Proof of AGW fraud

[Frannie]

There were no e-mails defrauding the science of climate change.

CO2 PPM graph:

Current & Historical Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Levels Graph

Exactly.
Case closed.
It is impossible for that nearly 40% CO2 increase to not cause AGW.
We know CO2 has to cause warming, and we know that burning all that fossil fuel adds over 5 trillion tons of carbon a year, to the atmosphere.
And we know it is accumulative, as CO2 is stable and only taken out by things like plants or carbonization of fresh silicate magma.

Your 5 Trillion a year claim is absurd, try using real data next time, by the way Carbon is NOT Carbon Dioxide.

C per year emissions for year 2015 was about 10 GtC

You are not even close, not even in the same solar system.

CO2 is a trace gas with a trace spectral absorption range, competing with the far more abundant Water Vapor in its main bandwidth, which is mostly OUTSIDE the main terrestrial IR L:W outflow, meaning CO2 absorbs little of the IR outflow to space.

CO2 is a life essential nutrient as well

 

[Sunsettommy]

There is no one reputable that disputes AGW.
It simply is scientific fact, we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% and CO2 prevent some heat from radiating back out into space.
It is absolute fact.
And anyone who remembers the USS Natilus traveling under the Arctic ice in the summer of 1958, will remember that until 2007 the whole Arctic Ocean was impossible to traverse, due to ice. Now you can. In 2007 was the first time you could do that in 10,000 years.

Sorry, turd, but your claims are not facts, and plenty of credible people dispute the Chicken Little theory of AGW.

Who and how?
There is absolutely no question global warming is happening. The Northwest Passage opening for the first time in 10,000 years is proof enough of that.
So are you saying that is part of some natural cycle, even though we know that the natural ice age cycle is more like 120 thousand years long?
You are making no sense and giving no details to claims that look pretty silly on their own.

Your claim which is already refuted, is refuted again with this science paper:

TRANSITS OF THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE TO END OF THE 2018 NAVIGATION SEASON ATLANTIC OCEAN ↔ ARCTIC OCEAN ↔ PACIFIC OCEAN

R. K. Headland and colleagues Revised 1 December 2018 Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge, United Kingdom, CB2 1ER.

Excerpt:

"The earliest traverse of the Northwest Passage was completed in 1853 but used sledges over the sea ice of the central part of Parry Channel. Subsequently the following 290 complete maritime transits of the Northwest Passage have been made to the end of the 2018 navigation season, before winter began and the passage froze. These transits proceed to or from the Atlantic Ocean (Labrador Sea) in or out of the eastern approaches to the Canadian Arctic archipelago (Lancaster Sound or Foxe Basin) then the western approaches (McClure Strait or Amundsen Gulf), across the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea of the Arctic Ocean, through the Bering Strait, from or to the Bering Sea of the Pacific Ocean. The Arctic Circle is crossed near the beginning and the end of all transits except those to or from the central or northern coast of west Greenland. The routes and directions are indicated. Details of submarine transits are not included because only two have been reported (1960 USS Sea Dragon, Capt. George Peabody Steele, westbound on route 1 and 1962 USS Skate, Capt. Joseph Lawrence Skoog, eastbound on route 1). Seven routes have been used for transits of the Northwest Passage with some minor variations (for example through Pond Inlet and Navy Board Inlet) and two composite courses in summers when ice was minimal (transits 149 and 167). These are shown on the map following, and proceed as follows:"

=====================================================
Your idiotic claim has been utterly smashed!

 

[Sunsettommy]

There is no one reputable that disputes AGW.
It simply is scientific fact, we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% and CO2 prevent some heat from radiating back out into space.
It is absolute fact.
And anyone who remembers the USS Natilus traveling under the Arctic ice in the summer of 1958, will remember that until 2007 the whole Arctic Ocean was impossible to traverse, due to ice. Now you can. In 2007 was the first time you could do that in 10,000 years.

\

You seem to be wrong on everything you say...where do you get all your bullshit? Or do you just make it up as you go?

