Proof of AGW fraud

[Lesh]

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

I have already given you multiple possible causes, and 8 published papers which found that there is no discernible correlation between our CO2 production and the total atmospheric CO2. You seem unwilling to accept anything beyond your uninformed opinion though and certainly haven't shown any actual science that even begins to support said opinion.

.........we can measure the concentration of CO2 & note the changes.

We don't need to know the exact volume.

No correlation between C02 and warming has been found so far, again you don't want to acknowledge for example Mars atmosphere is made up of like 95% C02

Mars is a completely different animal. You might note that there is no life there.

You're just flailing

 

[Grumblenuts]

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

I have already given you multiple possible causes, and 8 published papers which found that there is no discernible correlation between our CO2 production and the total atmospheric CO2. You seem unwilling to accept anything beyond your uninformed opinion though and certainly haven't shown any actual science that even begins to support said opinion.

.........we can measure the concentration of CO2 & note the changes.

We don't need to know the exact volume.

No correlation between C02 and warming has been found so far, again you don't want to acknowledge for example Mars atmosphere is made up of like 95% C02

Mars is a completely different animal. You might note that there is no life there.

You're just flailing

Life? Who needs life on Mars? The real question is what are their current oil reserves and can we beat them damned Rooskies to it?!

Wait, what? Whoever wrote "No correlation between C02 and warming has been found so far" simply must be from Mars!

 

[Grumblenuts]

all 7 have been peer reviewed

On Mars no less!

 

[RealDave]

You and logic clearly have issues. Little hint for ya: "Yes" or "No"..

Still avoiding facts?


.

How Opposition To Fossil Fuels Hurts The Poor Most Of All


The United Nations and governments around the world are doing just this by pushing for massive restrictions on the energy of opportunity: fossil fuel energy.

The common narrative about fossil fuels is that by using so many of them, the developed world has done a great injustice to the underdeveloped world—an injustice that should be paid for via giant transfers of wealth to poorer governments. Not shockingly, the leaders of these governments have eagerly jumped onto this narrative and blamed more successful countries, the US above all, for their woes—and, in the process, signed onto massive global restrictions of fossil fuel use, including in their own countries.

FACTBOX: Oil major's investments in renewable energy - Reuters


Exxon Mobil Corp

The world's largest non-government-controlled oil company by market value sold its solar power business in the 1980s and now has no investments in renewable energy.


Royal Dutch Shell Plc

A spokeswoman for Shell said it had invested $1 billion in renewables, excluding biodiesel, and hydrogen activities in the past five years.

The Hague-based company has the largest wind power business in the sector, and the 17th largest in the world, according to Emerging Energy Research, and plans to expand substantially.

Shell said it has 350 MW of installed capacity with farms operating or planned in the U.S., the Netherlands and the UK.

The second-largest western oil company by market value sold its old solar business in 2006 and now has another, based on a different technology, which plans to start manufacturing a new generation of solar panels in 2008.

See, even these companies recognize the need to use less fossil fuels.

Huh? So now you change your tune on your boogey man?


.

Nope, Fossil fuels still promote untruths & pay Congressmen not to act.

I am saying they realize their reign is coming to an end & is preparing.

 

[jc456]

The only things that i can think of that would bring a bunch of natural skeptics to consensus is an absolutely overwhelming and insurmountable body of evidence which is clearly lacking in climate science since they cant even produce a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, OR a great big government trough literally overflowing with money...and that is clearly present.

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

I have already given you multiple possible causes, and 8 published papers which found that there is no discernible correlation between our CO2 production and the total atmospheric CO2. You seem unwilling to accept anything beyond your uninformed opinion though and certainly haven't shown any actual science that even begins to support said opinion.

.........we can measure the concentration of CO2 & note the changes.

We don't need to know the exact volume.

so you know CO2 was higher in the past then? when man wasn't around? explain that one?

 

[RealDave]

Sure sounds like whining to me!...

Sounds like a pretty good description of the argument you have put forward so far. I am still waiting on a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and the claim that AGW looks just like natural variability doesn't really cut it. You claimed that AGW is "additive" to natural variability...how do you distinguish the difference without observed measured evidence that favors one over the other?

