Proof of AGW fraud

[Wyatt earp]

No it's science and you want to claim we had satellites hundreds of years ago.


.

Actually, you are the one claiming anything recorded prior to satellites is no longer valid. Pedal your bullshit on some right wing site where they are dumb enough to believe it.

you haven't explained measured temperature yet. why not? it was your claim.

From WIKI: Temperature is a physical quantity expressing hot and cold. It is measured with a thermometer calibrated in one or more temperature scales. The most commonly used scales are the Celsius scale (formerly called centigrade) (denoted °C), Fahrenheit scale (denoted °F), and Kelvin scale (denoted K).

Or this frpm NOAA

• Air Temperature
  USCRN stations are equipped with three independent thermometers which measure air temperature in degrees Celsius. The station's datalogger computes independent 5-minute averages using two-second readings from each thermometer. These multiple measurements are then used to derive the station's official hourly temperature value.

OMG OMG OMG they are measuring temperature OMG OMG OMG

now post the one that has the global thermometer. where is it and what does it look like?

It consists of many stations. Average global temperatures are found by taking an AVERAGE of these stations.

I already showed you the history of the stations around the globe, we only have 50 years or so data of southern hemisphere and no real data of ocean temperature till the US Argo booeys in 1994.

 

[otto105]

Look We have measurements. Those are empirical.

Models are used to extrapolate into the future.

Are you having a ******* meltdown because we can't take future measurements?> Is this why you are running in circles & screaming OMG OMG OMG?

L

that material doesn't explain shit. I'm asking you for measurements, ones around the globe, that big old fat fking thermometer that has average temperature of the world on it?

Oh, and have you heard that the earth has been in a few ice ages? how do you explain that? CO2 in the atmosphere twice to three times the concentration without man. still waiting.

Currently CO2 levels are around 411ppm. Can you post the time that CO2 levels were "two to three times" what they're now.

sure, here you go

How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters

Very good. So acoordingly to YOUR OWN LINK,

To find a time when the planet’s air was consistently above 400 ppm you have to look much farther back to the warm part of the Miocene, some 16 million years ago, or the Early Oligocene, about 25 million years ago, when Earth was a very different place and its climate totally dissimilar from what we might expect today.

Now check this out:

See the problem? {Hint: no people beyond 5.5 million years ago}. Want no people? Sure looks that way!

you miss the entire point, of man wasn't around, so natural CO2 can be that high in our world. and 400 PPM is far far away from those numbers. so again, you explain the evil of CO2. Oh and the earth went into an ice age, and hasn't recovered.

Are you stupid?

 

[jc456]

what I said.

That 200,000 Million years ago when our planet was still forming the CO2 levels were higher and that is relevant how?

you tell me, you say 400 PPM is dangerous. not so right?

You don't consider this dangerous...

Excerpt from posted article
"At the current rate of growth in CO2, levels will hit 500 ppm within 50 years, putting us on track to reach temperature boosts of perhaps more than 3 degrees C (5.4°F) — a level that climate scientists say would cause bouts of extreme weather and sea level rise that would endanger global food supplies, cause disruptive mass migrations, and even destroy the Amazon rainforest through drought and fire."

Not to mention mass animal extinctions.

well two things, one: CO2 does not increase temperature, temperature drives the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Two: as soon as you tell me why warmer temperatures are dangerous. I'd be glad to lose -20 degree days from life.

One, wrong.

Two, we already did.

one was accurate. your koolaid was spiked.

 

[jc456]

that material doesn't explain shit. I'm asking you for measurements, ones around the globe, that big old fat fking thermometer that has average temperature of the world on it?

Oh, and have you heard that the earth has been in a few ice ages? how do you explain that? CO2 in the atmosphere twice to three times the concentration without man. still waiting.

Currently CO2 levels are around 411ppm. Can you post the time that CO2 levels were "two to three times" what they're now.

sure, here you go

How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters

Very good. So acoordingly to YOUR OWN LINK,

To find a time when the planet’s air was consistently above 400 ppm you have to look much farther back to the warm part of the Miocene, some 16 million years ago, or the Early Oligocene, about 25 million years ago, when Earth was a very different place and its climate totally dissimilar from what we might expect today.

Now check this out:

See the problem? {Hint: no people beyond 5.5 million years ago}. Want no people? Sure looks that way!

you miss the entire point, of man wasn't around, so natural CO2 can be that high in our world. and 400 PPM is far far away from those numbers. so again, you explain the evil of CO2. Oh and the earth went into an ice age, and hasn't recovered.

Are you stupid?

I don't know everything to know in the world so yes, I'm stupid to many things, but you all take the reigns and own stupid.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

that material doesn't explain shit. I'm asking you for measurements, ones around the globe, that big old fat fking thermometer that has average temperature of the world on it?

