More Empirical Evidence That Recent Climate Change Warming Is Not A Threat

[Billy_Bob]

The source of the graph presented?

Research... It has the OBSERVED rise in temperature and a modeled rise. NOAA is up in the damn night..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Again, offering some cherry-picked BS from somewhere.

Try an actual source.

How much will Earth warm if carbon dioxide doubles pre-industrial levels? | NOAA Climate.gov

WOW what an idiot.. Your using an invalid comparison and NOAA is up in the damn night. The LOG of this trace gas is common knowledge. NOAA is using a graph that is totally baseless...

Here.. this is STOMATA data that shows our wild swings of CO2 levels are not uncommon and exposes the NOAA deception...

You truly don't have clue what your talking about.

 

[otto105]

WOW what an idiot.. Your using an invalid comparison and NOAA is up in the damn night. The LOG of this trace gas is common knowledge. NOAA is using a graph that is totally baseless...

Here.. this is STOMATA data that shows our wild swings of CO2 levels are not uncommon and exposes the NOAA deception...

View attachment 661340


You truly don't have clue what your talking about.

I present experts in the field. You pick unsourced bullshit from a denier website.

 

[otto105]

I present experts in the field. You pick unsourced bullshit from a denier website.

Stomatal data is unreliable for CO2 measurements.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Stomatal data is unreliable for CO2 measurements.

LOL.... More reliable than NOAA charts and graphs.. But then you know that.. or you should...

Here is another site which shows the LOG of CO2.. I'm sure you will poo poo this one too.. But it also shows the diminishing returns of CO2... damn.. I wonder why that is?

Carbon dioxide

Carbon dioxide | CO2 | CID 280 - structure, chemical names, physical and chemical properties, classification, patents, literature, biological activities, safety/hazards/toxicity information, supplier lists, and more.

pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[jc456]

We have scientific consensus.


You have breitless and lord muckington.

No such thing

 

[jc456]

I present experts in the field. You pick unsourced bullshit from a denier website.

What experts? Name one that has included clouds into testing

 

[JusticeHammer]

Geezsus cracker you want to publish your stupidity for all to see...

Leave your racist remarks out of it retard.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Maga is a cult term

Liberal=retard

 

[Sunsettommy]

I was giving him the opportunity to disprove his ignorance...

Dam, he Failed!!!

I am jealous....

 

[Sunsettommy]

I notice that warmist/alarmists kooks ignore the well-known LOG function of C02 and the very small CO2 forcing increase of a doubling from 280 to 560 ppm like this:

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.5 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …

LINK

=====

This is WHY I know the AGW doom believers are stupid as hell on this because the postulated increase is so freaking small!!!

 

[otto105]

I notice that warmist/alarmists kooks ignore the well-known LOG function of C02 and the very small CO2 forcing increase of a doubling from 280 to 560 ppm like this:

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.5 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.

The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …

LINK

=====

This is WHY I know the AGW doom believers are stupid as hell on this because the postulated increase is so freaking small!!!

A website called "what's up with that" rather than an actual scientific organization....

A website that just has climate denier blogposts

 

[otto105]

Research... It has the OBSERVED rise in temperature and a modeled rise. NOAA is up in the damn night..

Observed and noted.

 

[otto105]

Liberal=retard

maga=fuckup

 

[Sunsettommy]

A website called "what's up with that" rather than an actual scientific organization....

A website that just has climate denier blogposts

Another dead-on arrival replies from an uneducated warmist/alarmist gook.

The figures are correct, but you are too stupid and ignorant to know it since you are completely unaware of the AGW conjecture which talks about a doubling factor in it.

You keep getting exposed on how little you about the AGW conjecture because you are so brainwashed by the CO2 sniffing cult.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Observed and noted.

Typical clueless reply that makes climate realists laugh since no one here disputes the warming trend since it began around 1700 long before CO2 started rising which was around 90 years later....

 

[otto105]

Another dead-on arrival replies from an uneducated warmist/alarmist gook.

The figures are correct, but you are too stupid and ignorant to know it since you are completely unaware of the AGW conjecture which talks about a doubling factor in it.

You keep getting exposed on how little you about the AGW conjecture because you are so brainwashed by the CO2 sniffing cult.

Name one scientific organization which can confirm your AGW denial.

 

[otto105]

Typical clueless reply that makes climate realists laugh since no one here disputes the warming trend since it began around 1700 long before CO2 started rising which was around 90 years later....

Can you point to 1700 on this temperature graph.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Name one scientific organization which can confirm your AGW denial.

Ha ha ha your stupidity is now off the charts since YOU have been told repeatedly that CO2 has a warm forcing effect but is small with a diminishing rate (Logarithmic) into the future of which you were shown evidence heck I showed you the doubling rate chart that shows the small CO2 warm forcing increase by the 560ppm level.

I now wonder if you have any brain damage you are covering up.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ha ha ha your stupidity is now off the charts since YOU have been told repeatedly that CO2 has a warm forcing effect but is small with a diminishing rate (Logarithmic) into the future of which you were shown evidence heck I showed you the doubling rate chart that shows the small CO2 warm forcing increase by the 560ppm level.

I now wonder if you have any brain damage you are covering up.

Otto is the gift that keeps on giving..... And he is clueless.