Sulfur Dioxide

[CrusaderFrank]

Wait! Has Crusader Frank learned to read?

Apparently not.

I asked a question Mr AGW Akbar!!!

 

[Crick]

I haven't seen your inquiries rise to the level of "a question". It's closer to the meanderings of an amoeba, who moves in random directions but withdraws from those that hurt and proceeds in those that tend to provide sustenance. We can't really be sure that the amoeba is "learning" per se, but it does give the semblance.

However, just to be certain, I went back and had a look to see if I could see what you were thinking was "a question". You "asked" if people concerned about AGW were suggesting that SO2 ate the warming. It was this rhetorical comment that prompted mine about your reading skills. If you are wondering whether or not anyone in this thread ever suggested such a thing, I would strongly recommend you go back and READ THE FUCKING THREAD.

If, as seems very likely, you still don't know, come back and try to ask it again; this time without all the cues that tell us it is rhetoric, both unexpectant and undeserving of an answer.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I haven't seen your inquiries rise to the level of "a question". It's closer to the meanderings of an amoeba, who moves in random directions but avoids those that hurt and continuing those that tend to provide sustenance. We can't really be sure that the amoeba is "learning" per se, but it does give the semblance.

Ahhh are you still hurt that you can produce your "120PPM of CO2 will raise temperature" experiment?

Your great hope was "Mythbusters" but when I pointed out the CO2 was likely 73,480PPM it ruined your day.

Here's my question: Where is the lab experiment that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature.

 

[Crick]

The topic off this thread is sulfur dioxide Frank. Trying to change the topic only makes you and your arguments look weak.

 

[sealybobo]

The topic off this thread is sulfur dioxide Frank. Trying to change the topic only makes you and your arguments look weak.

Whether it's sulfur dioxide we are breating or plastic in the oceans or oil spills in our drinking water, what the hell is wrong with the right? I can't imagine fighting going green. This global warming argument is distracting us from the fact that our oceans are full of garbage and plastic and we are over fishing our oceans.

I'm not religious, but no doubt the end is near. Not because Jesus is coming but because we are destroying this planet because of greed and ignorance. Who cares about global warming. Put a fucking filter on your factory smoke stacks. Charge us another nickel for your product.

 

[sealybobo]

Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years. Most of the observed warming—at least 74 percent—is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience.

Three-Quarters of Climate Change Is Man-Made - Scientific American

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The topic off this thread is sulfur dioxide Frank. Trying to change the topic only makes you and your arguments look weak.

One of your fellow Cult members mentioned "Global Dimming" and I thought it was an excuse to account for the fact that there's been no observable "Global Warming" these past 17 years.

In the very unlikely event that I'm wrong and you don't plan on using SO2 as an excuse for the lack of warming, then I'm sorry -- kind of. But if as I suspect I'm correct and the AGWCult will now start blaming SO2, then expect to see a lot of Smiling Joe Stalin's in your future posts

 

[Crick]

You didn't read the thread.

It's probably safe to assume at any given moment that you owe us all an apology.

 

[westwall]

Any one notice that this doesn't make sense?

"<20 tonnes/day to >10 million tonnes/day"

Typo, I'm sure. Perhaps rewriting this way

10 million tonnes/day < x <20 tonnes/day

Which means that

1,000,000 < 2

< >
That means....LESS than 20 tones per day to GREATER than 10 million tons per day. I see you never took a math class either...

 

[westwall]

Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years. Most of the observed warming—at least 74 percent—is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience.

Three-Quarters of Climate Change Is Man-Made - Scientific American

Yeah, that big orange ball out there has nothing to do with anything. You global warmists tell us so... And yet, when one go's back and checks the historical records when there has been a cold Sun the Earth is cool, when it has been an active Sun
the Earth was warm. Going back 1,500 years it is an exact correlation.

CO2 on the other hand shows NO correlation at all. None, nada, zip. First warming occurs and then hundreds of years later the CO2 concentration rises.

Correlation does not equal causation as we all know, but AGW "theory" doesn't even have correlation to fall back on. All it has is computer models that have been shown to be less than worthless. But what do you expect from science fiction?

