The 'proof' of AGW is not in this thread, genius. If it is here then tell me which post. I think I'll be waiting for a while on that one since it is clearly a figment of your imagination, lol.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
The 'proof' of AGW is not in this thread, genius. If it is here then tell me which post. I think I'll be waiting for a while on that one since it is clearly a figment of your imagination, lol.
You keep embarrassing yourself...
Clearly, you have nothing of substance to respond to my proof, and so you choose to pretend it does not exist.
How mature:
Do you really want me to embarrass you more and point to the post you pretend does not exists ?
You want me to prove now, that you are really unable to read a thread ?
Nah, I let you do your homework and browse through this thread. You might learn a few more things along the way
ps:
Denialism - Wikipedia
"when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality."
denialist (noun) definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary
"someone who deliberately chooses to deny the truth about something because it is too uncomfortable or difficult to accept"
Last edited:
mspohr
Well-Known Member
This Is Warming the Planet Even Faster Than Carbon Dioxide
While exact percentages on how much of planetary warming is caused by black carbon are not available, it’s widely considered to be the second-largest culprit when it comes to climate change, after CO2. A 2013 study of the substance found that black carbon is responsible for 1.1 watts of extra energy being stored in the atmosphere per meter of the Earth’s surface. By comparison, CO2 is responsible for an estimated 1.56 watts per square meter.
Snow and glaciers have a particular vulnerability to black carbon, explains Örjan Gustafsson, a professor at the Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry at Stockholm University. “The effect of black carbon depends on how much darker the color black is relative to the ground color,” he says. Light-colored surfaces reflect light rather than absorbing it — until dark pollution molecules settle on them, meaning white snow and ice, and the air above them, are the most impacted by
While exact percentages on how much of planetary warming is caused by black carbon are not available, it’s widely considered to be the second-largest culprit when it comes to climate change, after CO2. A 2013 study of the substance found that black carbon is responsible for 1.1 watts of extra energy being stored in the atmosphere per meter of the Earth’s surface. By comparison, CO2 is responsible for an estimated 1.56 watts per square meter.
Snow and glaciers have a particular vulnerability to black carbon, explains Örjan Gustafsson, a professor at the Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry at Stockholm University. “The effect of black carbon depends on how much darker the color black is relative to the ground color,” he says. Light-colored surfaces reflect light rather than absorbing it — until dark pollution molecules settle on them, meaning white snow and ice, and the air above them, are the most impacted by
You keep embarrassing yourself...
Clearly, you have nothing of substance to respond to my proof, and so you choose to pretend it does not exist.
How mature:
Do you really want me to embarrass you more and point to the post you pretend does not exists ?
You want me to prove now, that you are really unable to read a thread ?
Nah, I let you do your homework and browse through this thread. You might learn a few more things along the way
ps:
Denialism - Wikipedia
"when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality."
denialist (noun) definition and synonyms | Macmillan Dictionary
"someone who deliberately chooses to deny the truth about something because it is too uncomfortable or difficult to accept"
Haha! I knew that you were lying and that you had no 'proof' of AGW. I am not going to go through 316 pages again trying to find something that clearly is not there.. I dared you to point it out but you know you can't because it is not in here. IF it was here you would point it out immediately but since it is not here you are running and hiding. You are making a huge fool out of yourself. You are pathetic.
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
Sigh...
It’s so blatantly obvious that I don’t know why I even bother…
But just for the minuscule, remote chance that someone has been living under a rock fort the last 20+ years…
”jrad6515” here is a Science Denier and have been trolling this thread with this surreally delusional made up BULL SH*T for I don’t know how long…
If you however feel though like fairy tale arguments like the ones jrad6515 is using are difficult to counter -- no matter how delusional they are -- then this is a good resource to start with:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
That site is based on actual Science.
Last edited:
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
Better late than never...
I've just posted a new thread about ”jrad6515” in the Site Feedback subsection:
Should this kind of ’sabotage posting’ about Man-Made Global Warming really be allowed?
Feel free to join in there if you like.