Here is the Sea Dragon and her sister ship the Skate at the north pole in 1959

And as you have been shown, the peer reviewed literature says that there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

Liar.
Again, these images are NOT at the North Pole, but at Drifting Ice Station Alpha at 85ºN, 300 nm away.

Try to do some reading from more than a single source next time.
Anyone can claim an image is from somewhere else, but the history records are clear that no one was able to surface at the North Pole until after the year 2000.

Here is the real description of the USS Skates 2nd pole trip, where it did surface.

{...
While the Skate was unable to surface on its first voyage to the pole, on 17 March 1959, she became the first submarine to surface at the North Pole with Calvert describing the historic moment in his book, saying, "Slowly we blew the tanks and the Skate moved reluctantly upward. It was apparent we were under heavier ice here than any we had experienced before." While at the pole, Calvert and the crew planted an American Flag in a cairn they built out of ice blocks and put a waterproof container in the cairn with a note commemorating the event. The crew also held a ceremony for the late Arctic explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins and committed his ashes at the pole.[8] In 1931, Sir Hubert had conducted an Arctic expedition in the disarmed research submarine Nautilus (ex-USS O-12). After reaching the Pole, the Skate continued its mission to pioneer arctic operations during periods of extreme cold and maximum ice thickness. When the submarine returned to port, she was awarded a bronze star in lieu of a second Navy Unit Commendation for demonstrating "... for the first time the ability of submarines to operate in and under the Arctic ice in the dead of winter...." In the fall of 1959 and in 1960, Skate participated in exercises designed to strengthen American antisubmarine defenses.
...}

Obviously there was NO clear open water. It was all iced over.

An NO ONE with any sense would ever claim there is more ice now than in the last 10,000 years.
Clearly all the data says the ice is now less than ever in the last 10,000 years.
The data shown before was showing ice core samples from Greenland, and that has absolutely NOTHING at all to do with floating ice that is totally dependent on ocean water temperatures and nothing at all to do with land temperatures.

You are absolutely laughable...and do feel free to provide some of this "data" that you claim says that the ice is less now than it has been for the last 10,000 years. I have provided at least 3 peer reviewed published studies that say otherwise and so far all you have done is make claims that you can't back up...

No, you did not show that there is more ice now.
There is NO ice data from before there were planes and submarines to explore the ice.
And the graphs you did show were of such as large scale that they do not at all show the last 50 years.
They hardly even show the last 1000 years.
You clearly do not know how to read a graph at all.
As what you published shows you are totally wrong.

It is easy show the real data.
Here is one that at first glance appears similar to what you posted.

But look closer.
The Hockey Stick is visible.
If you look along the right edge on the Temperature Anomaly axis, you will see the year 2016 with an arrow point to a point on the axis, very close to 1 degree above the dotted median of the axis. That clearly is higher than almost every single spike anywhere during the entire Holocene.
Anyone then who does not recognize this as an enormous hockey stick, would have to be blind, stupid, and irrational.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

You make a fool of yourself here since that isn't a "Hockey Stick" at all. It was paper published by Climate science abuser Dr. Mann that weakly covered the Northern Hemisphere, with primary use of Bristlecone tree ring data, which grows in a small areas of the American west.

What you are looking are based on a spread of data, Half of it are ice core data,, as shown in the LINK.

There is no 1998 Hockey Stick paper on the data list.

You keep running ahead of your ass too much.

 

[Sunsettommy]

So you admit that Global Warming is real and it's happening...you just stupidly don't care.

Oh...

Who ever said that the earth isn't warming? It has been warming since the end of the little ice age...and it still isn't as warm as it was before the onset of the little ice age...what would make anyone think that it won't warm up at least to the temperature it was before the onset of the little ice age?

That is idiotic.

It is NOT supposed to be warming now.
We are past the ice age by 20,000 years, it had already reached the warming peak, and it is now supposed to be cooling again. And that is what was happening until about 40 years ago.

You clearly know nothing about earth's history, climate, or anything related to this subject.

And ice age cycles are 120 thousand years long.
The cycles were are forcing, are more like 200 years long for the same range of change.

