Remember me
▼ Content

Another Blow to the CO2 Record


Another Blow to the CO2 Record04-03-2017 00:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS%20Pre-industrial%20CO2.pdf

Again and again we find the IPCC and the environmentalists have been carefully selecting data - either with "97% of ALL scientists believe in AGW" to now we see that the CO2 record has also be jimmied for all it's worth.

What we need to understand is that those governments that are supporting the IPCC are doing so to gain and retain power.

And those supporting them with such unbelievable vigor, such as our own Three Headless Horses Asses, are not doing so for any other reason the the childish wish to have a banner to follow.
04-03-2017 01:13
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Feel free to continue embarrassing yourself by posting references to random bullshit and calling it evidence. I can't be bothered with engaging with you any more. No need to. You and your fellow nutcases are doing a good enough job yourself of completely destroying your own credibility. Keep up the good work!
04-03-2017 01:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Surface Detail wrote:
Feel free to continue embarrassing yourself by posting references to random bullshit and calling it evidence. I can't be bothered with engaging with you any more. No need to. You and your fellow nutcases are doing a good enough job yourself of completely destroying your own credibility. Keep up the good work!


You can't be bothered to engage but just did. How big a surprise is that?

What you don't have is one single legitimate criticism but that's no surprise since you have no legitimate education either.
04-03-2017 02:23
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs:..What we need to understand...

... about quoting a nine year old article by the discredited T. Ball is no avenue to proper science.
https://www.desmogblog.com/canadafreepress-apology-weaver
Wow! "wake-me-up" needs waking up.
Speaking of "wake-me-up's" NEED to wake-up, is this post speaking of two more sleepy "wake-me-up" episodes:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: Ken, is that what you've been taught?
/////
litesong wrote:
The other day "wake-me-up" addressed someone who hadn't been around for 6 years. Now "wake-me-up" addresses another poster, AS IF THEY ARE CURRENTLY HERE, who posted ONLY ONCE & 2 & 2/3rds YEARS AGO.
"wake-me-up" needs to.... wake-up!
"wake-me-up" needs to.... wake-up!
"wake-me-up" needs to.... wake-up!
Edited on 04-03-2017 03:05
05-03-2017 05:13
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS%20Pre-industrial%20CO2.pdf

Again and again we find the IPCC and the environmentalists have been carefully selecting data - either with "97% of ALL scientists believe in AGW" to now we see that the CO2 record has also be jimmied for all it's worth.

What we need to understand is that those governments that are supporting the IPCC are doing so to gain and retain power.

And those supporting them with such unbelievable vigor, such as our own Three Headless Horses Asses, are not doing so for any other reason the the childish wish to have a banner to follow.


Where's the 'blow'?

It's an old unpublished junkscience rant by sky dragon slayer Tim Ball on the crank magnet Friends of Pseudoscience blog.

Did you really just un-skeptically swallow it all and believe it was factual? Is this junkscience nonsense the basis for your crazy beliefs that CO2 levels have been higher in the past 2000 years than present?

It's lucky that you've found this little 'safe space' forum for crackpot science deniers to post your embarrassing scientifically illiterate conspiracy addled rants where hardly anybody will read them.
Edited on 05-03-2017 05:18
05-03-2017 05:51
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS%20Pre-industrial%20CO2.pdf

Again and again we find the IPCC and the environmentalists have been carefully selecting data - either with "97% of ALL scientists believe in AGW" to now we see that the CO2 record has also be jimmied for all it's worth.

What we need to understand is that those governments that are supporting the IPCC are doing so to gain and retain power.

And those supporting them with such unbelievable vigor, such as our own Three Headless Horses Asses, are not doing so for any other reason the the childish wish to have a banner to follow.


Where's the 'blow'?

It's an old unpublished junkscience rant by sky dragon slayer Tim Ball on the crank magnet Friends of Pseudoscience blog.

Did you really just un-skeptically swallow it all and believe it was factual? Is this the basis for your crazy beliefs that CO2 levels have been higher in the past 2000 years than present?

How embarrassing.


