Proof of AGW fraud

[Grumblenuts]

Let me guess..you think water molecules are energy...you really think that don't you...

Let me guess..you think refrigerators and freezers work by magic... "because the only direction energy is flowing is from the hot" exterior air to the relatively cold air inside.

 

[jc456]

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?

nothing. ever hear of an ice age? we're supposed to be coming out of one. as we do, the oceans release CO2. that is why CO2 follows temps. as already proven to you all.

all you need to do is prove CO2 is bad.

 

[Grumblenuts]

an ice age? we're supposed to be coming out of one.

LOL!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Let me guess..you think water molecules are energy...you really think that don't you...

Let me guess..you think refrigerators and freezers work by magic... "because the only direction energy is flowing is from the hot" exterior air to the relatively cold air inside.

And you think "work" being done is spontaneous energy movement... moron...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Let me guess..you think water molecules are energy...you really think that don't you...

Let me guess..you think refrigerators and freezers work by magic... "because the only direction energy is flowing is from the hot" exterior air to the relatively cold air inside.

And you think "work" being done is spontaneous energy movement... moron...

And you think this back and forth flinging of straw is logical, productive dialogue... genius...

 

[RealDave]

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?

nothing. ever hear of an ice age? we're supposed to be coming out of one. as we do, the oceans release CO2. that is why CO2 follows temps. as already proven to you all.

all you need to do is prove CO2 is bad.

The Ice Age that ended 11,700 years ago??? That one?

More CO2 => Heightened greenhouse effect => higher temnps

proven science.

 

[RealDave]

Let me guess..you think water molecules are energy...you really think that don't you...

Let me guess..you think refrigerators and freezers work by magic... "because the only direction energy is flowing is from the hot" exterior air to the relatively cold air inside.

My HVAC takes 48 degree groundwater & uses it to heat my home. I guess that is impossible & my system must work on magic.

 

[RealDave]

I have the proof the AGW fraud right here:

1) People say some scientists wrote emails to each other and agreed to defraud the public,. Lots of people say that - and they say very bad things about those scientists, who are criminals, as lots of people say its so.

2) Hockey stick graph. How dumb. Everyone knows that's a fraud, people say its so.

3) Al Gore. That dude looks like a dufus. Sorry, but what more proof of AGW fraud do you need?

You are aware that Scientists DID in fact write emails about LYING to the public about supposed man made global warming? That those emails exist and are real?

You are aware that the Hockey Stick graph was proven to be false it ignored several major events and had false misleading information in it? That everyone with half a brain agrees that it is discredited and false?

You are aware that AL Gore has been caught lying, misleading and falsifying information on global warming? That he uses resources of something like 30 people all by himself?

" IF" I were a scientist who's income was dependent on donations from people who wanted me to profess "A Global Emergency" or be replaced by someone who would, I think the answers and research could be bent to keep my finances in order! sure. ( "They" said " Michael Corleone did this and Michael Corleone said that" so I said yeah" "But it was all lies" ! Get it. No proof it's just not a cycle the Earth has gone through for "BILLIONS OF YEARS" Idiots. Mankind is an eye blink in the earths history. Dinosaurs were around for 300 million years, we won't be that fortunate. So we' are obviously dumber than dinosaurs just sayin"

So, if I were a scientist hired by the fossil fuel industry............

Your post is such BULLSHIT. Every scientist gets paid asshole. Don't pretend only those promoting AGW could possible be paid off. You are the God damn dumbest poster on this thread. Who is paying for these denier "scientists" whose crap you buy?

 

[RealDave]

Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities.

"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?

Sorry guy...you have been fed a bill of goods and apparently you gobbled it up. The fact is that natural sources provide the same isotopes as fossil fuels because fossil fuels, are in fact, natural sources...you were lied to ...

What the fuick does the isotopes have to do with it???????? It has to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Let me guess..you think water molecules are energy...you really think that don't you...

Let me guess..you think refrigerators and freezers work by magic... "because the only direction energy is flowing is from the hot" exterior air to the relatively cold air inside.

Your ignorance is obvious here since you ignored the WORK principle, Refrigerators use COMPRESSION to HEAT the gas, that is work from outside the unit.

