My Three Global Warming Fraud Websites

[Cardinal Carminative]

... she should change her tampoon while she's at it ...

Incels are funny.

 

[ReinyDays]

Already did. Too bad you missed it.

You gave speculation ... not demonstration ... the two are different ... try, try again little girl ...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You gave speculation ... not demonstration ... the two are different ... try, try again little girl ...

Ummm, I'm not a girl. Funny you should assume that. Makes it look like you don't really know what you are talking about in regards to ANYTHING. You probably saw my avatar and assumed (incorrectly) my gender.

It really does seem like you are someone who doesn't actually mind going well beyond what you actually "know" and then just making unfounded assumptions.

 

[ReinyDays]

Ummm, I'm not a girl. Funny you should assume that. Makes it look like you don't really know what you are talking about in regards to ANYTHING. You probably saw my avatar and assumed (incorrectly) my gender.

It really does seem like you are someone who doesn't actually mind going well beyond what you actually "know" and then just making unfounded assumptions.

Then run it by us again ... you like reading your own typing ... why should we believe there's "hockey stick" behaviors in the climate system? ...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Then run it by us again ... you like reading your own typing ... why should we believe there's "hockey stick" behaviors in the climate system? ...

Because it has been found in OTHER proxies. The speleothem data I posted earlier. The borehole data I posted earlier. Those analyses were done independent of Mann's hockeystick.

It keeps showing up over and over.

And it makes sense. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas as is CH4 and other things humans emit. Excess CO2 in the atmosphere takes a long time to equilibrate back down to the original level.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Because it has been found in OTHER proxies. The speleothem data I posted earlier. The borehole data I posted earlier. Those analyses were done independent of Mann's hockeystick.

It keeps showing up over and over.

And it makes sense. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas as is CH4 and other things humans emit. Excess CO2 in the atmosphere takes a long time to equilibrate back down to the original level.

I don't recall you posting the sources for those claims which is your common failing here.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I don't recall you posting the sources for those claims which is your common failing here.

I am not playing your game. Use the search function, Einstein.

 

[ReinyDays]

Because it has been found in OTHER proxies. The speleothem data I posted earlier. The borehole data I posted earlier. Those analyses were done independent of Mann's hockeystick.

It keeps showing up over and over.

And it makes sense. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas as is CH4 and other things humans emit. Excess CO2 in the atmosphere takes a long time to equilibrate back down to the original level.

We're back to our disagreement again ... why should carbon dioxide take a long time to anything? ... water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and her behaviors are apparent rather quickly, say within a year or two ... [giggle] ...

Sorry, I believe the Alarmist position is that this extra carbon is permanent ... it's been buried for 300 million years ... and now it's released again ... part of this makes the Earth greener with some left over in the atmosphere ... all of it enters the carbon cycle ...

Mann's "Hockey Stick" is bogus ... nature doesn't behave that way in general ... and certainly not how radiative physics behaves ... sheesh ... no Hockey Stick means no catastrophes ... and like I've said all along, global warming is of net benefit to man-kind ... we are on the cusp of a new beginning, a new level of humanity, behold the future is Golden in every way ...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

We're back to our disagreement again ... why should carbon dioxide take a long time to anything? ... water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and her behaviors are apparent rather quickly, say within a year or two ... [giggle] ...

H2O, when in excess in the atmosphere, can quickly and easily re-equilibrate to a lower level. This is called precipitation and it is part of the hydrologic cycle. CO2, on the other hand, when in excess in the atmosphere has to rely on the CARBON CYCLE to re-equilibrate back down and that is a more complex system that takes a longer time.

So when you increase CO2 in the atmosphere it causes warming which then leads to more H2O in the atmosphere which also adds to warming. The added CO2, however, cannot be "bled back down" quickly so it continues to do its job as a greenhouse gas.

Sorry, I believe the Alarmist position is that this extra carbon is permanent

Literally NO ONE says that. If you read the actual literature there is disagreement but it is in the range of years to hundreds of years but not "permanent".