I'm beginning to see that we may need more discussion.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/25472-congress-investigates-fraudulent-science-used-by-noaa-to-push-un-global-warming-treaty

Dr. Crisp who wrote a paper calculating the total addition CO2 to the atmosphere every year by man through the use of fossil fuels and the outgassing of concrete.

I calculated the total amount by calculating the increase atmospheric concentration of CO2 from 1960 until 2012. Since the growth of CO2 has been calculated and charted and is LINEAR I could simply divide the total amount of CO2 by the number of years and arrive at the number.

Originally my numbers were far greater than Dr. Crisp's. in an exchange of emails it turned out that this was due to some confusion about the powers of 10 and the word "giga" which apparently means something different in Europe than it does here. But using just the powers of 10 we arrived at the same number within calculation error.

The problem is this - while atmospheric CO2 grew linearly, the use of fossil fuels during this time grew exponentially.

Furthermore, the surface waters of the ocean are heated far above the level of absorption of CO2 and are boiling CO2 off. What's more we have some 200 active volcanoes and at least 10 of them are in violent eruption now. 25% of the gas exuded from volcanoes is CO2 and it is from the mantle so it is indistinguishable from man-made CO2.

We also have new active volcanic activity along the mid-oceanic ridges.

This all adds up to FAR more CO2 emitted into the atmosphere than we are being told is there even with the panic stricken WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE game from the True Believers.

So WHERE is this CO2 going? It sure as hell isn't going into the ocean which is presently a net producer.

And then in case you are unaware, the Antarctic continent is surrounded by a wind stream that essentially blocks it off from the rest of the world. The past levels of CO2 are mostly assumed by the CO2 levels in the Vostok Ice Core samples. This jet stream surrounding Antarctic isolates and limits the mixing of CO2 from the outside atmosphere to the continent. Therefore the BEST you could get from the Vostok core samples is a very general average (completely ignoring other limiting factors) and this in an area which large amounts of photosynthesis from plankton and very little means of generating CO2 itself.

So these core samples would vastly under represent the actual CO2 levels. What's more we know that Antarctica continent hasn't been in the position it is presently in for very long (on a geologic timeline).

We do not KNOW enough to be able to say anything about this entire CO2 level crap and we DO know that physically sampled and chemically analyzed samples from the northern hemisphere have had SUBSTANTIALLY larger levels of CO2 than anything shown on any of the geologic estimating systems.

While you're talking about junk science perhaps you would like to inform me of your professional credentials to judge these things? Or are you just taking NOAA's word for it because they have the AMA and the American Horticultural Association agreeing with them?
05-03-2017 07:24
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS%20Pre-industrial%20CO2.pdf

Again and again we find the IPCC and the environmentalists have been carefully selecting data - either with "97% of ALL scientists believe in AGW" to now we see that the CO2 record has also be jimmied for all it's worth.

What we need to understand is that those governments that are supporting the IPCC are doing so to gain and retain power.

And those supporting them with such unbelievable vigor, such as our own Three Headless Horses Asses, are not doing so for any other reason the the childish wish to have a banner to follow.


Where's the 'blow'?

It's an old unpublished junkscience rant by sky dragon slayer Tim Ball on the crank magnet Friends of Pseudoscience blog.

Did you really just un-skeptically swallow it all and believe it was factual? Is this the basis for your crazy beliefs that CO2 levels have been higher in the past 2000 years than present?

How embarrassing.


I'm beginning to see that we may need more discussion.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/25472-congress-investigates-fraudulent-science-used-by-noaa-to-push-un-global-warming-treaty


*sigh* Do you really think that mindlessly bleating junkscience conspiracy blog/far right media rubbish is in any way convincing? Other than to other scientifically illiterate conspiracy addled sheep like you've shown yourself to be?

Wake wrote:

Dr. Crisp who wrote a paper calculating the total addition CO2 to the atmosphere every year by man through the use of fossil fuels and the outgassing of concrete.

I calculated the total amount by calculating the increase atmospheric concentration of CO2 from 1960 until 2012. Since the growth of CO2 has been calculated and charted and is LINEAR I could simply divide the total amount of CO2 by the number of years and arrive at the number.

