Proof the globe is COOLING

[OohPooPahDoo]

because man has never had anything to do with it.

Actually man has increases atmospheric Co2 concentrations by 120 ppm since the industrial age began.

And when you can show that that means anything it's a useless stat.

I can but you're too stupid to understand it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You forgot this one. What was that about cherry picking?

I dunno. I guess its because you don't want anyone to see the data before around 2000? If you don't like cherry picking stop fucking doing it.

 

[westwall]

You forgot this one. What was that about cherry picking?

I dunno. I guess its because you don't want anyone to see the data before around 2000? If you don't like cherry picking stop fucking doing it.

Hmm, the THREE charts I posted show that the curve on the chart you posted post 1980 is crap. That was the point I was making. Further....if the charts I used show that you chart is shit for that time frame....that implies that the rest of your chart is likewise shit.

Basically you and yours are full of shit.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You forgot this one. What was that about cherry picking?

I dunno. I guess its because you don't want anyone to see the data before around 2000? If you don't like cherry picking stop fucking doing it.

Hmm, the THREE charts I posted show that the curve on the chart you posted post 1980 is crap. That was the point I was making. Further....if the charts I used show that you chart is shit for that time frame....that implies that the rest of your chart is likewise shit.

Basically you and yours are full of shit.

No they don't. Sorry. My chart shows rolling 5 and 11 year averages. Yours doesn't. You didn't show jack shit.

 

[jc456]

Actually man has increases atmospheric Co2 concentrations by 120 ppm since the industrial age began.

And when you can show that that means anything it's a useless stat.

I can but you're too stupid to understand it.

no you can't and never have. So you're right, me trying to understand nothing is hard to do!

 

[westwall]

I dunno. I guess its because you don't want anyone to see the data before around 2000? If you don't like cherry picking stop fucking doing it.

Hmm, the THREE charts I posted show that the curve on the chart you posted post 1980 is crap. That was the point I was making. Further....if the charts I used show that you chart is shit for that time frame....that implies that the rest of your chart is likewise shit.

Basically you and yours are full of shit.

No they don't. Sorry. My chart shows rolling 5 and 11 year averages. Yours doesn't. You didn't show jack shit.

Wrong. The charts I posted show categorically that the post 1980 curve of the chart you posted, bears no semblance to reality. That means it is fiction. Like all of your AGW claptrap. It is all just smoke and mirrors and computer generated science fiction.. And 1950's level science fiction at that. The real crappy SF.

 

[Crick]

da libruls doopeed. dey dunno howto doodee tenture right. dee hieee nummas r dee coooooleee wans! doopeed libruls!!! dur dur dur her her!!!

You forgot this one. What was that about cherry picking?

And this one...

And how about this one...

Wait a minute. He puts up data that goes from 1880 to 2010 (130 years) and you accuse him of cherry picking, then put up data that runs for 10-11 years? Really? Please tell us you were just being facetious.

 

[westwall]

da libruls doopeed. dey dunno howto doodee tenture right. dee hieee nummas r dee coooooleee wans! doopeed libruls!!! dur dur dur her her!!!

You forgot this one. What was that about cherry picking?

And this one...

And how about this one...

Wait a minute. He puts up data that goes from 1880 to 2010 (130 years) and you accuse him of cherry picking, then put up data that runs for 10-11 years? Really? Please tell us you were just being facetious.

You're pretty stupid aren't you. The charts I posted show that his chart is shit for the post 1980 data. That's the point. Once that part of his chart has been shown to be crap, the rest of his chart is likewise suspect.

You really don't have a fucking clue how science works do you....

 

[Crick]

Far, far better than do you. Does the term applies and oranges mean anything to you. Let's see

Land-Ocean Temperature Index

vs

Global SST (Sea Surface Temperature) anomalies

vs

UAH Channel 5 anomalies (14,000 feet)

vs

Global mean surface temperature

Without considering the resolution of 130 years vs the resolution of ten

You just REALLY don't know what the fuck you're talking about, science or anything else.

 

[westwall]

Far, far better than do you. Does the term applies and oranges mean anything to you. Let's see

Land-Ocean Temperature Index

vs

Global SST (Sea Surface Temperature) anomalies

vs

UAH Channel 5 anomalies (14,000 feet)

vs

Global mean surface temperature

Without considering the resolution of 130 years vs the resolution of ten

You just REALLY don't know what the fuck you're talking about, science or anything else.

