OK... so why CO2 trails temperature?

[SSDD]

I notice that Fort Fun Indiana, completely ignored my Per Decade comment.

Carry on.

Don't expect him to actually engage in the conversation....he showed up here pretending to be some hot shot who knew it all...bullying people, calling names, etc.. It didn't take long for a pattern to emerge though...a pattern of never engaging in the conversation...a pattern of never presenting any actual science that supports his position...a pattern of argument by logical fallacy, his favorite being the favorite of all duped warmers...the appeal to authority.

What he doesn't seem to get is that if you are going to appeal to an authority, then you need to be prepared to bring forth the evidence upon which the "authority" has based its claims...and so far, for all the billions upon billions that the "authority" has squandered, they don't have a single piece of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

 

[Crick]

Same Shit criticizing someone else for not presenting actual science and ARGUING WITH LOGICAL FALLACIES!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa......

 

[SSDD]

Same Shit criticizing someone else for not presenting actual science and ARGUING WITH LOGICAL FALLACIES!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa......

That's right....so lets show everyone how you have no observed, measured data to support your position...Show us all that you can not provide a single bit of observed measured data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...the very cornerstone of your magical belief...lets see a single piece of observed measured data....we both know that you can't produce because there is no such observation or measurement.

Or show us a single piece of observed, measured data that supports AGW over natural variability..

Step on up hot shot....show us what you don't have.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Same Shit criticizing someone else for not presenting actual science and ARGUING WITH LOGICAL FALLACIES!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa......

That's right....so lets show everyone how you have no observed, measured data to support your position...Show us all that you can not provide a single bit of observed measured data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...the very cornerstone of your magical belief...lets see a single piece of observed measured data....we both know that you can't produce because there is no such observation or measurement.

Or show us a single piece of observed, measured data that supports AGW over natural variability..

Step on up hot shot....show us what you don't have.

His numerous comments today demonstrate that he is all babble and no substance.

 

[Wuwei]

His numerous comments today demonstrate that he is all babble and no substance.

Yes, he said he disagrees with four Nobel Prize winners on thermodynamics in a different thread.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Here is a comment from WUWT that shows the futility of CO2 effects drives climates arguments:

"Bill Illis
April 7, 2018 at 10:23 am


The last Snowball Earth happened when CO2 was 12,000 ppm.

It happened because super-continent Pannotia was centred over the South Pole.

The Earth’s climate is strictly driven by how much sunlight can be absorbed by molecules on the planet. When you have a bunch of glaciers and sea ice at the poles or lower latitudes, it gets colder. If clouds increase and reflect more sunlight, it gets colder. Put all the continents at the equator and you get no glaciers and very little sea ice and it gets warmer.

This alone results in +15C to -25C temperatures, which is all that the Earth’s temperature has varied by. A simple 100% control then and no role for “non-condensing gas”.

Speaking of that, if there is a Carbon cycle, then CO2 acts as though it is a condensing gas."

 

[SSDD]

His numerous comments today demonstrate that he is all babble and no substance.

Yes, he said he disagrees with four Nobel Prize winners on thermodynamics in a different thread.

How many nobel prize winners turned out to be wrong? Figures that a weak, and demonstrably wrong logical fallacy would be your defense...Lets see a single piece of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...just one...lets see it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

His numerous comments today demonstrate that he is all babble and no substance.

Yes, he said he disagrees with four Nobel Prize winners on thermodynamics in a different thread.

How many nobel prize winners turned out to be wrong? Figures that a weak, and demonstrably wrong logical fallacy would be your defense...Lets see a single piece of observed, measured evidence that establishes a coherent relationship between absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...just one...lets see it.

How many nobel prize winners turned out to be wrong?

How many ever said radiation only flows one way?
How many ever said matter has a dimmer switch?
How many ever said matter above 0K stops emitting near warmer matter?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So if CO2 goes up after temperature goes up, and our current model of climate change is correct (anthropomorphic climate change), how does it explain this?

I think I heard an answer to this a while ago but I forgot.

The model is wrong

 

[skookerasbil]

Same Shit criticizing someone else for not presenting actual science and ARGUING WITH LOGICAL FALLACIES!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa......

Not for nothing s0n
but what do you contribute to this forum except the same tired retread narrative we've been hearing for 10 years.....the same AGW stuff that has been rejected by the public has goofball fodder.

