Proof of AGW fraud

[Billy_Bob]

So are you saying that the AGW hypothesis is unfalsifiable, or are you saying that man made climate change is indistinguishable from natural variability?

I said what I meant quite coherently. Neither of your stupid either/or assertions there follows logically at all. You really can't read, can you? No wonder you're so ready to believe denial crap makes sense and is "peer reviewed." The Kochs don't pay all those big bucks to fabricate truth.

And here is a link to literally hundreds of papers that show that in the past, in various locations on the globe, it has bee warmer,cooler, wetter and dryer than it is today.

No shit, Sherlock. None of those had industrial revolutions. Currently we do. Grow up. Face reality.

Tell me Moron, Why didn't the earth burn up when our CO2 levels were greater than 7,000ppm? Why has the earths average CO2 level been around 2,575ppm so by the geological record we are CO2 STARVED.. You idiots never think anything through. The geological records also show CO2 lagging temperature rise by 200-800 years. How does this magical gas drive our climate when the empirical records show it is incapable of this?

 

[Billy_Bob]

I've been farting in your general direction.. Feeling warmer?

That warm feeling is the shit in your pants...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Tell me Moron, Why didn't the earth burn up when our CO2 levels were greater than 7,000ppm?

Tell me, Moron. Why would the Earth burn at all? Was it combustible back then? Here's an idea, try making sense.

Why has the earths average CO2 level been around 2,575ppm so by the geological record we are CO2 STARVED..

Um, question marks normally follow questions. That's like really incoherent in any case.

The geological records also show CO2 lagging temperature rise by 200-800 years. How does this magical gas drive our climate when the empirical records show it is incapable of this?

Oh, there it is, a question mark at last. See, here's the thing. Just because you may like comparing apples to oranges, declaring absolute truths about things stemming from nothing in evidence, putting carts before horses right and left and so forth, doesn't mean sane people owe you any kind of explanation for your weird contrivances. Your evident frustration stems from your own stubborn disregard for reality. It's no one else's fault. Sure, you've found some like minded goobers on the interwebs. Miserable, self-deluded idiots abound. But you had to seek them out. You did that because you wanted to believe their nonsense. Now, if some sunny day, you step back and decide perhaps you ought to be listening to actual climate experts instead.. well, I'm confident you could find them too. Hope springs eternal, they say..

Watch now as I go back even further in time.. Wowza!

Better yet, more your speed:

Hmm, soil forming like 400 million years ago.. Seems kind of important in order for plants to grow, huh?.. And mammals like 200 million years ago..

Finally, modern humans like 2 million years ago.. Homo sapiens say 200 thousand.. Just a tiny blip on any of those scales.. Kind of necessary though in order for us to give a shit right now, eh?

So why look to atmospheric CO2 levels back like 250 times our entire existence as a species for guidance about how best to continue our existence? ******* beats me? Completely unnecessary for us to be worrying about right now.. Can you say deliberate distraction? Must take a shit load of self-delusion and denial!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Tell me Moron, Why didn't the earth burn up when our CO2 levels were greater than 7,000ppm?

Tell me, Moron. Why would the Earth burn at all? Was it combustible back then? Here's an idea, try making sense.

Why has the earths average CO2 level been around 2,575ppm so by the geological record we are CO2 STARVED..

Um, question marks normally follow questions. That's like really incoherent in any case.

The geological records also show CO2 lagging temperature rise by 200-800 years. How does this magical gas drive our climate when the empirical records show it is incapable of this?

Oh, there it is, a question mark at last. See, here's the thing. Just because you may like comparing apples to oranges, declaring absolute truths about things stemming from nothing in evidence, putting carts before horses right and left and so forth, doesn't mean sane people owe you any kind of explanation for your weird contrivances. Your evident frustration stems from your own stubborn disregard for reality. It's no one else's fault. Sure, you've found some like minded goobers on the interwebs. Miserable, self-deluded idiots abound. But you had to seek them out. You did that because you wanted to believe their nonsense. Now, if some sunny day, you step back and decide perhaps you ought to be listening to actual climate experts instead.. well, I'm confident you could find them too. Hope springs eternal, they say..

Watch now as I go back even further in time.. Wowza!

Better yet, more your speed:

Hmm, soil forming like 400 million years ago.. Seems kind of important in order for plants to grow, huh?.. And mammals like 200 million years ago..

Finally, modern humans like 2 million years ago.. Homo sapiens say 200 thousand.. Just a tiny blip on any of those scales.. Kind of necessary though in order for us to give a shit right now, eh?

