Proof of AGW fraud

[Wyatt earp]

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

.

Actually, the greenhouse effect is proven science.

So how do plants & people make out on Mars.

Actually it isnt... there isn't the first empirical measurement of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...but do feel free to look for such measurements...maybe your failure to find any such measurements will clue you in to the pseudoscientific nature of climate alarmism.

Greenhouse effect is proven science.

Just for you dumb Dave..


em·pir·i·cal
/əmˈpirik(ə)l/

adjective

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
   "they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"
   synonyms: observed, seen, factual

 

[RealDave]

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...

My point, Mr Science id that the isotopes don't matter when it comes to the greenhouse effect. They don't matter in the fact that the CO2 concentration is higher. It does not matter to the future effects of AGW.

Second, you are 100% wrong on your analysis. You know it. Quit being dishonest.

You are either dishonest or too ******* stupid to get that it is not if man produces more CO2 than natural causes or not. What matters is the man's addition throuigh emissions pushed us past the point where the Earth can balance the CO2 concentrations and drive the rise.

You keep posting your bullshit. But it is just bullshit.

Will you finally just STFU.

There is no AGW...There has never been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured,quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...you have been duped and it is sad.

You are, without a doubt, the biggest fool here.

I'm sticking with NASA.

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

From your own link, what happened to your claim people will be starving?

• Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently. At the same time, higher temperatures and shifting climate patterns may change the areas where crops grow best and affect the makeup of natural plant communities.

I found your problem. You van't read.

"shifting climate patterns may change the areas where crops grow..."

i.e. what if Iowa ^ Nebraska, etc is no longer suited to grow corn & wheat & soybeans? You canm pretend that these can just be rown further m=notrthn but the soils would be different.

Climate change will not be uniform. Some areas will get much warmer than others.

You will risk all of ths because of your ignorance. How stupid is that.

1) Climate chnge is happening & happening fast
2) Man is the primary cause.
3) We need to reduce our emissions now to stop a higher temperature rise.

Stick your head in the sand & condemn your children to a more difficult future.

 

[RealDave]

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

.

Actually, the greenhouse effect is proven science.

So how do plants & people make out on Mars.

Actually it isnt... there isn't the first empirical measurement of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...but do feel free to look for such measurements...maybe your failure to find any such measurements will clue you in to the pseudoscientific nature of climate alarmism.

Greenhouse effect is proven science.

Just for you dumb Dave..


em·pir·i·cal
/əmˈpirik(ə)l/

adjective

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
   "they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"
   synonyms: observed, seen, factual

Average Global Temperatures have been measured

Carbon Content Measures

CO2 emissions from man, measured

What else should there be measured?

 

[RealDave]

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

.

Actually, the greenhouse effect is proven science.

So how do plants & people make out on Mars.

You missing the Forrest from the trees?

Is Mars as hot as Venus with an atmosphere of 95% C02?

Mars has a much thionner atmosphere than Earth or Venus & is much further from the Sun.

You do know I just set you up right?



So now you claiming the Sun has an effect? How astute of you ....

Lol...you stupid.


.

The sun supplies the heat you stupid shit. So, if you are now going to claim solar cyclers, show me where the sun's radiance has increased.

 

[RealDave]

Everything that you need has already been provided. YOU choose to deny and that is your burden.

Sorry but nothing has been provided except unsupportable opinions...thus far, I am the only one who has provided any actual peer reviewed, published science and none of you wackos has provided anything like actual science stating otherwise...let me guess, you believe your opinion is actual science...what a dupe...

Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

So, just how do natural causes cause CO2 to spike to 410+ppm when they have not ever just naturally exceeded 300ppm in the last 400,000 years?

First and foremost, there is no reliable proxy that can demonstrate that CO2 has not exceeded 400ppm in the past 400,000 years. CO2 trapped in ice is simply not a good enough proxy to make such a claim...so you fail right out of the gate. Sorry guy. Like I said, there is no actual science to support your claims.

And the fact that you believe that site is actual science is truly pathetic. Have you looked at it? Can you pick a single piece of observed, measured data out of that whole site that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? Go ahead and try....

I get it. NO Research ever done on the past climate is valid because there might be something that happened that we don't know about.

Therefore, we should call AGW "FAKE NEWS" and do nothing about it.

The mantra of the stupid, ignorant dumbass AGW deniers.

You keep talking about all the research but dont seem to be able to produce any to support your position...I dont have any problem providing actual research to support my position...why cant you?

I produced NASA. Yiou know, the people that study Climate Change?

You produced Shit.

 

[RealDave]

"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...