Oh, and have you heard that the earth has been in a few ice ages? how do you explain that? CO2 in the atmosphere twice to three times the concentration without man. still waiting.

Currently CO2 levels are around 411ppm. Can you post the time that CO2 levels were "two to three times" what they're now.

sure, here you go

How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters

And what does your posted article tell YOU?

what I said.

That 200,000 Million years ago when our planet was still forming the CO2 levels were higher and that is relevant how?

Your article also points to man-made climate change and its effects that we will experience because of it. And no comment on that part.

That 200,000 Million years ago when our planet was still forming

The Earth is 200 billion years old?

 

[otto105]

Currently CO2 levels are around 411ppm. Can you post the time that CO2 levels were "two to three times" what they're now.

sure, here you go

How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters

And what does your posted article tell YOU?

what I said.

That 200,000 Million years ago when our planet was still forming the CO2 levels were higher and that is relevant how?

Your article also points to man-made climate change and its effects that we will experience because of it. And no comment on that part.

That 200,000 Million years ago when our planet was still forming

The Earth is 200 billion years old?

Maybe even older, but we don't live in the climate of those times.

 

[jc456]

sure, here you go

How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters

And what does your posted article tell YOU?

what I said.

That 200,000 Million years ago when our planet was still forming the CO2 levels were higher and that is relevant how?

Your article also points to man-made climate change and its effects that we will experience because of it. And no comment on that part.

That 200,000 Million years ago when our planet was still forming

The Earth is 200 billion years old?

Maybe even older, but we don't live in the climate of those times.

how is it different?

 

[otto105]

Currently CO2 levels are around 411ppm. Can you post the time that CO2 levels were "two to three times" what they're now.

sure, here you go

How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters

Very good. So acoordingly to YOUR OWN LINK,

To find a time when the planet’s air was consistently above 400 ppm you have to look much farther back to the warm part of the Miocene, some 16 million years ago, or the Early Oligocene, about 25 million years ago, when Earth was a very different place and its climate totally dissimilar from what we might expect today.

Now check this out:

See the problem? {Hint: no people beyond 5.5 million years ago}. Want no people? Sure looks that way!

you miss the entire point, of man wasn't around, so natural CO2 can be that high in our world. and 400 PPM is far far away from those numbers. so again, you explain the evil of CO2. Oh and the earth went into an ice age, and hasn't recovered.

Are you stupid?

I don't know everything to know in the world so yes, I'm stupid to many things, but you all take the reigns and own stupid.

Well now you're also being lame.

 

[jc456]

sure, here you go

How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters

Very good. So acoordingly to YOUR OWN LINK,

To find a time when the planet’s air was consistently above 400 ppm you have to look much farther back to the warm part of the Miocene, some 16 million years ago, or the Early Oligocene, about 25 million years ago, when Earth was a very different place and its climate totally dissimilar from what we might expect today.

Now check this out:

See the problem? {Hint: no people beyond 5.5 million years ago}. Want no people? Sure looks that way!

you miss the entire point, of man wasn't around, so natural CO2 can be that high in our world. and 400 PPM is far far away from those numbers. so again, you explain the evil of CO2. Oh and the earth went into an ice age, and hasn't recovered.

Are you stupid?

I don't know everything to know in the world so yes, I'm stupid to many things, but you all take the reigns and own stupid.

Well now you're also being lame.

no, I got a new hip, I'm no longer hobbling around.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

sure, here you go

How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters

And what does your posted article tell YOU?

what I said.

That 200,000 Million years ago when our planet was still forming the CO2 levels were higher and that is relevant how?

Your article also points to man-made climate change and its effects that we will experience because of it. And no comment on that part.

That 200,000 Million years ago when our planet was still forming

The Earth is 200 billion years old?

Maybe even older, but we don't live in the climate of those times.

Any backup for a 200 billion year old (or older) Earth?

 

[jc456]

And what does your posted article tell YOU?

what I said.

That 200,000 Million years ago when our planet was still forming the CO2 levels were higher and that is relevant how?

Your article also points to man-made climate change and its effects that we will experience because of it. And no comment on that part.

That 200,000 Million years ago when our planet was still forming

The Earth is 200 billion years old?

Maybe even older, but we don't live in the climate of those times.

Any backup for a 200 billion year old (or older) Earth?

his koolaid told him

 

[SSDD]

I'm actually wondering why you would not think the scientists at NASA were ya know, scientists.

Exactly who wrote that piece? Everyone at NASA isn't a scientist...and science is written in a certain format...that was no more than a public relations piece...who reviewed it? What journal was it published in? Answer...no one reviewed it and it was not published in any journal...it is self published and offered no evidence whatsoever to support the claims being made...maybe you really don't have any idea what actual science looks like and that is why you would accept something like that just because it said NASA at the top.

But then, I remember the conservative idea of treating this a a simple political belief that denies the science.