Where exactly has the elitist mentality gotten you in the last 10 years? We would like to see some evidence. A link or two would be nice. Please do show us where the consensus science is mattering in the real world in 2018?



Don't forget those links s0n

 

[skookerasbil]

Same Shit criticizing someone else for not presenting actual science and ARGUING WITH LOGICAL FALLACIES!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa......

Hey s0n.... you disappeared for months unable to handle the heat.

Nobody takes FORTFUN seriously in here.

 

[SSDD]

Same Shit criticizing someone else for not presenting actual science and ARGUING WITH LOGICAL FALLACIES!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa......

Hey s0n.... you disappeared for months unable to handle the heat.

Nobody takes FORTFUN seriously in here.

Maybe fort fun is a crick puppet.

 

[Wuwei]

How many nobel prize winners turned out to be wrong?

I can't think of any off hand, but of course you have already indicated that Nobel Prize winners Einstein, Plank, Bohr, Maxwell, Wein, Kirchhoff, and many other scientist are idiots.

 

[SSDD]

How many nobel prize winners turned out to be wrong?

I can't think of any off hand, but of course you have already indicated that Nobel Prize winners Einstein, Plank, Bohr, Maxwell, Wein, Kirchhoff, and many other scientist are idiots.

Really? There are quite a number.....from all branches of science. including the hard sciences...hell just think how many nobel prizes have been handed out over the years and how much science has changed...being wrong is inevitable...typical that you would not even be able to think that deeply into the topic..

Got any observed, measured evidence that the theories were correct? Didn't think so.

 

[Wuwei]

Really? There are quite a number.....from all branches of science. including the hard sciences...hell just think how many nobel prizes have been handed out over the years and how much science has changed...being wrong is inevitable...typical that you would not even be able to think that deeply into the topic..

Got any observed, measured evidence that the theories were correct?

Oh? Which Nobel Prizes in physics turned out to be false? And which of the winners to you think are, as you say, "idiots"?

 

[Crick]

Same Shit criticizing someone else for not presenting actual science and ARGUING WITH LOGICAL FALLACIES!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa......

That's right....so lets show everyone how you have no observed, measured data to support your position...Show us all that you can not provide a single bit of observed measured data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...the very cornerstone of your magical belief...lets see a single piece of observed measured data....we both know that you can't produce because there is no such observation or measurement.

Or show us a single piece of observed, measured data that supports AGW over natural variability..

Step on up hot shot....show us what you don't have.

Thousands of pages of evidence that supports AGW over natural variability. www.ipcc.ch. God, are you stupid.

 

[SSDD]

Same Shit criticizing someone else for not presenting actual science and ARGUING WITH LOGICAL FALLACIES!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa......

That's right....so lets show everyone how you have no observed, measured data to support your position...Show us all that you can not provide a single bit of observed measured data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...the very cornerstone of your magical belief...lets see a single piece of observed measured data....we both know that you can't produce because there is no such observation or measurement.

Or show us a single piece of observed, measured data that supports AGW over natural variability..

Step on up hot shot....show us what you don't have.

Thousands of pages of evidence that supports AGW over natural variability. www.ipcc.ch. God, are you stupid.

So you say..and so all warmers say, but when asked for a SINGLE piece of observed measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...or a single piece of observed, measured data that establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...both foundational principles in the AGW hypothesis, you don't seem to be able to produce...a whole hypothesis concerning an observable, measurable entity like the atmosphere based entirely on models without the first piece of observed, measured, physical evidence that supports that hypothesis over the null hypothesis...and you believe in it with all your heart...god, are you that stupid...

And I have asked repeatedly for you to bring that SINGLE piece of data from that steaming pile of IPCC bullshit and over and over, you have failed to produce...you just keep posting the link...and by your own words, people who just post links, and don't bring the data forth for examination are just talking out of their asses...nothing new for you skidmark...

 

[Crick]

So you believe the IPCC's AR contain no observations? No empirical evidence?

I guess we can then assume you either have never looked at it or that you choose to lie through your teeth.

 

[Crick]

And... silence

 

[Sunsettommy]

So you believe the IPCC's AR contain no observations? No empirical evidence?

I guess we can then assume you either have never looked at it or that you choose to lie through your teeth.

Ha ha ha, you are full of hot air, who REFUSES to answer a simple question. He has posted quotes from the IPCC before, you forget that easily?

A real debate too hard for YOU to do?