CO2 concentration is up.

List all the sources that have increased their output or list all the factors that extract CO2 & their reductions.

Scientists can estimate these things. The can, really.

No they can't, way to many variables and things they don't know.


And deforestation of the southern hemisphere...is something you don't want to acknowledge.

.

They have an estimate. There are people that study this shit.

Quit being such an ass.

Deforestation and Its Effect on the Planet

OMG OPG OMG estimates on deforestation!!!!!! OMG OMG OMG

 

[RealDave]

Previous post rated overly dumb since poster can’t explain current rise in CO2 level that surpassed 411+ ppm with his “natural cause”.

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

I have already given you multiple possible causes, and 8 published papers which found that there is no discernible correlation between our CO2 production and the total atmospheric CO2. You seem unwilling to accept anything beyond your uninformed opinion though and certainly haven't shown any actual science that even begins to support said opinion.

.........we can measure the concentration of CO2 & note the changes.

We don't need to know the exact volume.

so you know CO2 was higher in the past then? when man wasn't around? explain that one?

Wow, you are not tooooo stupid.

There are other reasons for increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Man is but one of the possible emitters.

 

[jc456]

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

I have already given you multiple possible causes, and 8 published papers which found that there is no discernible correlation between our CO2 production and the total atmospheric CO2. You seem unwilling to accept anything beyond your uninformed opinion though and certainly haven't shown any actual science that even begins to support said opinion.

.........we can measure the concentration of CO2 & note the changes.

We don't need to know the exact volume.

so you know CO2 was higher in the past then? when man wasn't around? explain that one?

Wow, you are not tooooo stupid.

There are other reasons for increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Man is but one of the possible emitters.

that wasn't my question. why didn't you answer it?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Sure sounds like whining to me!...

Sounds like a pretty good description of the argument you have put forward so far. I am still waiting on a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and the claim that AGW looks just like natural variability doesn't really cut it. You claimed that AGW is "additive" to natural variability...how do you distinguish the difference without observed measured evidence that favors one over the other?

CO2 concentration is up.

List all the sources that have increased their output or list all the factors that extract CO2 & their reductions.

Scientists can estimate these things. The can, really.

No they can't, way to many variables and things they don't know.


And deforestation of the southern hemisphere...is something you don't want to acknowledge.

.

They have an estimate. There are people that study this shit.

Quit being such an ass.

Deforestation and Its Effect on the Planet

OMG OPG OMG estimates on deforestation!!!!!! OMG OMG OMG

Good to see I finally educated you and you quit bitching about fossil fuel as the main man made culprit.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Tell Me Otto;

Where is your science to rule out all other inputs of CO2?

You dont have them as your gods still have no ability to model the system correctly and thus they can not even make any serious judgment as to what is natural variation and what is man induced. Having this in mind, what part of the 0.6 deg C rise over the last 120 years is attributed to CO2 rise?

IF we look at the current 2.3% CO2 level that some are claiming man has caused and attribute only that percentage to the know temperature rise were less than 0.0013 deg C is mans contribution (AGW). A measurement well within the MOE of our current measuring devices and a level that can not be discerned from noise in our climactic system.

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

I have already given you multiple possible causes, and 8 published papers which found that there is no discernible correlation between our CO2 production and the total atmospheric CO2. You seem unwilling to accept anything beyond your uninformed opinion though and certainly haven't shown any actual science that even begins to support said opinion.

.........we can measure the concentration of CO2 & note the changes.

We don't need to know the exact volume.

so you know CO2 was higher in the past then? when man wasn't around? explain that one?

Wow, you are not tooooo stupid.

There are other reasons for increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Man is but one of the possible emitters.

So you saying you don't know if the current situation is man made or natural?

Good neither does the scientist.


.

 

[RealDave]

Sooooooo, where is your “natural cause” to cause the rise? A 3 MILLION YEAR cause that just happens to correlate with the Industrial Revolution....


CO2 from your ass?

I have already given you multiple possible causes, and 8 published papers which found that there is no discernible correlation between our CO2 production and the total atmospheric CO2. You seem unwilling to accept anything beyond your uninformed opinion though and certainly haven't shown any actual science that even begins to support said opinion.

