CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,082
- 78,304
- 2,645
- Thread starter
- #381

Plymouth Rock.
Still above water since 1620
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wait a second, the vast majority of CO2 dissipates "65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years." So on average 72% dissaptes in 60 years!!!
Besides, we're still waiting for proof that CO2:
- raises temperature by any measurable amount
- drives the climate
- or that mankind has any measurable impact at all on CO2
Wait ... over half human emitted CO2 disappears within a single year ... it's assumed it's being absorbed by the ocean and converted there into plant material ... great big giant seaweed blobs the size of Arkansas ... but evidence is thin at best, more likely Climate freaks are lying about how much we emit ...
Just a small note, your last claim ... carbon from burnt fossil fuels is different from natural carbon ... and we detect that difference in the atmosphere today ... in fact ... carbon-14 dating has been ruined by burning fossil fuels ... not longer works for accurately dating objects made after say 1900 ...
425 ppm when surrounded by hot glowing lava ...
I never made the claim that "carbon from burnt fossil fuels is different from natural carbon ... and we detect that difference in the atmosphere today ... in fact ... carbon-14 dating has been ruined by burning fossil fuels ... not longer works for accurately dating objects made after say 1900"
Again, with respect to Moana Loa, that's been the AGW gold Standard for CO2 measurements
- or that mankind has any measurable impact at all on CO2
Frank, I'd say even further message is that 72% of 120 PPM is now in the water, so now they're saying that adding 34 PPM. So they want us to believe that only 34 PPM of CO2 added to the atmosphere is catastrophic. hahahhahahahahahaahhahahhha.Wait a second, the vast majority of CO2 dissipates "65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years." So on average 72% dissaptes in 60 years!!!
Besides, we're still waiting for proof that CO2:
- raises temperature by any measurable amount
- drives the climate
- or that mankind has any measurable impact at all on CO2
Frank, I'd say even further message is that 72% of 120 PPM is now in the water, so now they're saying that adding 34 PPM. So they want us to believe that only 34 PPM of CO2 added to the atmosphere is catastrophic. hahahhahahahahahaahhahahhha.
Again, without any evidence.
No link means you're full of shit ...
No link means you're full of shit ...
![]()
Not sure how much clearer is can be that human activity has NO EFFECT on CO2 which in turn has no ability to drive temperature and climate on planet Earth
Redirect Notice
images.app.goo.gl
It’s almost as if Internal Combustion Engines congregate in the forests to spew their planet killing CO2
The Keeling Curve is atmosphere only.Frank, I'd say even further message is that 72% of 120 PPM is now in the water, so now they're saying that adding 34 PPM. So they want us to believe that only 34 PPM of CO2 added to the atmosphere is catastrophic. hahahhahahahahahaahhahahhha.
Again, without any evidence.
So now you’re saying that there’s 72% more CO2 than what’s in the air?The Keeling Curve is atmosphere only.
The science says all sorts of things. You should read some of it sometime.So now you’re saying that there’s 72% more CO2 than what’s in the air?
Hahaha
I have, Frank posted it. Then you posted nonsense as an argumentThe science says all sorts of things. You should read some of it sometime.
His desire to exempt himself from the scientific method, and which I provided links for, says I'm not.
Dumbfuck.
No links ... just mass media ... those folks are entitled to their opinions, even if they don't understand the subject material ...
You're claiming there's a published scientific paper that contains an experiment that cannot be duplicated ... I'd like a link to that scientific paper ... maybe from a publishing house you respect ... not sure why you don't like Sausalito Scientific Publishing Company ... first choice among Grateful Dead fans and folks who've taken too much LSD in their lives ...
Oh wait ...I see you're down to your ad hominum attacks again ... fucking loser ...
Links were provided little dope.
You lose.
From the National Enquirer? ... too funny ...
No, that's your speed. I provided links to specific papers.
Looks like you're too dumb to figure that out.