My point, Mr Science id that the isotopes don't matter when it comes to the greenhouse effect. They don't matter in the fact that the CO2 concentration is higher. It does not matter to the future effects of AGW.

Second, you are 100% wrong on your analysis. You know it. Quit being dishonest.

You are either dishonest or too ******* stupid to get that it is not if man produces more CO2 than natural causes or not. What matters is the man's addition throuigh emissions pushed us past the point where the Earth can balance the CO2 concentrations and drive the rise.

You keep posting your bullshit. But it is just bullshit.

Will you finally just STFU.

There is no AGW...There has never been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured,quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...you have been duped and it is sad.

So you now think reposting helps?

 

[jc456]

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.

And the wait continues for you to post the first piece of actual empirical evidence to support your claims..

Well here is your side brought by sonny perdue.

"You know, I think it's weather patterns, frankly. And you know, and they change, as I said. It rained yesterday, it's a nice pretty day today. So the climate does change in short increments and in long increments."


senator imhoff found a snowball in his frig, so theres another one.

And then there's Al Gore who said the ice caps would be all gone and NYC underwater.

Al Gore will be right given time and the continued policies of conservative deniers.

so you think if the Arctic melted it would increase sea levels? holy fk. I guess you never used ice in drinks before.

 

[RealDave]

"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...

My point, Mr Science id that the isotopes don't matter when it comes to the greenhouse effect. They don't matter in the fact that the CO2 concentration is higher. It does not matter to the future effects of AGW.

Second, you are 100% wrong on your analysis. You know it. Quit being dishonest.

You are either dishonest or too ******* stupid to get that it is not if man produces more CO2 than natural causes or not. What matters is the man's addition throuigh emissions pushed us past the point where the Earth can balance the CO2 concentrations and drive the rise.

You keep posting your bullshit. But it is just bullshit.

Will you finally just STFU.

Again s0n...........the anger and frustration, clearly conveyed by you here screams, "This guy is making me look st00pid and I'm loSiNg!!"



We dominate in this forum because we convey a perception of winning.........we are routinely laughing our balls off!!

Go check out one of the most ePiC threads on this whole board, MORE PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING....... will have 1/2 a million "views" soon. Then go look at how many "views" the threads started by the climate crusaders get?

You need no help looking stupid.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Dave,

you ignored my post in reply to a post you made, maybe you will reply to this one?

How much of the IR spectrum does CO2 actually absorb in?

 

[jc456]

And the wait continues for you to post the first piece of actual empirical evidence to support your claims..

Well here is your side brought by sonny perdue.

"You know, I think it's weather patterns, frankly. And you know, and they change, as I said. It rained yesterday, it's a nice pretty day today. So the climate does change in short increments and in long increments."


senator imhoff found a snowball in his frig, so theres another one.

Are you under the impression that was science? If so, I see how you came to be such a dupe. I asked for some actual science to support your claims and that is really the best you can do? What a doofus...

Everything that you need has already been provided. YOU choose to deny and that is your burden.

Sorry but nothing has been provided except unsupportable opinions...thus far, I am the only one who has provided any actual peer reviewed, published science and none of you wackos has provided anything like actual science stating otherwise...let me guess, you believe your opinion is actual science...what a dupe...

Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

So, just how do natural causes cause CO2 to spike to 410+ppm when they have not ever just naturally exceeded 300ppm in the last 400,000 years?

dude, you keep evading the question of answering why the atmosphere had twice to three times CO2 pre man? why?

 

[jc456]

"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...

My point, Mr Science id that the isotopes don't matter when it comes to the greenhouse effect. They don't matter in the fact that the CO2 concentration is higher. It does not matter to the future effects of AGW.

Second, you are 100% wrong on your analysis. You know it. Quit being dishonest.

You are either dishonest or too ******* stupid to get that it is not if man produces more CO2 than natural causes or not. What matters is the man's addition throuigh emissions pushed us past the point where the Earth can balance the CO2 concentrations and drive the rise.

You keep posting your bullshit. But it is just bullshit.

Will you finally just STFU.

There is no AGW...There has never been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured,quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...you have been duped and it is sad.

the only thing they can actually show is the answer to the question, does man contribute to CO2. Well duh, sure we do, we breathe. Any fking stupid fk would have to say yes. Now, what percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from man, well there they fall into a rat hole. and they can't recover. they have been digging that hole deeper and deeper.

 

[jc456]

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...

My point, Mr Science id that the isotopes don't matter when it comes to the greenhouse effect. They don't matter in the fact that the CO2 concentration is higher. It does not matter to the future effects of AGW.

Second, you are 100% wrong on your analysis. You know it. Quit being dishonest.

