Mauna Loa shows that reducing economic Activity has NO EFFECT on CO2

[mamooth]

No counterpoint again, which diploma mill did you buy your $19.99 Physics degree?

I asked you if you agreed with Westwall that astrophysics and meteorology aren't science. Predictably, you wet yourself and ran, again, in front of the whole board.

The point that you and Westwall are both running from is that your raging double standard there demonstrates how you're dishonest political hacks. And that you don't know how the scientific method works.

Damn, I'm good. You losers won't even pretend you can debate me any more. You now skip straight to the hysterical insults.

You didn't make a case at all just another empty rant, I can imagine your voice sounds like a woman......

Check it out, another denier who has serious _issues_ with women. What a surprise.

 

[mamooth]

It takes an order of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than was required to produce it. - Brandolini's Law

As my point was how you deniers have been totally wrong with your predictions of cooling for over 40 years now, I thank you for proving that point so conclusively. I'll let you know if I want you to prove any of my other points.

"Climate experts believe the next ice age is on its way."
- Leonard Nimoy, 1978

Yes, ChemEngineer here thinks Leonard Nimoy was a climate scientist. Truly, we have a great mind among us.

 

[jc456]

If fossil fuel only has C12, we burn it, that’s C12?

Not only, but more.
More C-12, less C-13.

then where’s the C14 come from?

Carbon-14, the isotope with 8 neutrons, is created in the atmosphere. Cosmic rays enter the atmosphere from space and create energetic neutrons. When one of these energetic neutrons collides with a nitrogen atom (7 protons and 7 neutrons), it forces out one of the protons, creating a Carbon-14 atom (6 protons and 8 neutrons).

C14 Dating Techniques – Coastal Systems Group

www2.whoi.edu

I wonder Where the magic marker is that’s man’s?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I wonder Where the magic marker is that’s man’s?

The carbon in the CO2 from fossil fuels has a higher percentage of C-12.

That's the evidence.

 

[mamooth]

Correct, but the residence time for most CO2 is measured in days,

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

The residence time for water vapor is measured in days. The residence time for CO2 is measured in years. The shortest estimate I've found is 4 years.

And thus, your dumb argument faceplants. There's plenty of time for the C-13 deficient or C-14 deficient fossil fuel CO2 to accumulate.

 

[Crick]

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

The residence time for water vapor is measured in days. The residence time for CO2 is measured in years. The shortest estimate I've found is 4 years.

And thus, your dumb argument faceplants. There's plenty of time for the C-13 deficient or C-14 deficient fossil fuel CO2 to accumulate.

Changes to our atmosphere associated with reactive gases (gases that undergo chemical reactions) like ozone and ozone-forming chemicals like nitrous oxides, are relatively short-lived. Carbon dioxide is a different animal, however. Once it’s added to the atmosphere, it hangs around, for a long time: between 300 to 1,000 years. Thus, as humans change the atmosphere by emitting carbon dioxide, those changes will endure on the timescale of many human lives.

The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide

Part Two: Satellites from NASA and other space agencies are revealing surprising new insights into atmospheric carbon dioxide, the principal human-produced driver of climate change.

climate.nasa.gov

 

[mamooth]

Your post was dead on arrival since you didn't counter anything I posted.

When you resort to the UAH fudgy goodness, you're crazy desperate.

Honest people , when they talk about surface temperature, will ... get this ... use temperature directly measured at the surface, using these radical devices called "thermometers."

Psuedoscience fanatics -- that is, you -- will deliberately discard the best direct data, in favor of using oxygen microwave emissions taken from across the whole troposphere, which are then run through a model that uses all kinds of fudge factors.

So, other than "BECAUSE IT AGREES WITH MY POLITICS!", do you have any justification for doing that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Poor Westwall. I destroyed a main tenet of his religious faith, and he's not taking it well. That's why he's evading by screaming his debunked scripture louder, instead of debating.

Again, I point out that according your loony claims, astrophysics and meteorology aren't science. Since they clearly _are_ science, you're clearly wrong. That's not debatable.

No, cherrypicking and misusing bad definitions won't change that. Science doesn't have to be repeatable in a lab. It has to make predictions that are repeatably correct. That's the repeatability required by the scientific method. A lab is one way to do it, but it's not the only way.

So, how would you go about proving astrophysics repeatably in a lab? If you can't, doesn't that mean you define astrophysics as not being science? Why the double standards?

What is the specific definition of "natural cycle"? After all, to have a theory, you have to define it specifically. You refuse to do so.

And what is the null hypotheses that you tested your religious "it's a natural cycle" alternate theory against?

Can you show us any measurable increase in temperature by increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM?

What? You can’t?

Is that because the temperature increase is out 3 or 4 decimal places?

 

[jc456]

I asked you if you agreed with Westwall that astrophysics and meteorology aren't science. Predictably, you wet yourself and ran, again, in front of the whole board.

The point that you and Westwall are both running from is that your raging double standard there demonstrates how you're dishonest political hacks. And that you don't know how the scientific method works.

Damn, I'm good. You losers won't even pretend you can debate me any more. You now skip straight to the hysterical insults.


Check it out, another denier who has serious _issues_ with women. What a surprise.

You’re still ranting

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Except for all the times we did so.

You suck hard at lying, little troll.

What’s that number?

 

[Sunsettommy]

I asked you if you agreed with Westwall that astrophysics and meteorology isn't science. Predictably, you pissed yourseslf and ran, again, in front of the whole board.

The point that you and Westwall are both running from is that your raging double standard there demonstrates how you're a dishonest political hacks. And that you don't know how the scientific method works.