... it's been buried for 300 million years ... and now it's released again

The key here is that it is re-release VERY QUICKLY compared to the time it took to initially sequester it.

Mann's "Hockey Stick" is bogus ... nature doesn't behave that way in general

What do you mean "nature doesn't behave that way"? This is largely human activity. The "flat part" (handle) of the hockey stick shows you what NATURE usually does, the spike at the end is mostly US. Of COURSE you can dramatically increase something. Especially if you burn gigatons of carbon each year why would it be any other way???

... sheesh ... no Hockey Stick means no catastrophes

Not that simple, but it certainly explains why you denialists fight against it so hard.

... and like I've said all along, global warming is of net benefit to man-kind

And you're likely wrong. But I guess we don't have a choice now that you lot have kept people from acting on the warnings. We'll find out I guess.

... we are on the cusp of a new beginning, a new level of humanity, behold the future is Golden in every way ...

LOL.

Do you have kids? I ask because people with kids are talking so big about the wonders of the future. The future you will likely never see, but your kids will. Hope you made the right bet when you bet against the house.

Your kids will "thank" you for it. Or damn your name for it. Either way, you won't know. But your kids will.

 

[ReinyDays]

H2O, when in excess in the atmosphere, can quickly and easily re-equilibrate to a lower level. This is called precipitation and it is part of the hydrologic cycle. CO2, on the other hand, when in excess in the atmosphere has to rely on the CARBON CYCLE to re-equilibrate back down and that is a more complex system that takes a longer time.

So when you increase CO2 in the atmosphere it causes warming which then leads to more H2O in the atmosphere which also adds to warming. The added CO2, however, cannot be "bled back down" quickly so it continues to do its job as a greenhouse gas.



Literally NO ONE says that. If you read the actual literature there is disagreement but it is in the range of years to hundreds of years but not "permanent".



The key here is that it is re-release VERY QUICKLY compared to the time it took to initially sequester it.



What do you mean "nature doesn't behave that way"? This is largely human activity. The "flat part" (handle) of the hockey stick shows you what NATURE usually does, the spike at the end is mostly US. Of COURSE you can dramatically increase something. Especially if you burn gigatons of carbon each year why would it be any other way???




Not that simple, but it certainly explains why you denialists fight against it so hard.



And you're likely wrong. But I guess we don't have a choice now that you lot have kept people from acting on the warnings. We'll find out I guess.



LOL.

Do you have kids? I ask because people with kids are talking so big about the wonders of the future. The future you will likely never see, but your kids will. Hope you made the right bet when you bet against the house.

Your kids will "thank" you for it. Or damn your name for it. Either way, you won't know. But your kids will.

Again, you lack the understanding of the basic physics involved ... the equilibrium state of water vapor in the atmosphere is 100% RH ... take a sealed vessel with some liquid water and dry air ... wait a few hours and the air will be fully saturated ... every time ... this also works with ethanol and air ... and it works with iron and air ...

You just don't have enough formal education to know what vapor pressure is ... Chemistry 101 or 102 ...

This isn't so with carbon dioxide and dry air ... these two species are miscible, which means they can freely mix in all proportions ... so you're using the word "equilibrium" incorrectly here ... you have to state why carbon dioxide needs to be below 280 ppm ...

I'm asking politely here ... why does it take so long to "bled back down"? ... you keep saying that but you don't explain why ... how long does it take for an individual phytoplankton at sea to double her mass? ... 'cause there's bitch-loads of phytoplankton at sea ...

Here's a math exercise for you ... it's typically reported that man-kind releases 40 gigatons of CO2 every year ... how much is this in atmospheric ppm? ... this value is observed as ≈ 2.5 ppm(volume)/yr at the Hawai'i gauge ... and don't forget density differences ...

Oh ... [giggle] ... phytoplankton sinks energy as well ... I have no idea how much, but it does take energy input to reduce carbon into her biological form ...