Once one part of a chart is shown to be false. All other parts of that chart are likewise false. And yes, abrahick, I know more about science and the scientific method than you ever will.

 

[SSDD]

No proof needed. The earth has cooled and warmed, sometimes dramatically so, throughout history. Why would anyone think it would stop doing so?

and why should it continue to respond in the same way as it has before ??????

Because that's the way physics work.

That's the old physics...he is talking about the new physics where energy can move from cool objects to warm objects making the warm objects even warmer.

 

[Crick]

Naw, that's not it. Ours is where all objects radiate in all directions. Yours is where all objects know the temperature of their surroundings and radiate selectively only in directions where the heat will hit something colder. In SSDD's world, everything is sentient. Everything.

 

[skookerasbil]

Surprise! Icebergs Spotted in Lake Superior



Ooooooooooooooooooooopsie!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Old Rocks]

because man has never had anything to do with it.

Actually man has increases atmospheric Co2 concentrations by 120 ppm since the industrial age began.

How much did volcanoes and forest fires contribute to it? How much of the CO2 produced by man was later consumed by plants and converted back into oxygen? Do you understand the process of photosynthesis?

Do you understand that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is being measured all over the world on a daily basis? Do you understand that the people in the USGS have a rather good handle on the amount of CO2 that volcanos emit? Less than 1% of that which mankind creates.

Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

For additional information about this subject, please read the American Geophysical Union's Eos article "Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide" written by USGS scientist Terrence M. Gerlach.

 

[elektra]

Actually man has increases atmospheric Co2 concentrations by 120 ppm since the industrial age began.

How much did volcanoes and forest fires contribute to it? How much of the CO2 produced by man was later consumed by plants and converted back into oxygen? Do you understand the process of photosynthesis?

Do you understand that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is being measured all over the world on a daily basis? Do you understand that the people in the USGS have a rather good handle on the amount of CO2 that volcanos emit? Less than 1% of that which mankind creates.

Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

For additional information about this subject, please read the American Geophysical Union's Eos article "Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide" written by USGS scientist Terrence M. Gerlach.

really, CO2 is measured everywhere? How many stations? Where are they, can you give us their locations, the data from each?

How many Old Crock, I only ask because you know so much and provide so much truthful information I know you have this readily at your fingerprints.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

and why should it continue to respond in the same way as it has before ??????

Because that's the way physics work.

That's the old physics...he is talking about the new physics where energy can move from cool objects to warm objects making the warm objects even warmer.

Shine a flashlight into an oven.

There you go.

Fuckin idiot.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

How much did volcanoes and forest fires contribute to it? How much of the CO2 produced by man was later consumed by plants and converted back into oxygen? Do you understand the process of photosynthesis?

Do you understand that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is being measured all over the world on a daily basis? Do you understand that the people in the USGS have a rather good handle on the amount of CO2 that volcanos emit? Less than 1% of that which mankind creates.

Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

For additional information about this subject, please read the American Geophysical Union's Eos article "Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide" written by USGS scientist Terrence M. Gerlach.

really, CO2 is measured everywhere? How many stations? Where are they, can you give us their locations, the data from each?

How many Old Crock, I only ask because you know so much and provide so much truthful information I know you have this readily at your fingerprints.

Dude we know the CO2 came from us by its isotopic abundances.

 

[westwall]

Because that's the way physics work.

That's the old physics...he is talking about the new physics where energy can move from cool objects to warm objects making the warm objects even warmer.

Shine a flashlight into an oven.

There you go.

Fuckin idiot.

Close the oven. Leave the flashlight on full bore.....Will it cook?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That's the old physics...he is talking about the new physics where energy can move from cool objects to warm objects making the warm objects even warmer.

Shine a flashlight into an oven.

There you go.

Fuckin idiot.

Close the oven. Leave the flashlight on full bore.....Will it cook?

hey shit for brains.


did you know...


that outside of the diffusive limit,


radiation doesn't generally have the same temperature as the gas it is propagating through?

probably not....


you might wanna think on that