Opposing the AGW Consensus are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Old Rocks]

The Skeptic's Case | Mises Institute

Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message.

mises.org

How about we start with the basics....

John Tyndall’s radiant heat apparatus​

In 1859 Tyndall used a collection of apparatus, including this tube to measure the absorptive powers of gases in the atmosphere. The result of his experiments was the discovery of Greenhouse Gases and their effects on the earth.

John Tyndall’s radiant heat apparatus

In 1859, discovered the Greenhouse Effect using this tube amongst a collection of apparatus by measuring the absorptive power

www.rigb.org

 

[Old Rocks]

No one has been able to demonstrate in a lab how much CO2 is needed to generate an increase in temperature. Instead, you asshats invent cute little terms like "forcings", as if these magical words can contravene the Laws of Physics.

 

[ding]

If more greenhouse gases lead to warmer temperatures then why was the planet 2C warmer with less CO2?

The answer is because CO2 does not drive climate change.

 

[abu afak]

If more greenhouse gases lead to warmer temperatures then why was the planet 2C warmer with less CO2?

The answer is because CO2 does not drive climate change.

Because it takes Decades for the increasingly thick GHG layer to bring the earths temp to equilibrium for that CO2/GHG concentration.

In our present case we have raised CO2 so Fast, the temp is, and will continue to catch up.

You Dishonestly bring up this ANOMALY dozens of times but Temp and CO2 are in Lock step.

Presently and catching up soon.

Ding is a DISHONEST TROLL whose had this explained many times in just the last week.

`

 

[Oddball]

Because it takes Decades for the increasingly thick GHG layer to bring the earths temp to equilibrium for that CO2/GHG concentration.

In our present case we have raised CO2 so Fast, the temp is, and will continue to catch up.

You Dishonestly bring up this ANOMALY dozens of times but Temp and CO2 are in Lock step.


View attachment 580330


Presently and catching up soon.

View attachment 580331



Ding is a DISHONEST TROLL whose had this explained many times in just the last week.

`

And you've had it pointed out many times that the Vostok ice cores proved, with actual science, that CO2 concentrations LAG BEHIND temperature increases.

Fucking dishonest troll.

 

[ding]

Because it takes Decades for the increasingly thick GHG layer to bring the earths temp to equilibrium for that CO2/GHG concentration.

In our present case we have raised CO2 so Fast, the temp is, and will continue to catch up.

You Dishonestly bring up this ANOMALY dozens of times but Temp and CO2 are in Lock step.


View attachment 580330


Presently and catching up soon.

View attachment 580331



Ding is a DISHONEST TROLL whose had this explained many times in just the last week.

`

Doesn't look like it's in lockstep after the industrial revolution. It looks like to me the planet was 2C warmer with 120 ppm less CO2.

 

[abu afak]

And you've had it pointed out many times that the Vostok ice cores proved, with actual science, that CO2 concentrations LAG BEHIND temperature increases.

Fucking dishonest troll.

And I've said no less than a dozen times (and you could easily GOOGLE IT YOU MORON) that CO2 both initially lags and then contributes to GW. Methane/CH4 too.

Usually, in/if the natural cycle, the sun starts and then CO2 not only follows but leads/adds with it's (Duh) GREENHOUSE GAS Effect.

But in our present Industrial Revolution case, we lead/Are Leading with CO2, which alone can cause warming.
Define Greenhouse Gas for us/yourself.

`

 

[Oddball]

And I've said no less than a dozen times (and you could easily GOOGLE IT YOU MORON) that CO2 both initially lags and then contributes to GW. Methane/CH4 too.

Usually, in/if the natural cycle, the sun starts and then CO2 not only follows but leads/adds with it's (Duh) GREENHOUSE GAS Effect.

But in our present Industrial Revolution case, we lead/Are Leading with CO2, which alone can cause warming.
Define Greenhouse Gas for us/yourself.

`

Bullshit, ignorant warmer troll.

 

[ding]

And I've said no less than a dozen times (and you could easily GOOGLE IT YOU MORON) that CO2 both initially lags and then contributes to GW. Methane/CH4 too.

Usually, in/if the natural cycle, the sun starts and then CO2 not only follows but leads/adds with it's (Duh) GREENHOUSE GAS Effect.

But in our present Industrial Revolution case, we lead/Are Leading with CO2, which alone can cause warming.
Define Greenhouse Gas for us/yourself.

`

 

[ding]

Must be a little bit more complicated than just CO2.

 

[ding]

John Tyndall’s radiant heat apparatus​

In 1859 Tyndall used a collection of apparatus, including this tube to measure the absorptive powers of gases in the atmosphere. The result of his experiments was the discovery of Greenhouse Gases and their effects on the earth.