You are either dishonest or too ******* stupid to get that it is not if man produces more CO2 than natural causes or not. What matters is the man's addition throuigh emissions pushed us past the point where the Earth can balance the CO2 concentrations and drive the rise.

You keep posting your bullshit. But it is just bullshit.

Will you finally just STFU.

There is no AGW...There has never been a single paper published in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured,quantified, and blamed on greenhouse gasses...you have been duped and it is sad.

You are, without a doubt, the biggest fool here.

I'm sticking with NASA.

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

From your own link, what happened to your claim people will be starving?

• Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently. At the same time, higher temperatures and shifting climate patterns may change the areas where crops grow best and affect the makeup of natural plant communities.

I found your problem. You van't read.

"shifting climate patterns may change the areas where crops grow..."

i.e. what if Iowa ^ Nebraska, etc is no longer suited to grow corn & wheat & soybeans? You canm pretend that these can just be rown further m=notrthn but the soils would be different.

Climate change will not be uniform. Some areas will get much warmer than others.

You will risk all of ths because of your ignorance. How stupid is that.

1) Climate chnge is happening & happening fast
2) Man is the primary cause.
3) We need to reduce our emissions now to stop a higher temperature rise.

Stick your head in the sand & condemn your children to a more difficult future.

shifting climate patterns may change


May, do you know that that means other than one month in a calendar year?

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

The evidence of the relatively stable isotope ratio is found in the ice core samples.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Sorry but nothing has been provided except unsupportable opinions...thus far, I am the only one who has provided any actual peer reviewed, published science and none of you wackos has provided anything like actual science stating otherwise...let me guess, you believe your opinion is actual science...what a dupe...

Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

So, just how do natural causes cause CO2 to spike to 410+ppm when they have not ever just naturally exceeded 300ppm in the last 400,000 years?

First and foremost, there is no reliable proxy that can demonstrate that CO2 has not exceeded 400ppm in the past 400,000 years. CO2 trapped in ice is simply not a good enough proxy to make such a claim...so you fail right out of the gate. Sorry guy. Like I said, there is no actual science to support your claims.

And the fact that you believe that site is actual science is truly pathetic. Have you looked at it? Can you pick a single piece of observed, measured data out of that whole site that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? Go ahead and try....

I get it. NO Research ever done on the past climate is valid because there might be something that happened that we don't know about.

Therefore, we should call AGW "FAKE NEWS" and do nothing about it.

The mantra of the stupid, ignorant dumbass AGW deniers.

You keep talking about all the research but dont seem to be able to produce any to support your position...I dont have any problem providing actual research to support my position...why cant you?

I produced NASA. Yiou know, the people that study Climate Change?

You produced Shit.

Dave, THAT NASA link has obvious propaganda elements in it, plus the obvious falseness and errors of statements such as this one:

"warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space." Atmosphere doesn't absorb "heat", it absorbs IR Energy

and,

"On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere." Meaningless since its absorption bands are negligible and at much lower energy levels

and,

"A stronger greenhouse effect will warm the oceans...." No, the SUN is the only significant source of energy, the Greenhouse effect doesn't get stronger.

and,

"Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly." Highly misleading, since TSI is not the only important measure of Solar outflow

These are a few of the most obvious errors in the link, don't be so easily snowed by their propaganda.

Here is an honest report on Glacier Bay and the retreat of Glaciers that most warmists never read:

Repeat Photography: Capturing Change

Notice the lack of propaganda or misleading statements?

Just honest straightforward observations is what we read.

 

[jc456]

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

.

Actually, the greenhouse effect is proven science.

So how do plants & people make out on Mars.

Actually it isnt... there isn't the first empirical measurement of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...but do feel free to look for such measurements...maybe your failure to find any such measurements will clue you in to the pseudoscientific nature of climate alarmism.

Greenhouse effect is proven science.

Just for you dumb Dave..


em·pir·i·cal
/əmˈpirik(ə)l/

adjective

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
   "they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"
   synonyms: observed, seen, factual

Average Global Temperatures have been measured

Carbon Content Measures

CO2 emissions from man, measured

What else should there be measured?

Average Global Temperatures have been measured

link!!! we've been through this already, temperatures can't be measured. just can't. dude, feel free to post that link.

 

[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.

.

Sorry doofus...the second law doesn't distinguish between kinds of energy...and of course you claimed that cold air striking a warm wall was evidence of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...you spout so much bullshit that you just can't keep up with it all.

Here is the post where you first made that stupid claim...

Grand Solar Minimum.... And Cooling....