.........we can measure the concentration of CO2 & note the changes.

We don't need to know the exact volume.

so you know CO2 was higher in the past then? when man wasn't around? explain that one?

Wow, you are not tooooo stupid.

There are other reasons for increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Man is but one of the possible emitters.

So you saying you don't know if the current situation is man made or natural?

Good neither does the scientist.


.

Wow, you are quite the asshole.

I am saying there are other possible emitters of CO2.

I am saying that we can identify this rise to the emissions caused by man.

How do we know? Because we can check the other sources & see that have not increased to any extent to cause this current rise.

 

[jc456]

I have already given you multiple possible causes, and 8 published papers which found that there is no discernible correlation between our CO2 production and the total atmospheric CO2. You seem unwilling to accept anything beyond your uninformed opinion though and certainly haven't shown any actual science that even begins to support said opinion.

.........we can measure the concentration of CO2 & note the changes.

We don't need to know the exact volume.

so you know CO2 was higher in the past then? when man wasn't around? explain that one?

Wow, you are not tooooo stupid.

There are other reasons for increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Man is but one of the possible emitters.

So you saying you don't know if the current situation is man made or natural?

Good neither does the scientist.


.

Wow, you are quite the asshole.

I am saying there are other possible emitters of CO2.

I am saying that we can identify this rise to the emissions caused by man.

How do we know? Because we can check the other sources & see that have not increased to any extent to cause this current rise.

how did they do that?

 

[Wyatt earp]

I have already given you multiple possible causes, and 8 published papers which found that there is no discernible correlation between our CO2 production and the total atmospheric CO2. You seem unwilling to accept anything beyond your uninformed opinion though and certainly haven't shown any actual science that even begins to support said opinion.

.........we can measure the concentration of CO2 & note the changes.

We don't need to know the exact volume.

so you know CO2 was higher in the past then? when man wasn't around? explain that one?

Wow, you are not tooooo stupid.

There are other reasons for increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Man is but one of the possible emitters.

So you saying you don't know if the current situation is man made or natural?

Good neither does the scientist.


.

Wow, you are quite the asshole.

I am saying there are other possible emitters of CO2.

I am saying that we can identify this rise to the emissions caused by man.

How do we know? Because we can check the other sources & see that have not increased to any extent to cause this current rise.

You are fun to play with.... God don't you Know how to research something instead of just spout opinions?

The Trouble With C12 C13 Ratios

 

[Wuwei]

You really can't read can you? Are you saying that the waterfall is warmer than your body? If so, then the waterfall will warm you...I assumed that the waterfall was cold water and that your body would be losing heat to the cold water as the second law predicts.

So you are now saying,
Energy can flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

You really can't read can you? Are you saying that the waterfall is warmer than your body? If so, then the waterfall will warm you...I assumed that the waterfall was cold water and that your body would be losing heat to the cold water as the second law predicts.

Strawman. Look, we both know that a low temperature waterfall can flow toward a higher temperature body. You are being a troll when you are saying I think otherwise. Can't you understand the issue???

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

You keep avoiding telling my why that sentence is contrary to what a waterfall does.

You can't and you are making up lies.

.

 

[jc456]

You really can't read can you? Are you saying that the waterfall is warmer than your body? If so, then the waterfall will warm you...I assumed that the waterfall was cold water and that your body would be losing heat to the cold water as the second law predicts.

So you are now saying,
Energy can flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

You really can't read can you? Are you saying that the waterfall is warmer than your body? If so, then the waterfall will warm you...I assumed that the waterfall was cold water and that your body would be losing heat to the cold water as the second law predicts.

Strawman. Look, we both know that a low temperature waterfall can flow toward a higher temperature body. You are being a troll when you are saying I think otherwise. Can't you understand the issue???

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

You keep avoiding telling my why that sentence is contrary to what a waterfall does.

You can't and you are making up lies.

.

I already told you, gravity!!!!

 

[Wuwei]

And the lies continue...Tell me, what happened in your childhood that would make you such a liar?

Once again..Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object..