 

[Crick]

Is this more of that claim that if it hasn't happened before, then it must be impossible; that it can NOT happen?

Do you REALLY want to throw yourself out there with THAT as your life preserver?

Why don't you look up the correlation and relative timing for CO2 and temperature for all the Industrial Ages that have taken place in the last 3.5 billion years. THAT would be pertinent. And not as difficult as it may sound.

 

[westwall]

Is this more of that claim that if it hasn't happened before, then it must be impossible; that it can NOT happen?

Do you REALLY want to throw yourself out there with THAT as your life preserver?

Why don't you look up the correlation and relative timing for CO2 and temperature for all the Industrial Ages that have taken place in the last 3.5 billion years. THAT would be pertinent.

The correlation works better for the Medieval Warming Period. Vostock ice core data show an up to 800 year gap from warming to CO2 concentration increase which fits the MWP perfectly.

Yours doesn't fit at all. And, based on the 17 year leveling off of temps while the CO2 level has increased dramatically, further removes CO2 as anything more than a bit player (if even that) in the global temperature pantheon of variables.

 

[sealybobo]

Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years. Most of the observed warming—at least 74 percent—is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience.

Three-Quarters of Climate Change Is Man-Made - Scientific American

Yeah, that big orange ball out there has nothing to do with anything. You global warmists tell us so... And yet, when one go's back and checks the historical records when there has been a cold Sun the Earth is cool, when it has been an active Sun
the Earth was warm. Going back 1,500 years it is an exact correlation.

CO2 on the other hand shows NO correlation at all. None, nada, zip. First warming occurs and then hundreds of years later the CO2 concentration rises.

Correlation does not equal causation as we all know, but AGW "theory" doesn't even have correlation to fall back on. All it has is computer models that have been shown to be less than worthless. But what do you expect from science fiction?

I don't think you have to be a scientist to know that with all the smoke stacks and cars putting shit up into the air, that can't be good for the ozone, earth, air, the planet, fill in the fucking blank.

What makes a global warming denier one? I can understand if you maybe are a rich lobbyist or a ceo of a corporation but this is just another one of those issues where most of you righties are proving that you will defend anything the republicans tell you to defend. It could be Satan even. If they told you he has the right to be Satan, you would defend Satan. Even though nuclear energy and oil have proved to be horrible, you still go along. Crash the economy? Hell, you didn't even admit it was your boys policies that did it. Lie us into war? You still deny it. Move jobs overseas? Jobs Americans won't do? No gun regulations?

 

[westwall]

Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years. Most of the observed warming—at least 74 percent—is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience.

Three-Quarters of Climate Change Is Man-Made - Scientific American

Yeah, that big orange ball out there has nothing to do with anything. You global warmists tell us so... And yet, when one go's back and checks the historical records when there has been a cold Sun the Earth is cool, when it has been an active Sun
the Earth was warm. Going back 1,500 years it is an exact correlation.

CO2 on the other hand shows NO correlation at all. None, nada, zip. First warming occurs and then hundreds of years later the CO2 concentration rises.

Correlation does not equal causation as we all know, but AGW "theory" doesn't even have correlation to fall back on. All it has is computer models that have been shown to be less than worthless. But what do you expect from science fiction?

I don't think you have to be a scientist to know that with all the smoke stacks and cars putting shit up into the air, that can't be good for the ozone, earth, air, the planet, fill in the fucking blank.

What makes a global warming denier one? I can understand if you maybe are a rich lobbyist or a ceo of a corporation but this is just another one of those issues where most of you righties are proving that you will defend anything the republicans tell you to defend. It could be Satan even. If they told you he has the right to be Satan, you would defend Satan. Even though nuclear energy and oil have proved to be horrible, you still go along. Crash the economy? Hell, you didn't even admit it was your boys policies that did it. Lie us into war? You still deny it. Move jobs overseas? Jobs Americans won't do? No gun regulations?

I'm a liberal Democrat dumb ass. I am also a geologist so understand the world and how it works a hell of a lot better than you. When you resort to emotional arguments and morality plays you are not arguing in a logical manner, the scientific world doesn't give a rats ass about morality, that is the realm of the spiritual and the religious.