I've just posted a new thread about ”jrad6515” in the Site Feedback subsection:
Should this kind of ’sabotage posting’ about Man-Made Global Warming really be allowed?
Feel free to join in there if you like.
OK, lets burn the liar!
Exhibit A: Post #5161 of this thread from April 30: Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
See the contradiction between facts and your claims ?
My figment of imagination is evidently fact as proven by Post #5161
So, again , WHO is lying ? Who is making a huge fool of himself ?
The funniest thing is, you RATED that post #5161 of mine "funny", which proves you have seen it and knew about it all along.
Yet, the only thing you posted in response the next day is another lie:
Exhibit B: Post #5164 Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
So, where was the ad hominem attack in my post #5161 ?
OTOH, I have highlighted some of your ad hominem attacks against me above.
PS:
I am surprised that ad hominem attacks and obvious lies in the face of proven facts (such as the existence of a post denied after reading and rating it) are tolerated on this forum while other members with factual and useful contributions are permanently banned.
Exhibit A: Post #5161 of this thread from April 30: Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
See the contradiction between facts and your claims ?
My figment of imagination is evidently fact as proven by Post #5161
So, again , WHO is lying ? Who is making a huge fool of himself ?
The funniest thing is, you RATED that post #5161 of mine "funny", which proves you have seen it and knew about it all along.
Yet, the only thing you posted in response the next day is another lie:
Exhibit B: Post #5164 Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
So, where was the ad hominem attack in my post #5161 ?
OTOH, I have highlighted some of your ad hominem attacks against me above.
PS:
I am surprised that ad hominem attacks and obvious lies in the face of proven facts (such as the existence of a post denied after reading and rating it) are tolerated on this forum while other members with factual and useful contributions are permanently banned.
Last edited:
Blah blah blah blah blah… lots of tangential BS but no proof of AGW whatsoever.
Once again you prove that you were lying and that you have no proof of AGW. All you can do is attack me and make a fool of yourself because you can’t meet my challenge. Of course I knew you could not meet my challenge but it was fun watching you try to get yourself out of it and look ridiculous in the process. Absolutely pathetic but not surprising.
Last edited:
How NOAA/NASA Erase America’s Hot Past
Nice expose of the fraudulent data tampering done by “climate scientists” these days to manufacture the global warming hoax. Particularly enlightening is the exposure of the time of observation bias (TOBS) adjustment fraud that the government scientists are trying to lay on us. He doesn’t cover the bogus homogenization adjustment which is favored by one particularly fraudulent poster here who is not a scientist and only serves to spread UHI effect into the non-contaminated portion of the record but it is all baked in to the same corrupted data set.
None of you will be able to dispute any of the facts but there will be a lot of butthurt feelings, ad hominem attacks, disparaging of the messenger, and general righteous indignation. Please discuss, lol.
Nice expose of the fraudulent data tampering done by “climate scientists” these days to manufacture the global warming hoax. Particularly enlightening is the exposure of the time of observation bias (TOBS) adjustment fraud that the government scientists are trying to lay on us. He doesn’t cover the bogus homogenization adjustment which is favored by one particularly fraudulent poster here who is not a scientist and only serves to spread UHI effect into the non-contaminated portion of the record but it is all baked in to the same corrupted data set.
None of you will be able to dispute any of the facts but there will be a lot of butthurt feelings, ad hominem attacks, disparaging of the messenger, and general righteous indignation. Please discuss, lol.
Last edited:
Thank you for admitting that you have no valid response to my proof!
All you can do is ad hominem attacks, which is clear admission of your defeat.
I presented a simple 3 point proof. You could not bring a single counter-argument to any of the points let alone sufficient counter-evidence.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
How the world’s dirtiest industries have learned to pollute our politics
How the world’s dirtiest industries have learned to pollute our politics | George Monbiot
The oil and gas industry intends to spend $4.9tn over the next 10 years, exploring and developing new reserves, none of which we can afford to burn. According to the IMF, every year governments subsidise fossil fuels to the tune of $5tn – many times more than they spend on addressing our existential predicament. The US spends 10 times more on these mad subsidies than on its federal education budget. Last year, the world burned more fossil fuels than ever before.
