wirebender
Senior Member
That's some magical CO2 we produced.
Was it ever determined whether or not CO2 could julienne fries? It sure seems to be able to do anything else.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's some magical CO2 we produced.
Nope. never was. But that issue was run away from fairly quickly.That's some magical CO2 we produced.
Was it ever determined whether or not CO2 could julienne fries? It sure seems to be able to do anything else.
You're lying again, Frank. Direct answers have been posted many times. I'm not jumping through your hoop today. You never understood the logic before, why should I waste my time posting it again?
The problem is you are talking to someone who is severely challenged and has been since birth. Terrible and sad. Just remember to be compassionate.
Still haven't seen anything close to a theory here.
The problem is you are talking to someone who is severely challenged and has been since birth. Terrible and sad. Just remember to be compassionate.
Still haven't seen anything close to a theory here.
He's apparently blind, too!!!
Present your evidence!
Does it match this in credibility?
Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia
The hockey stick? You are presenting the broken, discredited, debunked hockey stick and calling it credible? I am laughing in your face rocks. Here is what the NAS had to say about mann's hockey stick:
"systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data "(p. 107).
"Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. "(p. 110)
"Manns results are strongly dependent on the strip-bark data" (pp. 106-107)," and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research" (p. 50).
" Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions."
"Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium."
Then in a congressional hearing, Mr. North, the chairman of the NAS panel that examined mann's work was asked if he disagreed with the Wegman findings which shreded mann's work. The exhange went like this:
CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegmans report?
DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: No, we dont. We dont disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
So are you sure you want to use the hockey stick as credible evidence of anything besides proof that climate scientists can't be trusted?
Present your evidence!
Does it match this in credibility?
Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia
The hockey stick? You are presenting the broken, discredited, debunked hockey stick and calling it credible? I am laughing in your face rocks. Here is what the NAS had to say about mann's hockey stick:
"systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data "(p. 107).
"Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. "(p. 110)
"Manns results are strongly dependent on the strip-bark data" (pp. 106-107)," and they went further, warning that strip-bark data should not be used in this type of research" (p. 50).
" Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions."
"Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium."
Then in a congressional hearing, Mr. North, the chairman of the NAS panel that examined mann's work was asked if he disagreed with the Wegman findings which shreded mann's work. The exhange went like this:
CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegmans report?
DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: No, we dont. We dont disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
So are you sure you want to use the hockey stick as credible evidence of anything besides proof that climate scientists can't be trusted?
My, you are one really dumb ass. You assume that no one will read the report. Yes, the people at NAS that reviewed Dr. Mann's statistical analysis stated that they did not agree with his methods. And then proceeded to get the same results with their methods, as you can see from that report. There has been no reputable study that has not essentially duplicated the Mann's graph.
So the fact that since the industrial age, humankind has produced less than 0.004% of the total atmospheric volume of CO2, which is actually only 0.6% of the amount of CO2 which is only 0.4% of the total atmospheric composition, means we're warming the planet?I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.
Once and for all, please state in a single sentence this "theory" of yours
Crusader, has someone stolen your log in? Someone with no access to yesterday's topics?
Must have.
As simply stated as i can:
Greenhouse gasses help the atmosphere retain heat, we need not to break the patterns our planet has maintained for 500 million years.
That's some magical CO2 we produced.
To see you learn a single thing would be a source of amazement, Franky.
So the fact that since the industrial age, humankind has produced less than 0.004% of the total atmospheric volume of CO2, which is actually only 0.6% of the amount of CO2 which is only 0.4% of the total atmospheric composition, means we're warming the planet?Crusader, has someone stolen your log in? Someone with no access to yesterday's topics?
Must have.
As simply stated as i can:
Greenhouse gasses help the atmosphere retain heat, we need not to break the patterns our planet has maintained for 500 million years.
That's some magical CO2 we produced.
Sir or Madam,
Lets say the CO2 cycle consists of something like 750 gigatons annually. Then the humans add say 30 gigatons annually to it. After 10 years the humans have added 300 gigatons which should not be there.