I did not make up this definition, and I don't feel the need to modify it in any way since it jibes perfectly with my understanding of energy movement...you on the other hand are unable to accept the statement as is and must modify the f'ing second law of thermodynamics for pete's sake in order to make it jibe with what you believe.

It truly must suck to be such a liar...

Now the very caustic troll comes out. You are the liar. Let's try it again, and can you think more deeply this time without bursting into a feigned tirade.

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

You keep avoiding telling me why that sentence is contrary to what a waterfall does when it hits your head.

Let me tell you. The answer it is at the hyperphysics site under "Refrigerator". You have seen this before.
Second Law of Thermodynamics

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.​

Now try to keep calm and think about it.

.

 

[jc456]

And the lies continue...Tell me, what happened in your childhood that would make you such a liar?

Once again..Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object..

I did not make up this definition, and I don't feel the need to modify it in any way since it jibes perfectly with my understanding of energy movement...you on the other hand are unable to accept the statement as is and must modify the f'ing second law of thermodynamics for pete's sake in order to make it jibe with what you believe.

It truly must suck to be such a liar...

Now the very caustic troll comes out. You are the liar. Let's try it again, and can you think more deeply this time without bursting into a feigned tirade.

Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

You keep avoiding telling me why that sentence is contrary to what a waterfall does when it hits your head.

Let me tell you. The answer it is at the hyperphysics site under "Refrigerator". You have seen this before.
Second Law of Thermodynamics

It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.​

Now try to keep calm and think about it.

.

can't make it up!!!

 

[RealDave]

.........we can measure the concentration of CO2 & note the changes.

We don't need to know the exact volume.

so you know CO2 was higher in the past then? when man wasn't around? explain that one?

Wow, you are not tooooo stupid.

There are other reasons for increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Man is but one of the possible emitters.

So you saying you don't know if the current situation is man made or natural?

Good neither does the scientist.


.

Wow, you are quite the asshole.

I am saying there are other possible emitters of CO2.

I am saying that we can identify this rise to the emissions caused by man.

How do we know? Because we can check the other sources & see that have not increased to any extent to cause this current rise.

You are fun to play with.... God don't you Know how to research something instead of just spout opinions?

The Trouble With C12 C13 Ratios

Your go to expert is guy who calls himself Chiefio.

I'll stick with NASA.


I'm waiting for your list of events/sources for this excess co2 that has been put into the atmosphere. Real scientists attribute nearly all of it yo man made emissions.

But you stick with Chiefio.

 

[Wyatt earp]

so you know CO2 was higher in the past then? when man wasn't around? explain that one?

Wow, you are not tooooo stupid.

There are other reasons for increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Man is but one of the possible emitters.

So you saying you don't know if the current situation is man made or natural?

Good neither does the scientist.


.

Wow, you are quite the asshole.

I am saying there are other possible emitters of CO2.

I am saying that we can identify this rise to the emissions caused by man.

How do we know? Because we can check the other sources & see that have not increased to any extent to cause this current rise.

You are fun to play with.... God don't you Know how to research something instead of just spout opinions?

The Trouble With C12 C13 Ratios

Your go to expert is guy who calls himself Chiefio.

I'll stick with NASA.


I'm waiting for your list of events/sources for this excess co2 that has been put into the atmosphere. Real scientists attribute nearly all of it yo man made emissions.

But you stick with Chiefio.

Ok let's use NASA's C02 satellite.

See all the C02 in the southern hemisphere from deforestation?

 

[RealDave]

.........we can measure the concentration of CO2 & note the changes.

We don't need to know the exact volume.

so you know CO2 was higher in the past then? when man wasn't around? explain that one?

Wow, you are not tooooo stupid.

There are other reasons for increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Man is but one of the possible emitters.

So you saying you don't know if the current situation is man made or natural?

Good neither does the scientist.


.

Wow, you are quite the asshole.

I am saying there are other possible emitters of CO2.

I am saying that we can identify this rise to the emissions caused by man.

How do we know? Because we can check the other sources & see that have not increased to any extent to cause this current rise.

how did they do that?

OK, so wjat else changed that created this excess CO2 in the atmosphere?