Scientists confirm basic physics - CO2 makes it hotter.

[jc456]

no reason to be silly just because you're wrong.

So you dont have a link?

to what? I have many links. BTW, one link would be this thread!!!

To the question where I asked you about the 11 year study saying cars and buildings dont emit Co2 as you claimed.

never said that dude, nice try! just make silliness up eh?

Yeah you did say it. I just called you on it.

Why was there a 11 year study from 2000 to 2011 to prove it, and they failed.

nope, if I did, post it. Not much in that quote that is in anyway what you wrote. hahahahaahahahahahaha

 

[Asclepias]

So you dont have a link?

to what? I have many links. BTW, one link would be this thread!!!

To the question where I asked you about the 11 year study saying cars and buildings dont emit Co2 as you claimed.

never said that dude, nice try! just make silliness up eh?

Yeah you did say it. I just called you on it.

Why was there a 11 year study from 2000 to 2011 to prove it, and they failed.

nope, if I did, post it. Not much in that quote that is in anyway what you wrote. hahahahaahahahahahaha

I just posted it. You claimed an 11 year study disputed humans were adding to the CO2. If cars and building emit CO2 then your study was wrong. I noticed you still havent linked to said study.

 

[jc456]

to what? I have many links. BTW, one link would be this thread!!!

To the question where I asked you about the 11 year study saying cars and buildings dont emit Co2 as you claimed.

never said that dude, nice try! just make silliness up eh?

Yeah you did say it. I just called you on it.

Why was there a 11 year study from 2000 to 2011 to prove it, and they failed.

nope, if I did, post it. Not much in that quote that is in anyway what you wrote. hahahahaahahahahahaha

I just posted it. You claimed an 11 year study disputed humans were adding to the CO2. If cars and building emit CO2 then your study was wrong. I noticed you still havent linked to said study.

Here:
First direct observation of carbon dioxide s greenhouse effect at Earth s surface Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Asclepias]

To the question where I asked you about the 11 year study saying cars and buildings dont emit Co2 as you claimed.

never said that dude, nice try! just make silliness up eh?

Yeah you did say it. I just called you on it.

Why was there a 11 year study from 2000 to 2011 to prove it, and they failed.

nope, if I did, post it. Not much in that quote that is in anyway what you wrote. hahahahaahahahahahaha

I just posted it. You claimed an 11 year study disputed humans were adding to the CO2. If cars and building emit CO2 then your study was wrong. I noticed you still havent linked to said study.

Here:
First direct observation of carbon dioxide s greenhouse effect at Earth s surface Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Maybe you made a mistake. You linked to something on this site with no study. Want to try again?

 

[jc456]

never said that dude, nice try! just make silliness up eh?

Yeah you did say it. I just called you on it.

Why was there a 11 year study from 2000 to 2011 to prove it, and they failed.

nope, if I did, post it. Not much in that quote that is in anyway what you wrote. hahahahaahahahahahaha

I just posted it. You claimed an 11 year study disputed humans were adding to the CO2. If cars and building emit CO2 then your study was wrong. I noticed you still havent linked to said study.

Here:
First direct observation of carbon dioxide s greenhouse effect at Earth s surface Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Maybe you made a mistake. You linked to something on this site with no study. Want to try again?

nope I posted the study, you might have to read.

 

[Asclepias]

Yeah you did say it. I just called you on it.

nope, if I did, post it. Not much in that quote that is in anyway what you wrote. hahahahaahahahahahaha

I just posted it. You claimed an 11 year study disputed humans were adding to the CO2. If cars and building emit CO2 then your study was wrong. I noticed you still havent linked to said study.

Here:
First direct observation of carbon dioxide s greenhouse effect at Earth s surface Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Maybe you made a mistake. You linked to something on this site with no study. Want to try again?

nope I posted the study, you might have to read.

You may have posted the study but you didnt link to it. If it exists why dont you just link to it?

 

[jc456]

nope, if I did, post it. Not much in that quote that is in anyway what you wrote. hahahahaahahahahahaha

I just posted it. You claimed an 11 year study disputed humans were adding to the CO2. If cars and building emit CO2 then your study was wrong. I noticed you still havent linked to said study.

Here:
First direct observation of carbon dioxide s greenhouse effect at Earth s surface Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Maybe you made a mistake. You linked to something on this site with no study. Want to try again?

nope I posted the study, you might have to read.

You may have posted the study but you didnt link to it. If it exists why dont you just link to it?

I see you didn't read the thread to get the link you're after. I made my statement from that thread, you want the link go to the thread and get it.

 

[Asclepias]

I just posted it. You claimed an 11 year study disputed humans were adding to the CO2. If cars and building emit CO2 then your study was wrong. I noticed you still havent linked to said study.

Here:
First direct observation of carbon dioxide s greenhouse effect at Earth s surface Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Maybe you made a mistake. You linked to something on this site with no study. Want to try again?

nope I posted the study, you might have to read.

You may have posted the study but you didnt link to it. If it exists why dont you just link to it?

I see you didn't read the thread to get the link you're after. I made my statement from that thread, you want the link go to the thread and get it.

No thanks. I'll just take that as a concession there really is no study.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[jc456]

Here:
First direct observation of carbon dioxide s greenhouse effect at Earth s surface Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Maybe you made a mistake. You linked to something on this site with no study. Want to try again?

nope I posted the study, you might have to read.

You may have posted the study but you didnt link to it. If it exists why dont you just link to it?

I see you didn't read the thread to get the link you're after. I made my statement from that thread, you want the link go to the thread and get it.

No thanks. I'll just take that as a concession there really is no study.

you don't wish to read on what you ask for is on you friend.

