Proof of AGW fraud

[Grumblenuts]

Always funny watching these hard core deniers trying to outdo one another at spouting complete nonsense page after page, then suddenly preach actual mainstream physics when they think doing so might help their cause.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Always funny watching these hard core deniers trying to outdo one another at spouting complete nonsense page after page, then suddenly preach actual mainstream physics when they think doing so might help their cause.

It amuses me how ******* stupid you are at this subject, as dumb as real Dave.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

You don't even understand what isotopes are to the conversation.

 

[Wuwei]

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...

There you go again. A caustic response when you don't understand what you are talking about.

Try to think this through. Hail falling on a warm sidewalk is kinetic energy spontaneously moving to a warmer surface, but the second law is not violated because heat is flowing from the warmer sidewalk to the ice.

This wording, Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object does not differentiate between macroscopic objects and the microscopic nature of random molecules in a hot substance. Therefore that statement must be interpreted. The hyperphysics site did, but you are not. Furthermore the hyperphysics site clarifies that radiation can be exchanged by two objects.

I can't make it any clearer than that, but I feel it's going way over your head.

.

 

[RealDave]

Always funny watching these hard core deniers trying to outdo one another at spouting complete nonsense page after page, then suddenly preach actual mainstream physics when they think doing so might help their cause.

It amuses me how ******* stupid you are at this subject, as dumb as real Dave.


.

So a person as "dumb" as I am keeps kicking your stupid ass here on this thread.

I've argued this with hundreds of you ******* moronic deniers. It is always the same bullshit.

 

[RealDave]

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.

Melting ace does not release CO2.

 

[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.

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.

you have no idea the balance. As I already stated in here, the CO2 concentration pre man was much much higher than today. why?

 

[jc456]

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.

Melting ace does not release CO2.

ohkay Francis what happens to it then?

 

[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.

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.

you have no idea the balance. As I already stated in here, the CO2 concentration pre man was much much higher than today. why?

It has been higher & it has been lower.

Man is not the only driver. Get a ******* education.

 

[RealDave]

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.

Melting ace does not release CO2.

ohkay Francis what happens to it then?

It is not the melting ice like on Antarctica. It was the ice melting released a bunch of trapped CO2.

 

[jc456]

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.

Melting ace does not release CO2.

ohkay Francis what happens to it then?

It is not the melting ice like on Antarctica. It was the ice melting released a bunch of trapped CO2.

dude, seriously?

 

[SSDD]

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 ...

Those natural sources didn't start producing extra CO2 beginning 150 years ago. I mean those volcanoes have been under the oceans a long time.

got any actual evidence of that or are you just expressing an unsupportable opinion?

 

[SSDD]

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.

Let me guess...reading for comprehension isn't your best thing...here, let me type it real slow for you...

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.

Do you grasp the concepts of work and spontaneity and how they apply to the statement above? If not, let me know and I will help you out.

 

[SSDD]

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...

You seem to be the only one throwing straw....pointing out your error is not straw...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Let me guess...reading for comprehension isn't your best thing...here, let me type it real slow for you...

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.

Do you grasp the concepts of work and spontaneity and how they apply to the statement above? If not, let me know and I will help you out.

No spontaneous photons in the solar system, eh?

 

[SSDD]

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.

That was merely the end of a glacial period...we are in an interglacial at present but in the larger scheme of things, the ice age that began millions of years ago is still going on...so long as there is ice at one or both of the poles, the earth remains in an ice age.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Oh look...yet another one who can't read a simple statement and grasp what it says.

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.

If you don't grasp the concepts of work, and spontaneity as they relate to either the second law of thermodynamics, or your AC, just let me know and I will help you out.

 

[SSDD]

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 lack of knowledge is astounding...do you ever read anything even resembling science? Even though the whole isotope claim is falling flat, for a while it was important to the warmer argument till it was found out that there are plenty of natural sources of CO2 which have the same isotope signature as the CO2 produced by bringing fossil fuels...all those measurements thought to be measuring our CO2 were just measuring CO2 with no way to distinguish ours from that coming from natural sources...

 

[SSDD]

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

Which part of that steaming pile of excrement do you believe to be actual observed, measured evidence that supports the claim...I have read that pile of bilge over and over and there isn't a single piece of observed measured evidence in it that favors the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Say what we are still coming out of the last ice age and no it's not proven science that more C02 = higher temps, once again the planet Mars atmosphere is over 95% C02

.