=====

I have a 1-year-old great-grandneice ... (will my vexation never end?) ... when she retires, global warming will only be as much as we've seen these past 40 years ... about a single degree Celsius ... and it will be her great-great-grandchildren who will see another single degree Celsius increase, and perhaps longer ... we have a logarithmic relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature ... "blade down, shaft level" ... my citation for this claim is IPCC AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 and associated text ... read it yourself if you don't believe me ...

It's a loser move to bring up another poster's children ... and here you've threatened my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren as well ... sheesh, North Korea stops at three generations ...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Again, you lack the understanding of the basic physics involved ... the equilibrium state of water vapor in the atmosphere is 100% RH ... take a sealed vessel with some liquid water and dry air ... wait a few hours and the air will be fully saturated ... every time ... this also works with ethanol and air ... and it works with iron and air ...

This does not change the way H2O operates in the atmosphere. I described it fine.

I'm asking politely here ... why does it take so long to "bled back down"?

The carbon cycle is very different from the hydrological cycle. You talk so big like you know something about science then you post a really ignorant question.

Learn some basic science THEN get back to me. I don't care much to teach you basics.

 

[Crick]

Again, you lack the understanding of the basic physics involved ... the equilibrium state of water vapor in the atmosphere is 100% RH ... take a sealed vessel with some liquid water and dry air ... wait a few hours and the air will be fully saturated ... every time ... this also works with ethanol and air ... and it works with iron and air ...

You just don't have enough formal education to know what vapor pressure is ... Chemistry 101 or 102 ...

This isn't so with carbon dioxide and dry air ... these two species are miscible, which means they can freely mix in all proportions ... so you're using the word "equilibrium" incorrectly here ... you have to state why carbon dioxide needs to be below 280 ppm ...

I'm asking politely here ... why does it take so long to "bled back down"? ... you keep saying that but you don't explain why ... how long does it take for an individual phytoplankton at sea to double her mass? ... 'cause there's bitch-loads of phytoplankton at sea ...

Here's a math exercise for you ... it's typically reported that man-kind releases 40 gigatons of CO2 every year ... how much is this in atmospheric ppm? ... this value is observed as ≈ 2.5 ppm(volume)/yr at the Hawai'i gauge ... and don't forget density differences ...

Oh ... [giggle] ... phytoplankton sinks energy as well ... I have no idea how much, but it does take energy input to reduce carbon into her biological form ...

=====

I have a 1-year-old great-grandneice ... (will my vexation never end?) ... when she retires, global warming will only be as much as we've seen these past 40 years ... about a single degree Celsius ... and it will be her great-great-grandchildren who will see another single degree Celsius increase, and perhaps longer ... we have a logarithmic relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature ... "blade down, shaft level" ... my citation for this claim is IPCC AR5 1WG Fig 12-5 and associated text ... read it yourself if you don't believe me ...

It's a loser move to bring up another poster's children ... and here you've threatened my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren as well ... sheesh, North Korea stops at three generations ...

"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

 

[ReinyDays]

This does not change the way H2O operates in the atmosphere. I described it fine.






The carbon cycle is very different from the hydrological cycle. You talk so big like you know something about science then you post a really ignorant question.

Learn some basic science THEN get back to me. I don't care much to teach you basics.

Because you're spouting complete bullshit ... I'm asking politely here ... why does it take so long to "bled back down" carbon dioxide? ... water's reactiveness in the atmosphere is immediate ... look at even the old generation GOES satellite imagery ...

Here's a math exercise for you ... it's typically reported that man-kind releases 40 gigatons of CO2 every year ... how much is this in atmospheric ppm? ... this value is observed as ≈ 2.5 ppm(volume)/yr at the Hawai'i gauge ... and don't forget density differences ...

 

[ReinyDays]

"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

“Humans have increased the abundance of carbon dioxide by 45 percent since the beginning of the Industrial Age. That’s making big changes in our environment, but at the same time, it’s not going to lead to a runaway greenhouse effect or something like that." [emphasis mine]

Tell us please what "big change" in the environment is caused by extra this carbon dioxide ... keeping in mind a single degree Celsius is the edge of instrumentation limits ...