Science cares about facts, and observing the natural world and trying to explain what we are seeing. That's why observations are so critical and why when "scientists" who alter data to fit their "theory" are held in such low esteem. If their theory held water of any kind they wouldn't need to resort to those sorts of tactics now would they...

 

[sealybobo]

Yeah, that big orange ball out there has nothing to do with anything. You global warmists tell us so... And yet, when one go's back and checks the historical records when there has been a cold Sun the Earth is cool, when it has been an active Sun
the Earth was warm. Going back 1,500 years it is an exact correlation.

CO2 on the other hand shows NO correlation at all. None, nada, zip. First warming occurs and then hundreds of years later the CO2 concentration rises.

Correlation does not equal causation as we all know, but AGW "theory" doesn't even have correlation to fall back on. All it has is computer models that have been shown to be less than worthless. But what do you expect from science fiction?

I don't think you have to be a scientist to know that with all the smoke stacks and cars putting shit up into the air, that can't be good for the ozone, earth, air, the planet, fill in the fucking blank.

What makes a global warming denier one? I can understand if you maybe are a rich lobbyist or a ceo of a corporation but this is just another one of those issues where most of you righties are proving that you will defend anything the republicans tell you to defend. It could be Satan even. If they told you he has the right to be Satan, you would defend Satan. Even though nuclear energy and oil have proved to be horrible, you still go along. Crash the economy? Hell, you didn't even admit it was your boys policies that did it. Lie us into war? You still deny it. Move jobs overseas? Jobs Americans won't do? No gun regulations?

I'm a liberal Democrat dumb ass. I am also a geologist so understand the world and how it works a hell of a lot better than you. When you resort to emotional arguments and morality plays you are not arguing in a logical manner, the scientific world doesn't give a rats ass about morality, that is the realm of the spiritual and the religious.

Science cares about facts, and observing the natural world and trying to explain what we are seeing. That's why observations are so critical and why when "scientists" who alter data to fit their "theory" are held in such low esteem. If their theory held water of any kind they wouldn't need to resort to those sorts of tactics now would they...

I'm starting to see the connection between people who argue with science because of religion and the ones who do it for corporations. Both pull people to the GOP.

I don't believe you are a geologist but I know why you say you are Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims - Forbes

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.

 

[Crick]

I'm a liberal Democrat dumb ass.

I think we can throw the Bullshit Flag on that one.

I am also a geologist

And this one.

so understand the world and how it works a hell of a lot better than you. When you resort to emotional arguments and morality plays you are not arguing in a logical manner, the scientific world doesn't give a rats ass about morality, that is the realm of the spiritual and the religious.

Science cares about facts, and observing the natural world and trying to explain what we are seeing. That's why observations are so critical and why when "scientists" who alter data to fit their "theory" are held in such low esteem. If their theory held water of any kind they wouldn't need to resort to those sorts of tactics now would they...

So.. pretty much all of it is bullshit, at least as far as it relates to what this man writes here.

 

[Crick]

Is this more of that claim that if it hasn't happened before, then it must be impossible; that it can NOT happen?

Do you REALLY want to throw yourself out there with THAT as your life preserver?

Why don't you look up the correlation and relative timing for CO2 and temperature for all the Industrial Ages that have taken place in the last 3.5 billion years. THAT would be pertinent.

The correlation works better for the Medieval Warming Period. Vostock ice core data show an up to 800 year gap from warming to CO2 concentration increase which fits the MWP perfectly.

Yours doesn't fit at all. And, based on the 17 year leveling off of temps while the CO2 level has increased dramatically, further removes CO2 as anything more than a bit player (if even that) in the global temperature pantheon of variables.

It works better in what way? There were no Industrial Ages taking place during any of those periods so they are patently inapplicable.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm a liberal Democrat dumb ass.

I think we can throw the Bullshit Flag on that one.

I am also a geologist

And this one.

so understand the world and how it works a hell of a lot better than you. When you resort to emotional arguments and morality plays you are not arguing in a logical manner, the scientific world doesn't give a rats ass about morality, that is the realm of the spiritual and the religious.

