13 Times the Scientific Consensus Was WRONG

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Translation~ you're an uneducated voter if you don't know what it means.

I didnt say i don't understand it. Pay attention! I asked YOU what it means. Since you posted it. And, the fact is, you have no idea. You do that a LOT.

 

[Wyatt earp]

And making shit up

Yep. Virtually nonstop. You know less than nothing about this topic and really should not even open your mouth about it.

I know everything about this topic politically wise been studying since the early 1970s


Try me ...


.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I know everything about this topic politically wise

I don't care. You spoke to the science. Again, please try to focus. It's like you dont even know what you said 5 minutes ago.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Translation~ you're an uneducated voter if you don't know what it means.

I didnt say i don't understand it. Pay attention! I asked YOU what it means. Since you posted it. And, the fact is, you have no idea. You do that a LOT.

I know what it means, you play dumb and talk about emissions.


.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I know what it means

Hmm, no,i don't think you do. That's why you can't tell me.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I know what it means

Hmm, no,i don't think you do. That's why you can't tell me.

Still playing dumb, of course you are.


.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I know what it means

Hmm, no,i don't think you do. That's why you can't tell me.

Still playing dumb, of course you are.


.

Well that response made no sense.

And I notice you sure are doing a lot of work to avoid telling me how that image is relevant, or what point it supports. Who do you think you are fooling? Yourself?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If it's 10% and 90%

Which is irrelevant and not a good representation of the range of uncertainty. You just got an F on an 8th grade science test. And, really, a D- for denier trolling. Weak sauce.

Which is irrelevant

IF we reduce our 10% to zero, how many trillions should we spend to try to fight against a natural cause?

You just got an F on an 8th grade science test.

Big talk from a 3rd grader.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

IF we reduce our 10% to zero, how many trillions should we spend to try to fight against a natural cause?

An idiotic question, as we know it is much higher.

Sorry toddinator, your middle school trolling is just not effective with me. Bear, though...you can probably make him degenerate into an amorphous, drooling blob of anger and then get all the attention you desire. I wish you the best.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

IF we reduce our 10% to zero, how many trillions should we spend to try to fight against a natural cause?

An idiotic question, as we know it is much higher.

Sorry toddinator, your middle school trolling is just not effective with me. Bear, though...you can probably make him degenerate into an amorphous, drooling blob of anger and then get all the attention you desire. I wish you the best.

as we know it is much higher.

Cool.

So what are the real percentages?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

IF we reduce our 10% to zero, how many trillions should we spend to try to fight against a natural cause?

An idiotic question, as we know it is much higher.

Sorry toddinator, your middle school trolling is just not effective with me. Bear, though...you can probably make him degenerate into an amorphous, drooling blob of anger and then get all the attention you desire. I wish you the best.

as we know it is much higher.

Cool.

So what are the real percentages?

Irrelevant. Same as the first 500 times you tried to annoy people by asking it, so that you could, hopefully, get some attention from a stranger on the internet.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

IF we reduce our 10% to zero, how many trillions should we spend to try to fight against a natural cause?

An idiotic question, as we know it is much higher.

Sorry toddinator, your middle school trolling is just not effective with me. Bear, though...you can probably make him degenerate into an amorphous, drooling blob of anger and then get all the attention you desire. I wish you the best.

as we know it is much higher.

Cool.

So what are the real percentages?

Irrelevant. Same as the first 500 times you tried to annoy people by asking it, so that you could, hopefully, get some attention from a stranger on the internet.

Irrelevant.

You said it was much higher. Post your proof.

Unless you were lying again?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You said it was much higher. Post your proof.

No. But i will direct you to the most recent IPCC report, where you can read for yourself the proof and conclusions offered by the worlda scientists. . They did do a pretty good job of presenting a lot of things for the layperson. But, of course, doing this minimum amount of work would require you to be honestly interested in learning about the topic, which you are not.

 

[mamooth]

You know how do use Google, please tell USMB how much is it man made and how much is it natural?

110% is the mean estimate from AR5.

That is, all the warming is man made, and in attention, it would have cooled slightly without man made factors.

Oh yeah no one knows.

At least you're consistent. You're always completely ignorant about the science.

 

[mamooth]

I never said any of that. What I asked was, who are we as humans to decide what the earth's average temperature should be?

Moral people with common sense. A fast change in climate will cost trillions and make a lot of people suffer and die. Moral people with common sense try to avoid such situations.

Or are you so egotistical that you assume that the earth is here for your comfort?

You're kind of an evil Gaian, hoping that climate makes people suffer and die for the glory of your political cult.

 

[mamooth]

How many new nuke plants should we build?

None, as they're astonisingly expensive. It's far more cost-effective to build more renewables, or natural gas turbines if more baseload is needed.

Under the "more nukes" plan, electric bills triple. That won't be popular.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You said it was much higher. Post your proof.

No. But i will direct you to the most recent IPCC report, where you can read for yourself the proof and conclusions offered by the worlda scientists. . They did do a pretty good job of presenting a lot of things for the layperson. But, of course, doing this minimum amount of work would require you to be honestly interested in learning about the topic, which you are not.

No.

LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many new nuke plants should we build?

None, as they're astonisingly expensive. It's far more cost-effective to build more renewables, or natural gas turbines if more baseload is needed.

Under the "more nukes" plan, electric bills triple. That won't be popular.

None, as they're astonisingly expensive.

Money is no object, we have to save the polar bears!!!!

Under the "more nukes" plan, electric bills triple.

Weird, prices are triple in Germany with no nukes and massive amounts of renewables.

 

[otto105]

Here is what we know. We look at the rise in CO2 concentrations & we do know that the vast majority is due to man made emissions.

The only fantasy is your thinking you know more than the scientists.

Actually, we know no such thing. The fact is that our effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere is very hard to detect. You guys like to say what you believe as if it were actual science, but unlike you warmers....we skeptics can actually provide real science to support our positions. I am a skeptic because the actual evidence, the real science simply doesn't add up to impending catastrophe...I don't hold my position based on politics....I hold my position because I take time to look at the science and what science says, and what the media and politicians report are two very different things.

Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2.

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

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

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. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

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

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

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

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

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.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim.

You continue to believe what you like...it is clear by now that is precisely what you will do...but the information above is peer reviewed and published by climate scientists...and supports my claim that we are no the ones driving the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere. I am pretty sure that you will disregard all the data above in favor of what you want to believe...which makes you the denier...not me. I can provide actual published science to support my claim...published science which you will deny in favor of your belief and political leaning.

I always enjoy pointing out who the real deniers are. Now if you can produce some actual peer reviewed, published science that supports your claim that we are the ones who are to blame for CO2 levels increasing, I would like to see it.

You quote a known skeptic.

We know that the Earth removes CO2 from the atmosphere. Do you think it always removes the same amount??? This guy thinks that the more man emits, it must reflect in the total amount but is this necessary the case???

I have provided 7 peer reviewed, published papers which state pretty clearly that our contribution to the atmospheric CO2 concentration is so negligible so as to be nearly undetectable...do you have any particular problem with either the data or the methodology? Obviously the peer reviewers didn't, nor did the publishers..and in so far as I know, none of the papers have been retracted because of errors...do you have any actual science that calls the findings in the papers into question? Or do you just have an uninformed opinion?

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


Maybe YOU should challenge the scientists from NASA.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Not if there isn't any money in it

And this is, easily, the most barrassingly retarded denier talking point of them all.

Gee,if only the cash strapped, destitute fossil fuel industry had money, so they could fund the RIGHT science, right?

Fucking retarded....

lol