=====

"Burning fossil fuels also depletes oxygen and lowers the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen in the atmosphere."

Haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw ... time to PANIC folks ...

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Because you're spouting complete bullshit ... I'm asking politely here ... why does it take so long to "bled back down" carbon dioxide? ... water's reactiveness in the atmosphere is immediate ... look at even the old generation GOES satellite imagery ...

Because the carbon cycle is how CO2 re-equilibrates back down to pre-excess levels. That requires that the CO2 be absorbed by plants and fixed or absorbed in ocean water, go through the various steps of CO2+H2O reactions until the carbonate ion (CO3 2-) is available in the water for the various shell-forming or calcareous structure forming animals fix it into a solid CaCO3 structure.

These steps take more time to re-establish the lower level of CO2 than it takes for excess H2O to re-establish at a lower level.

 

[ReinyDays]

Because the carbon cycle is how CO2 re-equilibrates back down to pre-excess levels. That requires that the CO2 be absorbed by plants and fixed or absorbed in ocean water, go through the various steps of CO2+H2O reactions until the carbonate ion (CO3 2-) is available in the water for the various shell-forming or calcareous structure forming animals fix it into a solid CaCO3 structure.

These steps take more time to re-establish the lower level of CO2 than it takes for excess H2O to re-establish at a lower level.

We can look up these "rates of reaction" ... I know the Carbonic acid equilibrium reaction is slow, but it's not that slow ... open a can of soda pop and it takes hours, not decades, to go flat ... and this is an excellent example of a slow chemical reaction, as the dissolved CO2 escapes off the top of the liquid layer, more Carbonic acid breaks apart into water and CO2, which in turn escapes leaving room for more Carbonic Acid to break down ... and this takes a while, maybe overnight for the soda pop to get completely flat ...

So why shouldn't the ocean stay within a fairly close approximation of this equilibrium within a year or two ...

And do the math problem I gave you ... it's very relevant to this conversation ... and you may well be a bit startled by the answer ... AGW Theory relies on CO2 having a much much much greater effect on atmospheric transparency than it's mass would indicate ... however, things like dissolving in the ocean and being taken up by biology do rely on mass, 150 ppm isn't very much mass compared to the rest of the climate system ... how long for an average algae to double her mass? ...

 

[Crick]

We can look up these "rates of reaction" ... I know the Carbonic acid equilibrium reaction is slow, but it's not that slow ... open a can of soda pop and it takes hours, not decades, to go flat ... and this is an excellent example of a slow chemical reaction, as the dissolved CO2 escapes off the top of the liquid layer, more Carbonic acid breaks apart into water and CO2, which in turn escapes leaving room for more Carbonic Acid to break down ... and this takes a while, maybe overnight for the soda pop to get completely flat ...

So why shouldn't the ocean stay within a fairly close approximation of this equilibrium within a year or two ...

And do the math problem I gave you ... it's very relevant to this conversation ... and you may well be a bit startled by the answer ... AGW Theory relies on CO2 having a much much much greater effect on atmospheric transparency than it's mass would indicate ... however, things like dissolving in the ocean and being taken up by biology do rely on mass, 150 ppm isn't very much mass compared to the rest of the climate system ... how long for an average algae to double her mass? ...

OMFG - you claim to have some science knowledge but think a soda can is a good analogy for the world's oceans?!?!? Fucking incredible.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OMFG - you claim to have some science knowledge but think a soda can is a good analogy for the world's oceans?!?!? Fucking incredible.

I agree, it's no Nobel Prize winning Hockey Stick.

 

[Crick]

It's like paper-rock-scissors. Soda can, raincoat, hockey stick.

 

[mamooth]

I definitely agree with the OP that his 3 kook denier websites were fraudulent.

All denier websites are fraudulent. They take pride in that.