By the way you didn't include the full quote:

"Let me guess..you think water molecules are energy...you really think that don't you...just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you come up with a whole new level of stupid...you can drop an ice cube on the hot sidewalk...but the ice cube doesn't make the sidewalk warmer...because the only direction energy is flowing is from the hot sidewalk to the cold ice cube...you just get more and more stupid all the time.."

His PREVIOUS comment, I quote in part:

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..

You failed.... again!

Stop the dishonest postings!

 

[RealDave]

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.

.

Let me guess..you think water molecules are energy...you really think that don't you...just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you come up with a whole new level of stupid...you can drop an ice cube on the hot sidewalk...but the ice cube doesn't make the sidewalk warmer...because the only direction energy is flowing is from the hot sidewalk to the cold ice cube...you just get more and more stupid all the time...

BLah Blah Blah Blah

Here is an maybe you can understand.

What Is the Greenhouse Effect? | NASA Climate Kids

 

[Sunsettommy]

Let me guess..you think water molecules are energy...you really think that don't you...

Let me guess..you think refrigerators and freezers work by magic... "because the only direction energy is flowing is from the hot" exterior air to the relatively cold air inside.

My HVAC takes 48 degree groundwater & uses it to heat my home. I guess that is impossible & my system must work on magic.

No Dave, what YOU described is WORK that was added into the equipment to make that possible. If no work was added, nothing of this HVAC set would work.

Basic Thermodynamics for Refrigeration and Air Conditioning - Part 2

Figure 1. Basic system. (Click on the image for an enlarged view.)

The simple system in Figure 1 shows the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The compressor (A) adds energy to the refrigerant, and it becomes hot, just the way a hand operated tire pump does. Since the compressed refrigerant is hotter than the air blowing across the condenser (B), the heat will flow to the cooler air. This is a transfer of heat energy out of the refrigerant.

The refrigerant vapor is cooled to the point of condensation to a liquid because its pressure remains high (C) but its temperature is reduced. The liquid refrigerant is expanded into the evaporator (D) at a low pressure which allows it to boil at a low temperature. The temperature of the evaporator is designed to be lower than the air it is cooling, so heat from the air will flow into the cold refrigerant. The cold vapor returns to the compressor to start the cycle over. Note that in all cases, the heat flow is from the hotter to the cooler, just as the Second Law requires.

and,

Second Law - The Second Law is the most understandable and useful in real world applications, and makes heating, air conditioning, and refrigeration possible. Energy must flow from a higher state to a lower state. That is, heat must always flow from the warmer object to a cooler object and not from the cooler object to the warmer object.

LINK

 

[RealDave]

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

Really? We know that termites produce more CO2 than we do...how might we determine whether or not there has been an increase or a decrease in termite CO2 production? We know that decay of organic materials release CO2...how might we measure the amount of CO2 being produced by organic decay in any given year? We know that the main source of CO2 in the atmosphere is the ocean...how might we determine whether or not the amount of CO2 from the ocean has increased or decreased in any given year? We now know that we have grossly underestimated the amount of CO2 being emitted by undersea volcanoes...the number of undersea vents and volcanoes, according to science is somewhere between a few hundred thousand and a million...so which is it? A few hundred thousand or more than a million?...and how might we determine how much is actually being emitted? And how might we determine how much that amount varies from year to year?

Clearly you don't have a clue, but I would be interested in hearing how you think we might calculate any of the above with anything like a reasonable degree of accuracy.

I suspect that if we had this monstrous termite explosion, we would be aware of it. Insurance companies would be raising the rates & Terminex stock would be going through the roof.

Actually, those things are studied & yes we would know,

Are you claiming the number of underseas eruptions have increased

We pretty much know.

 

[BlindBoo]

all you need to do is prove CO2 is bad.

Oooh is this a test. Here you can help prove i. Get yourself a plastic bag and a big rubber band.........

Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities.

"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?

Sorry guy...you have been fed a bill of goods and apparently you gobbled it up. The fact is that natural sources provide the same isotopes as fossil fuels because fossil fuels, are in fact, natural sources...you were lied to ...

What the fuick does the isotopes have to do with it???????? It has to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The change in the isotope ratio over the last 150 years can't be attributed to the natural sources as those sources have been active much longer, the ratio stayed the same till about 150 years ago.