I suppose the particulars of the numbers are up for debate but my idea seems sound.
Now there are some complicating issues to the pure math. More CO2 means better breathing trees and more CO2 cycled though trees. But you get the point, right?
Now this might all work out somehow. I read during the Miocene temperatures were 3° to 6°C warmer and sea level was 25 to 40 meters higher than now and it all cycled back.
My, you are one really dumb ass. You assume that no one will read the report. Yes, the people at NAS that reviewed Dr. Mann's statistical analysis stated that they did not agree with his methods. And then proceeded to get the same results with their methods, as you can see from that report. There has been no reputable study that has not essentially duplicated the Mann's graph.
Franky boy, it is the theory of the physicists, settled long before I was born.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Look at your own propaganda rocks:
The energy budget shown clearly states that downdwelling radiation from GHG's are providing nearly twice as much energy to the surface of the earth as the sun. Tell me rocks, do you actually believe that? Look at the backradiation. It clearly states that that radiation is being absorbed by the surface of the earth.
Franky boy, it is the theory of the physicists, settled long before I was born.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
It's true. Here are some graphs of backradiation measurements at various locations:
Franky boy, it is the theory of the physicists, settled long before I was born.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Your idea has one small problem. while we produce only 0.4% of all yearly production of CO2, nature produces the other 99.6%.So the fact that since the industrial age, humankind has produced less than 0.004% of the total atmospheric volume of CO2, which is actually only 0.6% of the amount of CO2 which is only 0.4% of the total atmospheric composition, means we're warming the planet?Crusader, has someone stolen your log in? Someone with no access to yesterday's topics?
Must have.
As simply stated as i can:
Greenhouse gasses help the atmosphere retain heat, we need not to break the patterns our planet has maintained for 500 million years.
That's some magical CO2 we produced.
Sir or Madam,
Lets say the CO2 cycle consists of something like 750 gigatons annually. Then the humans add say 30 gigatons annually to it. After 10 years the humans have added 300 gigatons which should not be there.
I suppose the particulars of the numbers are up for debate but my idea seems sound.
Now there are some complicating issues to the pure math. More CO2 means better breathing trees and more CO2 cycled though trees. But you get the point, right?
Now this might all work out somehow. I read during the Miocene temperatures were 3° to 6°C warmer and sea level was 25 to 40 meters higher than now and it all cycled back.
Your idea has one small problem. while we produce only 0.4% of all yearly production of CO2, nature produces the other 99.6%.So the fact that since the industrial age, humankind has produced less than 0.004% of the total atmospheric volume of CO2, which is actually only 0.6% of the amount of CO2 which is only 0.4% of the total atmospheric composition, means we're warming the planet?
That's some magical CO2 we produced.
Sir or Madam,
Lets say the CO2 cycle consists of something like 750 gigatons annually. Then the humans add say 30 gigatons annually to it. After 10 years the humans have added 300 gigatons which should not be there.
I suppose the particulars of the numbers are up for debate but my idea seems sound.
Now there are some complicating issues to the pure math. More CO2 means better breathing trees and more CO2 cycled though trees. But you get the point, right?
Now this might all work out somehow. I read during the Miocene temperatures were 3° to 6°C warmer and sea level was 25 to 40 meters higher than now and it all cycled back.
Secondly, you are not considering the rate that CO2 is coming out of the atmosphere. For the last 40-60 years there has not been a significant increase in CO2 that could not be explained as natural fluxuation. Nature is packed with negative feedback loops. And if you want to consider your math technically we should be looking back 200 years then. And with that, you have a possible increase in CO2 in total quantity of 6000 gigatons extra, but it's not showing up in any atmospheric samples. and as well, nature then would have produced over 99 times that... so why isn't it all packed in our atmosphere making larger and larger quantities. Are all other gases increasing at the same rate? Is the atmosphere getting so much thicker?
This is why I question your theory. There must be a lot of other aspects to this, and we still are an insignificant part.