John Tyndall’s radiant heat apparatus

In 1859, discovered the Greenhouse Effect using this tube amongst a collection of apparatus by measuring the absorptive power

www.rigb.org

Great. Now repeat that experiment to quantify the associated temperature for various concentrations of CO2 and then you will have quantifiable empirical test results.

 

[Oddball]

A blast from the past, from your music frens here at K-WARM!

 

[ding]

Presently and catching up soon.

Within 30 years everything you believe will be proven wrong by colder temperatures.

Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty is a hallmark of the bipolar glaciated world we live in.

 

[Oddball]

Great. Now repeat that experiment to quantify the associated temperature for various concentrations of CO2 and then you will have quantifiable empirical test results.

Then show us the control sample....Then quantify the results....Then falsify the results.

 

[ding]

Then falsify the results.

So true. That's what happens when greed controls science.

 

[Old Rocks]

So true. That's what happens when greed controls science.

The science has been explained to you fine examples of Dunning-Kruger many times. You are very proud of your willful ignorance, and will remain so until you die in that ignorance. But, as we advance with the new technologies, you are irrelevant and will not matter at all.

 

[skookerasbil]

Voters dont care about the "consensus". Never have.

Ive watched the climate change obsessed scream about "the science" for 11 years in here. It still is not mattering to the public. Its not even debatable. The "science" has transcended nowhere past its own field. Nowhere except to symbolic platforms. This is still not understood by the climate obsessed who routinely spike the football on symbolic stuff.

Meanwhile, the folks who make energy policy could not possibly be any less interested in solar and wind energy which remains decidedly fringe on the energy landscape. The k00ks point to "growth rates" which is fakery. Wind and solar still provide well less than 10% to the electric grid.

Said it in here 10 years ago.......it still holds.........green fantasies are ghey.

@www.whosnotwinning.com

 

[abu afak]

I have the Moron SkookerAsbil on Ignore but saw his above post signed off.

NOTHING could be Further from the Truth. (like everything he posts)

EVERYONE cares, and virtually all the new MONEY is going to GREEN POWER.

He could not have missed my thread however just below.

Renewables made up 92% of new generating capacity in the U.S. in the first half of 2021​

[...]"...data recently released by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)...

FERC’s latest monthly “Energy Infrastructure Update” report (with data through June 30, 2021) reveals that renewable energy sources accounted for 91.6% – or 10,940 megawatts (MW) – of the 11,940 MW of new capacity added during the first six months of the year. Wind led the capacity additions with 5,617 MW, followed closely by solar (5,279 MW). Further, wind and solar were the only sources of new capacity additions in June 2021.

Renewables now provide more than a quarter (25.1%) of total U.S. available installed generating capacity. A year ago, their share was only 23.0%. Wind is now more than a tenth (10.4%) of the nation’s generating capacity while utility-scale solar is nearly five percent (4.9%) … and that does not include distributed (e.g., rooftop) solar.

Moreover, FERC data suggest that renewables’ share of generating capacity is on track to increase significantly over the next three years (i.e., by June 2024). “High probability” generation capacity additions for wind, minus anticipated retirements, reflect a projected net increase of 21,129 MW while solar is foreseen growing by 44,385 MW. By comparison, net growth for natural gas will be only 13,241 MW. Thus, wind and solar combined are forecast to provide roughly Five times more new net generating capacity than natural gas over the next three years.



If these numbers materialize, by June 2024, renewable energy generating capacity should account for almost 30 percent (29.4%) of the nation’s total available installed generating capacity.

Renewables made up 92% of new generating capacity in the U.S. in the first half of 2021

Renewable energy sources dominated new U.S. electrical generating capacity additions in the first half of 2021.

www.renewableenergyworld.com

Renewables made up 92% of new generating capacity in the U.S. in the first half of 2021

Renewables made up 92% of new generating capacity in the U.S. in the first half of 2021 [...]"...data recently released by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)... FERC’s latest monthly “Energy Infrastructure Update” report (with...

www.usmessageboard.com

`

 

[ding]

The science has been explained to you fine examples of Dunning-Kruger many times. You are very proud of your willful ignorance, and will remain so until you die in that ignorance. But, as we advance with the new technologies, you are irrelevant and will not matter at all.

There is no science, dummy. An example of science would be a laboratory experiment that quantified the associated temperature of varying concentrations of CO2. That's science.

Your ability to process Dunning-Kruger is even worse than your ability to understand the drivers of earth's climate. Hint: it's not CO2.

 

[abu afak]

There is no science, dummy. An example of science would be a laboratory experiment that quantified the associated temperature of varying concentrations of CO2. That's science.

Your ability to process Dunning-Kruger is even worse than your ability to understand the drivers of earth's climate. Hint: it's not CO2.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the Definition of 'Greenhouse Gas.'
You have refused the challenge to define it and will again now...
and seem ignorant of the early Lab work which found it.
But I suggest you look.
It's not even Rocket Science and was discovered a century before.

`