Tell me, by what metric do you say it is "supposed" to be doing anything. all the temperature reconstructions show that our climate is chaotic with warming and cooling periods happening at seemingly random intervals between glaciations...

You seem to just be making it up as you go because you certainly aren't showing anything like actual science to back up your claims.

Nonsense.
That is nothing chaotic about climate.
It is only weather that is chaotic, not climate.
Climate can NOT be chaotic.
The sun is not chaotic, earth's orbit is not chaotic, the atmosphere is not chaotic.
But there are cycles.
For example, plants absorb CO2, and produce O2, that cools the planet off until it kills the plants, the CO2 is released again, and then the plant begins to warm again.
Simply and not chaotic cycle of about 120,000 years in length.

I don't have add any more evidence because you have not grasped the basics I have already presented. There can be chaotic influences on climate and weather, but there are none now except for humans adding over 5 trillion tons of sequestered carbon into the air every single year.

“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

– IPCC AR4 WG1"

LINK

You are wrong yet again!

 

[SSDD]

You are not paying attention.
Remember, you insisted on calling it interglacial period instead of the more common phrase of ice age?
Personally I think you have it wrong and are referring to epochs, but whatever.
The integlacial periods cycles is only about 120 thousand years long, of cooling and warming back up again.

Interglacial - Wikipedia

Finally you post something that at least resembles science, but even that contradicts what you are saying. Here have a look at the graph...Lets increase the size so we can see what it says.

Both EPIC and Vostok are ice cores taken in Antarctica. If you look towards the end of the graph, you will see that both Epica, and Vostok show an increase in temperature at about the 14,000 year mark..

Now lets switch to a higher resolution graph of the same ice core VOSTOK that isn't looking at hundreds of thousands of years, but is only looking at the past 10,000 years.
As you can see, the present temperature is cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years. And again, the fact that the past 10,000 years were warmer than the present, means that there was less ice than there is in the present...

Lol he thinks ice cores are taken from sea ice that is millions of years old

Ice cores have b[n=been pulled that are 1.5 million years old.[/QUOTE]

that would be terrestrial ice....not sea ice.

 

[Lesh]

There were no e-mails defrauding the science of climate change.

CO2 PPM graph:

Current & Historical Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Levels Graph

Exactly.
Case closed.
It is impossible for that nearly 40% CO2 increase to not cause AGW.
We know CO2 has to cause warming, and we know that burning all that fossil fuel adds over 5 trillion tons of carbon a year, to the atmosphere.
And we know it is accumulative, as CO2 is stable and only taken out by things like plants or carbonization of fresh silicate magma.

Your 5 Trillion a year claim is absurd, try using real data next time, by the way Carbon is NOT Carbon Dioxide.

C per year emissions for year 2015 was about 10 GtC

You are not even close, not even in the same solar system.

CO2 is a trace gas with a trace spectral absorption range, competing with the far more abundant Water Vapor in its main bandwidth, which is mostly OUTSIDE the main terrestrial IR L:W outflow, meaning CO2 absorbs little of the IR outflow to space.

CO2 is a life essential nutrient as well

So is water. Does that mean you can't drown, stupid?

 

[Lesh]

CO2 is a trace gas with a trace spectral absorption range, competing with the far more abundant Water Vapor in its main bandwidth, which is mostly OUTSIDE the main terrestrial IR L:W outflow, meaning CO2 absorbs little of the IR outflow to space.

That is a stupid argument long dispensed with.

Yes water vapor is a greenhouse gas but CO2 is a forcing agent that increases the amount of water vapor

 

[SSDD]

Your 5 Trillion a year claim is absurd, try using real data next time, by the way Carbon is NOT Carbon Dioxide.

Yeah...that 5 trillion tons of CO2 a year cracked me up also...all of the CO2 in the atmosphere weighs less than 3/4 of a trillion tons but he thinks we produce 5 trillion tons a year. I don't think I have ever encountered anyone...even the most rabid warming hysteric who has been completely wrong on every single claim they made, but he is batting 1000 so far. I don't thin he has made a scientifically valid statement since he showed up on this thread.