Science cares about facts, and observing the natural world and trying to explain what we are seeing. That's why observations are so critical and why when "scientists" who alter data to fit their "theory" are held in such low esteem. If their theory held water of any kind they wouldn't need to resort to those sorts of tactics now would they...

So.. pretty much all of it is bullshit, at least as far as it relates to what this man writes here.

Was he lying when he said he is a liberal democrat? OMG how did I know? And is he a geologist? For some reason I thought that was a lie too. Wouldn't put it past them. I'll go investigate this person and let them know if I would consider them a "liberal" democrat.

 

[sealybobo]

Yeah, that big orange ball out there has nothing to do with anything. You global warmists tell us so... And yet, when one go's back and checks the historical records when there has been a cold Sun the Earth is cool, when it has been an active Sun
the Earth was warm. Going back 1,500 years it is an exact correlation.

CO2 on the other hand shows NO correlation at all. None, nada, zip. First warming occurs and then hundreds of years later the CO2 concentration rises.

Correlation does not equal causation as we all know, but AGW "theory" doesn't even have correlation to fall back on. All it has is computer models that have been shown to be less than worthless. But what do you expect from science fiction?

I don't think you have to be a scientist to know that with all the smoke stacks and cars putting shit up into the air, that can't be good for the ozone, earth, air, the planet, fill in the fucking blank.

What makes a global warming denier one? I can understand if you maybe are a rich lobbyist or a ceo of a corporation but this is just another one of those issues where most of you righties are proving that you will defend anything the republicans tell you to defend. It could be Satan even. If they told you he has the right to be Satan, you would defend Satan. Even though nuclear energy and oil have proved to be horrible, you still go along. Crash the economy? Hell, you didn't even admit it was your boys policies that did it. Lie us into war? You still deny it. Move jobs overseas? Jobs Americans won't do? No gun regulations?

I'm a liberal Democrat dumb ass. I am also a geologist so understand the world and how it works a hell of a lot better than you. When you resort to emotional arguments and morality plays you are not arguing in a logical manner, the scientific world doesn't give a rats ass about morality, that is the realm of the spiritual and the religious.

Science cares about facts, and observing the natural world and trying to explain what we are seeing. That's why observations are so critical and why when "scientists" who alter data to fit their "theory" are held in such low esteem. If their theory held water of any kind they wouldn't need to resort to those sorts of tactics now would they...

I just went through a million threads you started. Please stop calling yourself a liberal democrat now. We don't want you. Go back to the right where you belong.

I don't see a lot of political talk from you but boy oh boy do you have a bug up your ass when it comes to denying global warming. Why is that?

You hate PETA, looks like you are against the ACA, anti EPA, anti NPR.

How are you a liberal democrat?

 

[westwall]

I don't think you have to be a scientist to know that with all the smoke stacks and cars putting shit up into the air, that can't be good for the ozone, earth, air, the planet, fill in the fucking blank.

What makes a global warming denier one? I can understand if you maybe are a rich lobbyist or a ceo of a corporation but this is just another one of those issues where most of you righties are proving that you will defend anything the republicans tell you to defend. It could be Satan even. If they told you he has the right to be Satan, you would defend Satan. Even though nuclear energy and oil have proved to be horrible, you still go along. Crash the economy? Hell, you didn't even admit it was your boys policies that did it. Lie us into war? You still deny it. Move jobs overseas? Jobs Americans won't do? No gun regulations?

I'm a liberal Democrat dumb ass. I am also a geologist so understand the world and how it works a hell of a lot better than you. When you resort to emotional arguments and morality plays you are not arguing in a logical manner, the scientific world doesn't give a rats ass about morality, that is the realm of the spiritual and the religious.

Science cares about facts, and observing the natural world and trying to explain what we are seeing. That's why observations are so critical and why when "scientists" who alter data to fit their "theory" are held in such low esteem. If their theory held water of any kind they wouldn't need to resort to those sorts of tactics now would they...

I'm starting to see the connection between people who argue with science because of religion and the ones who do it for corporations. Both pull people to the GOP.

I don't believe you are a geologist but I know why you say you are Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims - Forbes

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.

No, the CLIMATOLOGISTS claim that it is warming...and that man is the cause. The rest of the scientific community is rapidly abandoning that fraud.