So why look to atmospheric CO2 levels back like 250 times our entire existence as a species for guidance about how best to continue our existence? ******* beats me? Completely unnecessary for us to be worrying about right now.. Can you say deliberate distraction? Must take a shit load of self-delusion and denial!

And nothing you posted challenges my assessment. CO2 on our planet is in a state of starvation. If we tried to take it backwards, below 270ppm, no significant plant life would exist. You people are delusional morons..

Here is a bit more information for you... Please tell me how a lagging indicator of temperature rise is driving anything..

CO2 is lagging temp rise and fall by about 200 years...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Pfft! Hey, why stop the nonsense there? Bet it lagged even more while the Earth was forming! Fact is that was way back then. Apples. This is now. Oranges. Studies show that CO2 change leads temp variation now.

 

[SSDD]

Pfft! Hey, why stop the nonsense there? Bet it lagged even more while the Earth was forming! Fact is that was way back then. Apples. This is now. Oranges. Studies show that CO2 change leads temp variation now.

Let me guess...you didn’t even read your link..or you did, but simply couldn’t understandwhat was said...

Clip:
We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.

Your study says that changes in CO2 always lag temperature...and the author acknowledges simple correlation...and correlation does not equal causation..

 

[Grumblenuts]

Correct. I messed that bit up. Point remains "CO2 is" NOT "lagging temp rise and fall by about 200 years" now when it actually matters. You were just floating a slippery slope argument in reverse time which obviously makes no sense.

"the author acknowledges simple correlation" - Lie. The word "simple" appears nowhere.
"and correlation does not equal causation.." - No mention of that chestnut either.

The real meaning of what was said is clarified in the highlights:

► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Correct. I messed that bit up. Point remains "CO2 is" NOT "lagging temp rise and fall by about 200 years" now when it actually matters. You were just floating a slippery slope argument in reverse time which obviously makes no sense.

"the author acknowledges simple correlation" - Lie. The word "simple" appears nowhere.
"and correlation does not equal causation.." - No mention of that chestnut either.

The real meaning of what was said is clarified in the highlights:

► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

You are ignorant of the facts... Mans influence can not be discerned from noise in the climactic system.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Mans influence can not be discerned from noise in the climactic system.

It's a complex system we continue studying. If the results simply indicated "noise" the climate scientists would have concluded they explain nothing. Are you a climate scientist? Are you just some innocent, unbiased observer? No and No, else you wouldn't be here shilling on behalf of the fossil fuel industry. It remains complex at this point. Some conclusions can be drawn, but

The current correlations unsurprisingly "do not explain all"
"► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980."

 

[SSDD]

Correct. I messed that bit up. Point remains "CO2 is" NOT "lagging temp rise and fall by about 200 years" now when it actually matters. You were just floating a slippery slope argument in reverse time which obviously makes no sense.

What you seem unable to grasp, or put into context is the fact that the earth is still warming out of th little ice age...or the fact that additional CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of warming...not the cause.

When the earth is cooler, as is the case during deep ice ages, shorter glaciations, and cooling events like the little ice age, the earth’s on CO2 making machinery is slowed down. Decay of organic materials is a major source of CO2, as are the oceans...and insects such as termites which produce more CO2 than we do. When it is cooler, decay slows down, insect populations reduce, and the oceans out gas far less CO2.

As it warms, all those natural sources of CO2 begin to become more efficient. It takes quite some time though so early I’m a warming phase, it is to be expected that CO2 production would lag temperature increases by a longer period of time. As the cool temps fall further behind, the and the natural process that produce CO2 become more efficient, the lag between an increase in temperature and increased CO2 in the atmosphere decreases.

The nugget to take away from all that is that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of warming...not the cause

"the author acknowledges simple correlation" - Lie. The word "simple" appears nowhere.

Did the author make some reference to a demonstrable relationship beyond correlation? If not, then simple correlation is what we are talking about. The author wa simply being honest in his findings.

"and correlation does not equal causation.." - No mention of that chestnut either.

Correlation does not equal causation is a scientific truism that all scientists need to keep in mind all the time. The hard fact is that simply because events achieve a high degree of correlation does not mean that they are even related, much less a case of cause and effect.

Here are a few examples of unrelated things which correlate very nicely..it is very important, especially for scientists to keep in mind that these juicy correlations dont mean anything...it is for science to dig below the sheets to attempt to identify the mechanisms of cause and effect, not build a case out of correlation...which climate science is particularly guilty of in numerous instances.

Here is a link to a helpful site dealing with correlation and causation dorm a data science perspective.

Why correlation does not imply causation?

