west has purposely marketed the term, "fossil fuels."

Tucker Carlson 1/14/24 | Tucker Carlson Tonight January 14, 2024​

477,685 views Jan 14, 2024
Tucker Carlson 1/14/24:If fossil fuels come from fossils, why have scientists found them on one of Saturn’s moons? A lot of what you’ve heard about energy is false. Dr. Willie Soon explains.

 

[Dagosa]

There is some debate about the origin of natural gas and oil.

Some now believe that the origins of this, are abiotic, and the result of very large celestial bodies.

This is why some believe, there are seas of methane on Titan. Surely Titan never had organic life, yes?

Titan’s surface organics surpass oil reserves on Earth​

Titan’s surface organics surpass oil reserves on Earth

Saturn’s orange moon Titan has hundreds of times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, according to new Cassini data. The hydrocarbons rain from the sky, collecting in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes.

www.esa.int

Synthesis of hydrocarbons under upper mantle
conditions: Evidence for the theory of abiotic deep
petroleum origin

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

Deep-seated abiogenic origin of petroleum: From geological assessment to physical theory

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008RG000270

What may be the largest source of abiotic methane gas on Earth

Methane (CH4), the chief constituent of natural gas, is one of the most widely used "clean" fuels. Although methane is usually considered to originate from organic matter, recently, more and more evidence shows that methane can be produced by abiotic processes.

phys.org

Development of oil formation theories and their importance for peak oil

This paper reviews the historical development of both biogenic and non-biogenic petroleum formation. It also examines the recent claim that the so-cal…

www.sciencedirect.com

The abiotic theory, has traditionally, come out of Ukraine, Russia, and China. There is a reason, that for the past century and an half, the west has purposely marketed the term, "fossil fuels."

Seriously ? This is a debate ? Conspiracy theories among science illiterates abounds. It’s a revisited theory that surfaces by Tucker every time fossil fuels are mentioned as bad for the environment. It doesn’t matter what you burn……

 

[jc456]

Seriously ? This is a debate ? Conspiracy theories among science illiterates abounds. It’s a revisited theory that surfaces by Tucker every time fossil fuels are mentioned as bad for the environment. It doesn’t matter what you burn……

So what is it you believe?

 

[Dagosa]

So what is it you believe?

I believe…..it doesn’t matter. The evidence is overwhelming that the oil we have been using is from organic fossils. It’s not magic. We can tell. if some amount of methane is produce otherwise, who cares. It’s still a pollutant.

 

[jc456]

I believe…..it doesn’t matter. The evidence is overwhelming that the oil we have been using is from organic fossils. It’s not magic. We can tell. if some amount of methane is produce otherwise, who cares. It’s still a pollutant.

What evidence? I knew you were weak

 

[Dagosa]

What evidence? I knew you were weak

Google it Dufus and accept any of the 30 k accredited science sources…