Damn, I'm good. You losers won't even pretend you can debate me any more. You now skip straight to the hysterical insults.


Check it out, another denier who has serious _issues_ with women. What a surprise.

Notice that once again this jerk doesn't debate anything while I posted a bunch of information and Westfall did too but this jerk REFUSES to debate anything.

Post 306 I post a link showing why I can say Dr. Sherwood claim is composed of lies and that the NOAA never accepted his made up "new" weather balloon data.

He didn't counter any of it and runs off at the mouth instead.

Strike One.

===

Post 308 I posted a video of Dr. Feynman explaining the Scientific Method.

He didn't counter any of it.

Strike two.

===

Post 315 I made a post showing that the data for the UAH and RSS are from the NOAA.

He completely ignored the post altogether.

Strike Three.

You have zero counterpoints to brag about.

You never did tell us which Diploma mill gave you that cheap Physics Degree you claimed specifically you have it at another forum or were you LYING after all?

You show no evidence of High college learning or thinking processes that should have been easy to see with such a high-level degree, but YOU show none of it thus you are LYING.

 

[Sunsettommy]

When you resort to the UAH fudgy goodness, you're crazy desperate.

Honest people , when they talk about surface temperature, will ... get this ... use temperature directly measured at the surface, using these radical devices called "thermometers."

Psuedoscience fanatics -- that is, you -- will deliberately discard the best direct data, in favor of using oxygen microwave emissions taken from across the whole troposphere, which are then run through a model that uses all kinds of fudge factors.

So, other than "BECAUSE IT AGREES WITH MY POLITICS!", do you have any justification for doing that?

Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla.

All you have is rants, name calling and bullshit to offer.

 

[Crick]

Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla.

All you have is rants, name calling and bullshit to offer.

You'd have looked better making no response at all.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's hard to believe you were ever an engineer, since no engineer would suck as badly at technical communication as you do.


A graph should convey what matters. What matters is the increase. Your perverse take on it tries to hide the important part, so it's deliberate dishonesty on your part.


And you fail at understanding an equilibrium system, something that a grade-schooler has no problems with. And you expect to be taken seriously?


Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. And CO2 plugs different spectral holes than water vapor. This is basic stuff, and you faceplant at it. Given the magnitude of your ignorance, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

We need a facepalm emoji

 

[mamooth]

and Westfall did too but this jerk REFUSES to debate anything.

Do you _ever_ stop whining? How can you stand yourself? If I acted like you do, I'd off myself to remove the stain of dishonor from my family.

Post 306 I post a link showing why I can say Dr. Sherwood claim is composed of lies and that the NOAA never accepted his made up "new" weather balloon data.

I get that you put great importance on your conspiracy ravings, but nobody else does. Do get over yourself. Nobody is obligated to respond to your crank rambling.

Post 308 I posted a video of Dr. Feynman explaining the Scientific Method.

And he agrees with me, so I thank you for that.

Post 315 I made a post showing that the data for the UAH and RSS are from the NOAA.

UAH comes from John Christy at University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The NOAA providing some funding for Huntsville in general does not mean UAH is from NOAA. That's one of your dumber lies.

You never did tell us which Diploma mill gave you that cheap Physics Degree you claimed specifically you have it at another forum or were you LYING after all?

Oh, I see. You poor thing. You never graduated high school. It shows through in your jealousy.

I get that the thread has strayed far from the original topic, but that topic is definitely _not_ how much you hate me, so please stop talking about that.

What I want to talk about is the scientific method, which says that something must be repeatable to be science. It does _not_ say something must be repeatable in a lab to be science. That's your really dumb interpretation, and I've shown how wrong it is by bringing up the examples of astrophysics and meteorology.

So, for the third time, are astrophysics and meteorology science, even though they can't do repeatable things in a lab? Yes or no.

(Yes, I know you won't answer. I just enjoy seeing what excuses you use to evade.)

 

[jc456]

The carbon in the CO2 from fossil fuels has a higher percentage of C-12.

That's the evidence.

Ahhhh natural evidence

 

[westwall]

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

The residence time for water vapor is measured in days. The residence time for CO2 is measured in years. The shortest estimate I've found is 4 years.

And thus, your dumb argument faceplants. There's plenty of time for the C-13 deficient or C-14 deficient fossil fuel CO2 to accumulate.

They are called facts. You don't do facts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Except for all the times we did so.

You suck hard at lying, little troll.

What's that number, Liar?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Changes to our atmosphere associated with reactive gases (gases that undergo chemical reactions) like ozone and ozone-forming chemicals like nitrous oxides, are relatively short-lived. Carbon dioxide is a different animal, however. Once it’s added to the atmosphere, it hangs around, for a long time: between 300 to 1,000 years. Thus, as humans change the atmosphere by emitting carbon dioxide, those changes will endure on the timescale of many human lives.

The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide

Part Two: Satellites from NASA and other space agencies are revealing surprising new insights into atmospheric carbon dioxide, the principal human-produced driver of climate change.

climate.nasa.gov

Where do you get these numbers?

 

[ReinyDays]

HE claims his experiments don't need to be repeatable. That's because they can't be, he knows it, and he is trying to rewrite the scientific method to suit HIM. I find it interesting that you point to his recounting a series of historical events, and claiming that that is a study. That is a recounting of history, then he tosses opinion in on top.

That ain't science.

What also isn't science is sating something is false without stating what is true ...

Around and around we go ... you'll never actually say what he did that CAN'T be duplicated ... have a link? ... or are you plain stupid ...