The author mentions ocean temperatures and this goes to the reduced lag time between a temperature change and an increase in CO2. Cold water sequesters far more CO2 than warm water. As the oceans warm, they outgas more CO2...and as they warm, the time between temperature change and outgassing is shorter. The bottom line is still that increased CO2 is the result of warming...not the cause of warming.

Keep in mind that at the onset of the ice age that the earth is still warming out of, the atmospheric CO2 levels were about 1000ppm and ice ages have begun with atmospheric CO2 levels as high as 4000ppm. Clearly, CO2 is not a driver of temperature. If an ice age can start with CO2 levels as high as 4000ppm, our 400 represents no threat.

 

[SSDD]

Mans influence can not be discerned from noise in the climactic system.

It's a complex system we continue studying. If the results simply indicated "noise" the climate scientists would have concluded they explain nothing. Are you a climate scientist? Are you just some innocent, unbiased observer? No and No, else you wouldn't be here shilling on behalf of the fossil fuel industry. It remains complex at this point. Some conclusions can be drawn, but

The current correlations unsurprisingly "do not explain all"
"► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980."

If the climate scientists determined that the human effect on the global climate couldn’t be separated from the noise, then the crisis driven funds-in would dry up, and climate science would become about as exciting nd lucrative as meterology or paleontology.

The fact is that nu human fingerprint can be derived from the noise of our chaotic climate, so climate science builds crisis from correlation. This is why I can ask for observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability with perfect confidence that no such evidence will ever be forthcoming.

And even more telling, I can state with perfect confidence that no paper has ever been published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to greenhouse gasses.

Now what sort of crisis can reasonably be claimed when no published paper even does that basic science? I mean, that is the most basic information required to even make the claim that we are having an effect on the global climate...much less the claim that we are heading for disaster if we dont change our ways.

 

[Grumblenuts]

correlation does not equal causation

In statistics, the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them.
{...snip...}
Usage
In logic, the technical use of the word "implies" means "is a sufficient circumstance for".

However, in casual use, the word "implies" loosely means suggests rather than requires. Where there is causation, there is a likely correlation. Indeed, correlation is often used when inferring causation; the important point is that correlation is not sufficient.

From simply glancing at this image:

The CO2 and temperature amplitudes definitely appear interdependent. Where there's one there's the other. Determining which leads which time wise taking any random sample appears far more obscure. The CO2 scaling appears lacking until that positive spike at the end is taken into account which alters the amplitudes of the rest. Making the time scale linear is a no brainer, but I'd at least consider making the CO2 and temperature scales logarithmic for such a comparison. That said, the average historical Earth surface temperature is easily observed to be about -4 degrees C and the average (or "mean", "median", "normal") atmospheric CO2 about 240 ppm. Note that the Earth has normally been frozen, i.e.very unsupportive of life except for relatively short periods such as our current one. We indeed appear fortunate to have had an extended then unprecedented rise in CO2 relatively recently, but that final spike doesn't bode well at all. Too much heat. Likely far worse than being too cold.

 

[jc456]

Correct. I messed that bit up. Point remains "CO2 is" NOT "lagging temp rise and fall by about 200 years" now when it actually matters. You were just floating a slippery slope argument in reverse time which obviously makes no sense.

"the author acknowledges simple correlation" - Lie. The word "simple" appears nowhere.
"and correlation does not equal causation.." - No mention of that chestnut either.

The real meaning of what was said is clarified in the highlights:

► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

You are ignorant of the facts... Mans influence can not be discerned from noise in the climactic system.

So Billy, you think he knows the oceans hold CO2? And when it gets warmer the oceans release stored CO2? And that’s why CO2 trails temperature increases? I don’t think he does

 

[Grumblenuts]

The nugget to take away from all that is that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of warming...not the cause

Wrong. There is a demonstrable interdependence. Either is clearly likely to "cause" the other. Indeed, a positive feedback loop exists as well. Your insistence upon that being the only factor though is idiotic. However, thanks to that same, clearly evident, feedback loop that you've largely described well.. that one you've now acknowledged exists, thank you,.. the addition of our AGW component leaves us now facing runaway warming unless we take drastic preventative measures.

Keep in mind that at the onset of the ice age that the earth is still warming out of, the atmospheric CO2 levels were about 1000ppm and ice ages have begun with atmospheric CO2 levels as high as 4000ppm. Clearly, CO2 is not a driver of temperature. If an ice age can start with CO2 levels as high as 4000ppm, our 400 represents no threat.

Yeah, sure. Impose a system with no life upon one with abundant life in a situation pertaining to life. No you can't be the one in denial. NEVER!

 

[SSDD]

correlation does not equal causation

In statistics, the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them.
{...snip...}
Usage
In logic, the technical use of the word "implies" means "is a sufficient circumstance for".