Even if no new gas or coal power plants, roads and airports are built, the carbon emissions from current installations are likely to push us past this threshold. Only by retiring some of this infrastructure before the end of its natural life could we secure a 50% chance of remaining within the temperature limit agreed in Paris in 2015. Yet, far from decommissioning this Earth-killing machine, almost everywhere governments and industry stoke its fires.
What we see here looks like the denouement of the Pollution Paradox. Because the dirtiest industries attract the least public support, they have the greatest incentive to spend money on politics, to get the results they want and we don’t. They fund political parties, lobby groups and thinktanks, fake grassroots organisations and dark ads on social media. As a result, politics comes to be dominated by the dirtiest industries.
But in many nations, governments intervene not to protect humanity from the existential threat of fossil fuels, but to protect the fossil fuel industry from the existential threat of public protest. In the US, legislators in 18 states have put forward bills criminalising protests against pipelines, seeking to crush democratic dissent on behalf of the oil industry. In June, Donald Trump’s administration proposed federal legislation that would jail people for up to 20 years for disrupting pipeline construction.
How the world’s dirtiest industries have learned to pollute our politics | George Monbiot
The oil and gas industry intends to spend $4.9tn over the next 10 years, exploring and developing new reserves, none of which we can afford to burn. According to the IMF, every year governments subsidise fossil fuels to the tune of $5tn – many times more than they spend on addressing our existential predicament. The US spends 10 times more on these mad subsidies than on its federal education budget. Last year, the world burned more fossil fuels than ever before.
Even if no new gas or coal power plants, roads and airports are built, the carbon emissions from current installations are likely to push us past this threshold. Only by retiring some of this infrastructure before the end of its natural life could we secure a 50% chance of remaining within the temperature limit agreed in Paris in 2015. Yet, far from decommissioning this Earth-killing machine, almost everywhere governments and industry stoke its fires.
What we see here looks like the denouement of the Pollution Paradox. Because the dirtiest industries attract the least public support, they have the greatest incentive to spend money on politics, to get the results they want and we don’t. They fund political parties, lobby groups and thinktanks, fake grassroots organisations and dark ads on social media. As a result, politics comes to be dominated by the dirtiest industries.
But in many nations, governments intervene not to protect humanity from the existential threat of fossil fuels, but to protect the fossil fuel industry from the existential threat of public protest. In the US, legislators in 18 states have put forward bills criminalising protests against pipelines, seeking to crush democratic dissent on behalf of the oil industry. In June, Donald Trump’s administration proposed federal legislation that would jail people for up to 20 years for disrupting pipeline construction.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Extreme water stress affects a quarter of the world's population, say experts
Extreme water stress affects a quarter of the world's population, say experts
A quarter of the world’s population across 17 countries are living in regions of extremely high water stress, a measure of the level of competition over water resources, a new report reveals.
Around the world, stress on water supplies can exacerbate conflict and migration, threaten food supplies and pose risks for water-dependent industries, including mining and manufacturing, WRI notes.
“With respect to climate change we know that in many places what we’re going to be seeing is more erratic, more unpredictable hydrology, precipitation. Either too much or too little, often in the same places.”
Extreme water stress affects a quarter of the world's population, say experts
A quarter of the world’s population across 17 countries are living in regions of extremely high water stress, a measure of the level of competition over water resources, a new report reveals.
Around the world, stress on water supplies can exacerbate conflict and migration, threaten food supplies and pose risks for water-dependent industries, including mining and manufacturing, WRI notes.
“With respect to climate change we know that in many places what we’re going to be seeing is more erratic, more unpredictable hydrology, precipitation. Either too much or too little, often in the same places.”
You did nothing of the sort. The fact that we have put a little CO2 into the atmosphere (1/10,000th of the atmosphere) in no way proves any significant warming effect since you can't quantify the feedbacks. There is no evidence of warming outside of the limits of normal variability so you lose. This is fun - keep on embarrassing yourself.
You did nothing of the sort. The fact that we have put a little CO2 into the atmosphere (1/10,000th of the atmosphere) in no way proves any significant warming effect since you can't quantify the feedbacks. There is no evidence of warming outside of the limits of normal variability so you lose. This is fun - keep on embarrassing yourself.