"
Nope. Your tedium permeates this forum. Many here have shown you many references, excerpts from texts, original papers, and references. We have shown you mechanisms and counter examples to your bizarre physics such as,

Chemical light stick.
Slow decay phosphorescence
Gamma decay of technetium, et al.
Luminescence from plants and animals
Cosmic microwave background
Sunlight passing through hotter corona.
Molecules of a cold gas hitting a warm surface.

the rest of your idiot examples were shown to be idiot examples as well...

Since you are wrong here, lying through your teeth, and in a serious denial of science, I will post my response in the thread especially made for you by flacaltenn.

Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

.

Actually, the greenhouse effect is proven science.

So how do plants & people make out on Mars.

You missing the Forrest from the trees?

Is Mars as hot as Venus with an atmosphere of 95% C02?

Not much water vapor in Mar's atmosphere.

 

[RealDave]

Actually, the greenhouse effect is proven science.

So how do plants & people make out on Mars.

Actually it isnt... there isn't the first empirical measurement of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science...but do feel free to look for such measurements...maybe your failure to find any such measurements will clue you in to the pseudoscientific nature of climate alarmism.

Greenhouse effect is proven science.

Just for you dumb Dave..


em·pir·i·cal
/əmˈpirik(ə)l/

adjective

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
   "they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"
   synonyms: observed, seen, factual

Average Global Temperatures have been measured

Carbon Content Measures

CO2 emissions from man, measured

What else should there be measured?

Average Global Temperatures have been measured

link!!! we've been through this already, temperatures can't be measured. just can't. dude, feel free to post that link.

Those lying **** weathermen on TV!!!! Lying to us for years. And and and those Fake Thermometers they been selling.

 

[RealDave]

Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

So, just how do natural causes cause CO2 to spike to 410+ppm when they have not ever just naturally exceeded 300ppm in the last 400,000 years?

First and foremost, there is no reliable proxy that can demonstrate that CO2 has not exceeded 400ppm in the past 400,000 years. CO2 trapped in ice is simply not a good enough proxy to make such a claim...so you fail right out of the gate. Sorry guy. Like I said, there is no actual science to support your claims.

And the fact that you believe that site is actual science is truly pathetic. Have you looked at it? Can you pick a single piece of observed, measured data out of that whole site that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability? Go ahead and try....

I get it. NO Research ever done on the past climate is valid because there might be something that happened that we don't know about.

Therefore, we should call AGW "FAKE NEWS" and do nothing about it.

The mantra of the stupid, ignorant dumbass AGW deniers.

You keep talking about all the research but dont seem to be able to produce any to support your position...I dont have any problem providing actual research to support my position...why cant you?

I produced NASA. Yiou know, the people that study Climate Change?

You produced Shit.

Dave, THAT NASA link has obvious propaganda elements in it, plus the obvious falseness and errors of statements such as this one:

"warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space." Atmosphere doesn't absorb "heat", it absorbs IR Energy

and,

"On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere." Meaningless since its absorption bands are negligible and at much lower energy levels

and,

"A stronger greenhouse effect will warm the oceans...." No, the SUN is the only significant source of energy, the Greenhouse effect doesn't get stronger.

and,

"Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly." Highly misleading, since TSI is not the only important measure of Solar outflow

These are a few of the most obvious errors in the link, don't be so easily snowed by their propaganda.

Here is an honest report on Glacier Bay and the retreat of Glaciers that most warmists never read:

Repeat Photography: Capturing Change

Notice the lack of propaganda or misleading statements?

Just honest straightforward observations is what we read.

So if the temperature is "x" without the greenhouse effect But "X+y" with a greenhouse effect but the sun output is constant, isn't the higher temp caused by the greenhouse effect?

I wish you morons would quit being such jackasses.

 

[RealDave]

Well here is your side brought by sonny perdue.

"You know, I think it's weather patterns, frankly. And you know, and they change, as I said. It rained yesterday, it's a nice pretty day today. So the climate does change in short increments and in long increments."


senator imhoff found a snowball in his frig, so theres another one.

Are you under the impression that was science? If so, I see how you came to be such a dupe. I asked for some actual science to support your claims and that is really the best you can do? What a doofus...

Everything that you need has already been provided. YOU choose to deny and that is your burden.

Sorry but nothing has been provided except unsupportable opinions...thus far, I am the only one who has provided any actual peer reviewed, published science and none of you wackos has provided anything like actual science stating otherwise...let me guess, you believe your opinion is actual science...what a dupe...

Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

So, just how do natural causes cause CO2 to spike to 410+ppm when they have not ever just naturally exceeded 300ppm in the last 400,000 years?

dude, you keep evading the question of answering why the atmosphere had twice to three times CO2 pre man? why?

Dude,. it was answered several times.