Again...it is you who is denying science...I am providing actual peer reviewed, published scientific literature and you are denying it in favor of a public relations opinion piece which was reviewed by no one and published by the same organization that wrote it..

 

[SSDD]

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?

Otto is a bot. It responds with one liners and has no empirical evidence to support its position. Its the definition of arguing with an idiot..

Same for realdave...not the first piece of actual science to support his claims and he readily denies any actual science provided that doesn't jibe with what he believes..

 

[Wyatt earp]

sure, here you go

How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters

And what does your posted article tell YOU?

what I said.

That 200,000 Million years ago when our planet was still forming the CO2 levels were higher and that is relevant how?

Your article also points to man-made climate change and its effects that we will experience because of it. And no comment on that part.

That 200,000 Million years ago when our planet was still forming

The Earth is 200 billion years old?

Maybe even older, but we don't live in the climate of those times.

We don't? So in your narcissist view when man came along the climate stopped changing?



.

 

[jc456]

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?

Otto is a bot. It responds with one liners and has no empirical evidence to support its position. Its the definition of arguing with an idiot..

Same for realdave...not the first piece of actual science to support his claims and he readily denies any actual science provided that doesn't jibe with what he believes..

Spiked koolaid

 

[SSDD]

S

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.

Your the one who needs to shut the **** up. YOU have yet to provide even ONE provable piece of empirical evidence to support your conjecture.

How many charts have you seen logging the changes in our temperatures, the changes in CO2 concentrations, the changing amounts of man made emisions,.

THOSE, assfuck, are EMPIRICAL

Yeah...that is what I have provided you with and they show exactly the opposite of what you are claiming...

Here, lets take a look.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Next:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

This paper was published in the publication Global and planetary Change.

Next:

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

This paper was published in Environmental Research Letters

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce. Notice the name? Hansen...the godfather of global warming...one of the biggest AGW nutters out there and even he produced a graph which shows very clearly that the amount of CO2 we produce doesn't track with the total CO2 in the atmosphere...

I am not going to go through all the papers with you, but the fact is that we are not driving the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...even AGW heroes like hansen freely admit this fact.

These are the empirical measurements you are speaking of and they simply don't show what you claim.

 

[SSDD]

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?

Otto is a bot. It responds with one liners and has no empirical evidence to support its position. Its the definition of arguing with an idiot..

I have all the science on my side. You have the creation of doubt in science.

And yet...you don't seem to be able to produce any of it...

 

[SSDD]

hey a one degree change is Armageddon.

This is the conservative type statement which confirms an inability to critically think.

No it's science and you want to claim we had satellites hundreds of years ago.


.

Actually, you are the one claiming anything recorded prior to satellites is no longer valid. Pedal your bullshit on some right wing site where they are dumb enough to believe it.

you haven't explained measured temperature yet. why not? it was your claim.

Again tell us why this is all wrong.... Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Do you see anything in that site that amounts to observed evidence to support the claims? There is simply nothing there...it isn't science...it is a public relations opinion piece and there is nothing there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....if there is, by all means bring whatever you believe does that here and we will have a look at it.

 

[SSDD]

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

Otto is a bot. It responds with one liners and has no empirical evidence to support its position. Its the definition of arguing with an idiot..

I have all the science on my side. You have the creation of doubt in science.

or not

Proof positive that it has no concept of the hypothesis and that it has no empirical evidence to support its position. In each case, it is incapable of articulating the problem or debating the empirical evidence that shows it a deception. All it has are one liners, appeals to authority, and degradation of the people kicking their asses with OBSERVED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

GO figure..

Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Just try to convince anyone that all in that link is wrong.

There is nothing there...there isn't any science...there isn't any data to support the claims..it hasn't been peer reviewed and it is was published on the internet by the same people who wrote it...do you really believe that is science?

Please point out anything on that entire site which amounts to observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...anything at all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

S

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.

Your the one who needs to shut the **** up. YOU have yet to provide even ONE provable piece of empirical evidence to support your conjecture.

How many charts have you seen logging the changes in our temperatures, the changes in CO2 concentrations, the changing amounts of man made emisions,.

THOSE, assfuck, are EMPIRICAL

Yeah...that is what I have provided you with and they show exactly the opposite of what you are claiming...

Here, lets take a look.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Next:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

This paper was published in the publication Global and planetary Change.

Next:

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

This paper was published in Environmental Research Letters

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce. Notice the name? Hansen...the godfather of global warming...one of the biggest AGW nutters out there and even he produced a graph which shows very clearly that the amount of CO2 we produce doesn't track with the total CO2 in the atmosphere...

I am not going to go through all the papers with you, but the fact is that we are not driving the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...even AGW heroes like hansen freely admit this fact.

These are the empirical measurements you are speaking of and they simply don't show what you claim.

there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Nope. CO2 concentration increased every year on that graph.