The one that cracks me up the most though is his response to studies that state that there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years. He steps up and says that we can't possibly know how much sea ice there was in the arctic over the past 10,000 years because there were no direct measurements..then in the next breath he states with absolute conviction that the northwest passage has not been open for 10,000 years...then when his contradictory statement is pointed out, he isn't able to see the contradiction...

How far out there can one person get?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They hid the decline by adding in the "Warming 'trapped' in the deep oceans"

 

[SSDD]

They hid the decline by adding in the "Warming 'trapped' in the deep oceans"

Those deep oceans are sneaky bastards....hiding and hoarding heat rather than sharing with the more shallow oceans...

 

[Lesh]

Yeah...that 5 trillion tons of CO2 a year cracked me up also

The correct number is 40 BILLION tons of CO2 per year

Carbon dioxide emissions rise to 2.4 million pounds per second

So because "some guy" gets a statistic wrong the entire theory falls apart?

Doofus

And 40 BILLION tons of a gas...is a lot of gas. Greenhouse gas

 

[SSDD]

Yeah...that 5 trillion tons of CO2 a year cracked me up also

The correct number is 40 BILLION tons of CO2 per year

Carbon dioxide emissions rise to 2.4 million pounds per second

So because "some guy" gets a statistic wrong the entire theory falls apart?

Doofus

And 40 BILLION tons of a gas...is a lot of gas. Greenhouse gas

Our 40 billion tons of CO2 is a mere fraction of the amount of CO2 produced by termites alone.

You guys seem to have a problem with grasping the scale of human CO2 emissions in comparison to the natural CO2 emissions produced by the earth itself from decay, animals, volcanoes, etc. The fact is that humans don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

Here, have a look at a short little video which puts our contribution to the atmospheric CO2 into some context for you...maybe it will help you see how tiny our bit of CO2 is next to the amount of CO2 that nature produces..

 

[Lesh]

And when you ADD those 40 billion tons of greenhouse gas per year. to the already naturally occurring emissions..we get AGW

Stop being stupidly dishonest

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They hid the decline by adding in the "Warming 'trapped' in the deep oceans"

Those deep oceans are sneaky bastards....hiding and hoarding heat rather than sharing with the more shallow oceans...

How powerful is the CO2 molecule that it can direct its laser like heat beam with remarkable precision down into the deep oceans

 

[Sunsettommy]

And when you ADD those 40 billion tons of greenhouse gas per year. to the already naturally occurring emissions..we get AGW

Stop being stupidly dishonest

Ha ha, what a nasty little jerk you are, SSDD posted a video for you, which you make clear you didn't bother to watch it. Here is what SSDD stated that should have given you a clue what he was talking about, but that ZOOMED right over your head.

"Here, have a look at a short little video which puts our contribution to the atmospheric CO2 into some context for you...maybe it will help you see how tiny our bit of CO2 is next to the amount of CO2 that nature produce"

bolding mine

Nature emits around 97% of the TOTAL yearly amount of CO2 emissions, Man the other 3%

That is a fact YOU can't deny.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And when you ADD those 40 billion tons of greenhouse gas per year. to the already naturally occurring emissions..we get AGW

Stop being stupidly dishonest

Prove this assumption... NO one else has been able to in over 50 years..

 

[Grumblenuts]

I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:

See, they make it look like it went way up recently 'cause man, but it obviously just did that naturally. Stupit libruls!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:

See, they make it look like it went way up recently 'cause man, but it obviously just did that naturally. Stupit libruls!

So what??????

 

[Grumblenuts]

I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:

See, they make it look like it went way up recently 'cause man, but it obviously just did that naturally. Stupit libruls!

So what??????

So it's a fraud. Can't you read, Frank?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:

See, they make it look like it went way up recently 'cause man, but it obviously just did that naturally. Stupit libruls!

Another idiot that uses the Michael Mann school of fraud..

Tell me what happens to your hokey schtick when it is properly averaged into the 500 year data points instead of the 5 year point plot being tacked on the end of a 500 year data point plot set....

I am amazed that anyone uses this obvious deception any more...