 

[Asclepias]

Maybe you made a mistake. You linked to something on this site with no study. Want to try again?

nope I posted the study, you might have to read.

You may have posted the study but you didnt link to it. If it exists why dont you just link to it?

I see you didn't read the thread to get the link you're after. I made my statement from that thread, you want the link go to the thread and get it.

No thanks. I'll just take that as a concession there really is no study.

you don't wish to read on what you ask for is on you friend.

I dont wish to play games. If there is a study a simple link to it would be the right thing to do. The fact you want me to search a thread for it shows me you are stalling.

 

[mamooth]

jc doesn't have a study. He's referring to a kook blogger's opinion piece as his proof.

Here's a recent OCO-2 image, prelim data. Looks very much like the models. Not exactly, of course. If the models were perfect, there would be no reason for the satellite. Plus, the OCO-2 image is a monthly average, while the model is a daily look.

Frank, of course, will ignore this data and keep posting his apples-to-oranges image, where he compares a winter prediction to fall measurements and then declares victory because they don't match.

 

[RKMBrown]

jc doesn't have a study. He's referring to a kook blogger's opinion piece as his proof.

Here's a recent OCO-2 image, prelim data. Looks very much like the models. Not exactly, of course. If the models were perfect, there would be no reason for the satellite. Plus, the OCO-2 image is a monthly average, while the model is a daily look.

Frank, of course, will ignore this data and keep posting his apples-to-oranges image, where he compares a winter prediction to fall measurements and then declares victory because they don't match.

ROFL look at the scale... ROFL

 

[ScienceRocks]

Losertarians work on opinions and really don't have a solid idea of what science is and a respect for it.

 

[RKMBrown]

Losertarians work on opinions and really don't have a solid idea of what science is and a respect for it.

ROFL look at the asshole who wants respect for junk science.

Look at that scale 387 to 407 for blue to red ROFL

It's a stupid monkey chart.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This one.

The Last Time CO2 Was This High Humans Didn t Exist Climate Central

"The most direct evidence comes from tiny bubbles of ancient air trapped in the vast ice sheets of Antarctica. By drilling for ice cores and analyzing the air bubbles, scientists have found that, at no point during at least the past 800,000 years have atmospheric CO2 levels been as high as they are now."

SO what! The earth has had levels 4000ppm during times of great mammal populations.. and the earths temp did not run away....
View attachment 37288

Science contradicts your claims. We know the earth has warmed during the periods that correlate to high CO2 levels when the sun was hot enough. The earth was practically a sauna during the period of the dinosaurs. Plants were huge. This isnt conjecture or opinion. Its science. While this may be a natural cycle there is no way to know if mans footprint may tip the balance and cause another period of the same high temperatures that otherwise would not occur later.. I dont get the reluctance to admit this is a possibility.

Wrong again.... but dont let your own conjecture stop you..

 

[Asclepias]

jc doesn't have a study. He's referring to a kook blogger's opinion piece as his proof.

Here's a recent OCO-2 image, prelim data. Looks very much like the models. Not exactly, of course. If the models were perfect, there would be no reason for the satellite. Plus, the OCO-2 image is a monthly average, while the model is a daily look.

Frank, of course, will ignore this data and keep posting his apples-to-oranges image, where he compares a winter prediction to fall measurements and then declares victory because they don't match.

I pretty much figured he was stalling.

 

[Asclepias]

This one.

The Last Time CO2 Was This High Humans Didn t Exist Climate Central

"The most direct evidence comes from tiny bubbles of ancient air trapped in the vast ice sheets of Antarctica. By drilling for ice cores and analyzing the air bubbles, scientists have found that, at no point during at least the past 800,000 years have atmospheric CO2 levels been as high as they are now."

SO what! The earth has had levels 4000ppm during times of great mammal populations.. and the earths temp did not run away....
View attachment 37288

Science contradicts your claims. We know the earth has warmed during the periods that correlate to high CO2 levels when the sun was hot enough. The earth was practically a sauna during the period of the dinosaurs. Plants were huge. This isnt conjecture or opinion. Its science. While this may be a natural cycle there is no way to know if mans footprint may tip the balance and cause another period of the same high temperatures that otherwise would not occur later.. I dont get the reluctance to admit this is a possibility.

Wrong again.... but dont let your own conjecture stop you..

Dont you hate when science puts your delusions in a spot light and you have to face them?

Dinosaur Era Had 5 Times Today s CO2

"This process, called subduction,led to volcanism at the surface, with rocks constantly melting and emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. Huge amounts of this greenhouse gas made the climate during the Jurassic Period extremely humid and warm, said geoscientist Douwe van der Meer, lead author of the study and a researcher at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. "

 

[CrusaderFrank]

jc doesn't have a study. He's referring to a kook blogger's opinion piece as his proof.

Here's a recent OCO-2 image, prelim data. Looks very much like the models. Not exactly, of course. If the models were perfect, there would be no reason for the satellite. Plus, the OCO-2 image is a monthly average, while the model is a daily look.

Frank, of course, will ignore this data and keep posting his apples-to-oranges image, where he compares a winter prediction to fall measurements and then declares victory because they don't match.

It doesn't remotely resemble your flawed, failed CO2 models!!!! You assumed industry was the biggest generator of CO2. You fail, your models fail

 

[Old Rocks]

Losertarians work on opinions and really don't have a solid idea of what science is and a respect for it.

ROFL look at the asshole who wants respect for junk science.

Look at that scale 387 to 407 for blue to red ROFL

It's a stupid monkey chart.

And what is that supposed to mean, other than you don't have a clue?