LOL, little ?
280 ppm -> 415 ppm that is a 48% increase, you call that little ?
You still have not raised any counter to any of my 3 points.
So you are admitting total defeat.
Let me repeat the 3 step proof for you:
1. It is a well established and undisputed fact, that the human activity of burning fossil fuels deposits huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, which has caused the concentration to increase from ~280ppm (before industrial revolution) to over 415 ppm by now.
2. As @nwdiver (here)and @ggies07 (here) has stated up-thread, Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius demonstrated the effect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of the atmosphere back in 1896, and his observation has been confirmed by many scientists over the following 120+ years.
3. The straight logical conclusion from steps 1 and 2 together, i.e. since humans are dumping copious amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming, is that human activity causes warming.
Obviously, you can not refute any of these as your incoherent babling demonstrates.
He is going to wear you down.
You know the old saying...never argue with a fool...they will wear you down and then beat you with experience.
Well, it sadly appears that when it comes down to doing actual work to understand the science, the second taker has also ghosted me. It’s disappointing (but perhaps revealing) how when it comes to rhetoric in methodology, these guys are very loud. But when it comes to testing that methodology, they run for the hills in fear that it might prove valid.
I’ll just drop this here.
I’ll just drop this here.
It's pretty bad when you can't bring yourself to believe Exxon's (accurate) predictions from 1982: https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-predicted-2019-s-ominous-co2-milestone-in-1982-1834748763. They predicted about a 1º rise and that's what we see.
"... increase in absorbed energy via [the greenhouse effect] would warm the earth’s surface causing changes in climate affecting atmospheric and ocean temperatures, rainfall patterns, soil moisture, and over centuries potentially melting the polar ice caps.”
"... increase in absorbed energy via [the greenhouse effect] would warm the earth’s surface causing changes in climate affecting atmospheric and ocean temperatures, rainfall patterns, soil moisture, and over centuries potentially melting the polar ice caps.”
So why did the earth not burn up when CO2 was higher than it has been now by up to 20X for millions of years? It rarely has been anywhere near as low as it is now. Oh yeah, I forgot you and nwdiver were not aware that the earth existed before the Vostok ice core record 400K years ago, lol.
Earth experienced an ice age 450 million years ago, with CO2 somewhere between 2000 and 8000 ppm. According to Hansen’s theories – all life on Earth should have been extinct before it even evolved.
And...
According to peer review from 97% of leading climate experts, the earth should have heated up above the boiling point and all life should have been exterminated. The fact that it did the opposite would appear to undermine their already highly dubious credibility.
Ice Age At 2000+ PPM CO2
Keep on embarrassing yourself.
Last edited:
I notice, you STILL could not come up with a single counter-argument to my proof.
You keep trying to weasel out, by asking irrelevant questions. Noted!
So let's re-focus to the questions we are debating:
#1. Do you deny that the human activity of burning fossil fuels deposits dozens of GigaTons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year ?
If so, then present some counter-evidence that it is not happening.
Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter | New Scientist
Doha infographic gets the numbers wrong, underestimates human emissions | Carbon Brief
The Crazy Scale of Human Carbon Emission
Do you deny that humanity drives around in hundreds of millions of fossil fuel burning vehicles ?
Do you deny that hundreds of millions of houses are being heated by burning fossil fuels ?
Do you deny the existence of coal fired power plants and various industries burning fossil fuels ?
#2 Do you deny that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes green-house effect causing global temperature rise ?
If so, then present counter-evidence that negates the proven scientific work referenced (here) and (here).
You need to counter Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius demonstration of the effect of carbon dioxide on the temperature with peer reviewed scientific literature.
#3. Do you deny The straight logical conclusion from steps 1 and 2 together, i.e. since humans are dumping copious amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming, is that human activity causes warming ?
If so, you are a lost cause, because that is simply logic 101, if you deny that then your are no more than a religious zealot unwilling to accept proof and logic against your superstitious belief.
Last edited:
Similar threads