However, in casual use, the word "implies" loosely means suggests rather than requires. Where there is causation, there is a likely correlation. Indeed, correlation is often used when inferring causation; the important point is that correlation is not sufficient.

From simply glancing at this image:

The CO2 and temperature amplitudes definitely appear interdependent. Where there's one there's the other. Determining which leads which time wise taking any random sample appears far more obscure. The CO2 scaling appears lacking until that positive spike at the end is taken into account which alters the amplitudes of the rest. Making the time scale linear is a no brainer, but I'd at least consider making the CO2 and temperature scales logarithmic for such a comparison. That said, the average historical Earth surface temperature is easily observed to be about -4 degrees C and the average (or "mean", "median", "normal") atmospheric CO2 about 240 ppm. Note that the Earth has normally been frozen, i.e.very unsupportive of life except for relatively short periods such as our current one. We indeed appear fortunate to have had an extended then unprecedented rise in CO2 relatively recently, but that final spike doesn't bode well at all. Too much heat. Likely far worse than being too cold.

The only correlation you can derive from that graph, and likewise, the only causation that you can rationally claim is that increased CO2 is the result off warming and not a cause...and as to the spike at the end, that is an artificial artifact resulting from the invalid attachment of a short term instrumental record onto a long term proxy record...another no no that climate science is routinely guilty of...it is known as mike’s nature trick named after Michael man and the use of the trick to derive his now infamous hockey stick....research, by the way which he has now spent millions trying to hide so that his methodology will not be made public...possibly ending his caree.

And where did you get that “normal” CO2 being 240ppm nonsense? Do you realize that plants stop growing at about 260ppm? If you look at the hidtory of the earth, the amount of CO2 averages over 2000ppm...except during cool periods which we are in. We are still in an ice age and low CO2 numbers are normal for cool periods. The present ice age began with CO2 levels at about 1000ppm. You guys routinely either deliberately overlook that fact or are simply unaware...

 

[jc456]

The nugget to take away from all that is that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of warming...not the cause

Wrong. There is a demonstrable interdependence. Either is clearly likely to "cause" the other. Indeed, a positive feedback loop exists as well. Your insistence upon that being the only factor though is idiotic. However, thanks to that same, clearly evident, feedback loop that you've largely described well.. that one you've now acknowledged it exists, thank you,.. the addition of our AGW component leaves us now facing runaway warming unless we take drastic preventative measures.

Keep in mind that at the onset of the ice age that the earth is still warming out of, the atmospheric CO2 levels were about 1000ppm and ice ages have begun with atmospheric CO2 levels as high as 4000ppm. Clearly, CO2 is not a driver of temperature. If an ice age can start with CO2 levels as high as 4000ppm, our 400 represents no threat.

Yeah, sure. Impose a system with no life upon one with abundant life in a situation pertaining to life. No you can't be the one in denial. NEVER!

Then clearly show CO2 causing temperature rise, with evidence

 

[Grumblenuts]

And where did you get that “normal” CO2 being 240ppm nonsense?

From your own chart obviously, dumdum. Same place you derived your "only causation that you can rationally claim" nonsense from, remember? Don't like it? Yell at the source!

 

[Pilot1]

Meanwhile in Europe, governments gets to double Electric Costs for individuals and businesses for a "climate change tax" based on electric usage. Nice huh? All based on a HOAX. An Europeans mostly go along with it like Lemmings.

What are they doing with the tax revenue? Buying Carbon Credits?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Then clearly show CO2 causing temperature rise, with evidence

Gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat just like the glass roof of a greenhouse. These heat-trapping gases are called greenhouse gases.

During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth's surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth's surface cools, releasing heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That's what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 58 degrees Fahrenheit (14 degrees Celsius), on average.

Earth's atmosphere traps some of the Sun's heat, preventing it from escaping back into space at night. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

How are humans impacting the greenhouse effect?
Human activities are changing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. Burning fossil fuels like coal and oil puts more carbon dioxide into our atmosphere.

NASA has observed increases in the amount of carbon dioxide and some other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Too much of these greenhouse gases can cause Earth's atmosphere to trap more and more heat. This causes Earth to warm up.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[Billy_Bob]

And where did you get that “normal” CO2 being 240ppm nonsense?

From your own chart obviously, dumdum. Same place you derived your "only causation that you can rationally claim" nonsense from, remember? Don't like it? Yell at the source!

LOL

Normal is not 240ppm. There would be little or no plant life at that level. From the graph I showed you CO2 LAGS all warming and CO2 reduction LAGS temperature decrease. The paleo record show that our average CO2 on earth is well over 2,500ppm.