Still doesn't prove the massive catastrophe theories the alarmist propagate.

 

[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.

You don't seem to realize that we are a minor producer of CO2 on this earth...termites alone produce more CO2 than we do by a long shot...the fact that CO2 changes from year to hear is only evidence that it changes...it is not evidence of the cause of the change..do you have any actual science that seriously looks at all the natural sources of CO2, and the natural sinks and concludes that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to our activities...I would be interested in seeing it if you do.

My bet is that you don't, and that you have never really looked at any science regarding natural sources of CO2, or the amount they vary from year to year...my bet is that you just believe we are responsible for the increase in CO2...and have seen nothing like actual evidence to support the belief...I also bet that you think the emperor's new clothes are simply fabulous..since you appear to be prone to believe in things whether there is evidence to support the belief or not.

I bet that you have never considered that it really does not make any difference the percent of all CO2 released in to the atmosphere which is man's.

The Earth releases & absorbs carbon all the time. When it is in balance, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is variable within a band width. With the Industrial Revolution, man has been increasing the amount of CO2 emissions & it got to the point where, with man's contributions, more was being emitted than absorbed.

What was the cause? The extra man made emissions.

You this argument you make is plain stupid.

 

[RealDave]

I get it. You have no logic. You really have no knowledge about much of anything.

I have actual science...you on the other hand apparently have tea leaves, phrenology, and sheep knuckles...

I have provided 7 peer reviewed, published scientific papers which state clearly that our effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere is negligible and barely measurable...you on the other hand have thus far, only provided your opinion.

We do know the concentration level of CO2 in our atmosphere has increased & yes we can indeed measure it.

Of course we know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere..but we also know that the amount in the atmosphere varies quite a lot from year to year..in fact, it varies by an amount greater than all the CO2 we produce. Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities...any real science which has looked seriously at all the natural sources and causes for natural variation from year to year? My bet is the answer to that is no...you have opinions and little else.

Typical warmer...you love to talk about what we "know" but can't seem to produce any actual science that supports what you think we "know"

Are you just stupid?

Clearly not...I am the one producing actual science to support my position..you are the one who has apparently swallowed pseudoscience, media bias, and opinion as if it were actually science...that is stupid...

Yes, we indeed to know that man is the cause.

NASA said so. They have real science. You have bullshit.

 

[Wuwei]

You seem not to be able to differentiate the difference between molecules striking a surface and energy transfer.

Nope it's the second law that doesn't distinguish the difference.
Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
You have to understand it from context that it doesn't refer to kinetic energy of a waterfall. That means the sentence is ambiguous the way it is. Fortunately the Hyperphysics site cleared that up.

.refer to the time you tried to claim that blowing cold air molecules against a warm wall was proof of energy radiating from cold to warm...what an idiot.

You are a shameless liar. I never said that. I said the molecules with random kinetic energy in a cold gas must strike an adjacent hotter surface. I did not say nor imply anything about radiation.

.

 

[jc456]

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?

nothing. ever hear of an ice age? we're supposed to be coming out of one. as we do, the oceans release CO2. that is why CO2 follows temps. as already proven to you all.

all you need to do is prove CO2 is bad.

The Ice Age that ended 11,700 years ago??? That one?

More CO2 => Heightened greenhouse effect => higher temnps

proven science.

well sure, there's still ice in the arctics correct?

you know when ice melts there, CO2 is added to the atmosphere? right? does the ice melt yearly in summer? and then add up 11,700 years of melt and refreeze. dude.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities.

"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?

Sorry guy...you have been fed a bill of goods and apparently you gobbled it up. The fact is that natural sources provide the same isotopes as fossil fuels because fossil fuels, are in fact, natural sources...you were lied to ...

What the fuick does the isotopes have to do with it???????? It has to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere.

He's an idiot. Don't worry about it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Do you have any actual science which states that the increase in CO2 is actually due to our activities.

"Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

How do we know that recent CO₂ increases are due to human activities?

Sorry guy...you have been fed a bill of goods and apparently you gobbled it up. The fact is that natural sources provide the same isotopes as fossil fuels because fossil fuels, are in fact, natural sources...you were lied to ...

What the fuick does the isotopes have to do with it???????? It has to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Lol did you really post tyat.?


Damn you stupid.