Originally my numbers were far greater than Dr. Crisp's. in an exchange of emails it turned out that this was due to some confusion about the powers of 10 and the word "giga" which apparently means something different in Europe than it does here. But using just the powers of 10 we arrived at the same number within calculation error.

The problem is this - while atmospheric CO2 grew linearly, the use of fossil fuels during this time grew exponentially.



You apparently don't even understand the basic carbon cycle, oh dopey one. Maybe learn more about that before playing with numbers you don't understand?

Wake wrote:
Furthermore, the surface waters of the ocean are heated far above the level of absorption of CO2 and are boiling CO2 off. What's more we have some 200 active volcanoes and at least 10 of them are in violent eruption now. 25% of the gas exuded from volcanoes is CO2 and it is from the mantle so it is indistinguishable from man-made CO2.

We also have new active volcanic activity along the mid-oceanic ridges.

This all adds up to FAR more CO2 emitted into the atmosphere than we are being told is there even with the panic stricken WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE game from the True Believers.

So WHERE is this CO2 going? It sure as hell isn't going into the ocean which is presently a net producer.

And then in case you are unaware, the Antarctic continent is surrounded by a wind stream that essentially blocks it off from the rest of the world. The past levels of CO2 are mostly assumed by the CO2 levels in the Vostok Ice Core samples. This jet stream surrounding Antarctic isolates and limits the mixing of CO2 from the outside atmosphere to the continent. Therefore the BEST you could get from the Vostok core samples is a very general average (completely ignoring other limiting factors) and this in an area which large amounts of photosynthesis from plankton and very little means of generating CO2 itself.

So these core samples would vastly under represent the actual CO2 levels. What's more we know that Antarctica continent hasn't been in the position it is presently in for very long (on a geologic timeline).

We do not KNOW enough to be able to say anything about this entire CO2 level crap and we DO know that physically sampled and chemically analyzed samples from the northern hemisphere have had SUBSTANTIALLY larger levels of CO2 than anything shown on any of the geologic estimating systems.



Oh good grief - it's a Gish Gallop of junkscience assertions and with no cited sources. I'm not jumping down your evidence-free rabbit hole and wasting my time- been around far too long to fall for that tactic.

Wake wrote:
While you're talking about junk science perhaps you would like to inform me of your professional credentials to judge these things? Or are you just taking NOAA's word for it because they have the AMA and the American Horticultural Association agreeing with them?


Are you seriously claiming you have 'professional credentials to judge these things' after posting links to junkscience conspiracy blogs and far right online media as 'sources'?

Your delusional obsession with conspiracies and junkscience is fascinating.
Edited on 05-03-2017 07:33
05-03-2017 12:23
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS%20Pre-industrial%20CO2.pdf

Again and again we find the IPCC and the environmentalists have been carefully selecting data - either with "97% of ALL scientists believe in AGW" to now we see that the CO2 record has also be jimmied for all it's worth.

What we need to understand is that those governments that are supporting the IPCC are doing so to gain and retain power.

And those supporting them with such unbelievable vigor, such as our own Three Headless Horses Asses, are not doing so for any other reason the the childish wish to have a banner to follow.


Where's the 'blow'?

It's an old unpublished junkscience rant by sky dragon slayer Tim Ball on the crank magnet Friends of Pseudoscience blog.

Did you really just un-skeptically swallow it all and believe it was factual? Is this the basis for your crazy beliefs that CO2 levels have been higher in the past 2000 years than present?

How embarrassing.


I'm beginning to see that we may need more discussion.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/25472-congress-investigates-fraudulent-science-used-by-noaa-to-push-un-global-warming-treaty

Dr. Crisp who wrote a paper calculating the total addition CO2 to the atmosphere every year by man through the use of fossil fuels and the outgassing of concrete.

I calculated the total amount by calculating the increase atmospheric concentration of CO2 from 1960 until 2012. Since the growth of CO2 has been calculated and charted and is LINEAR I could simply divide the total amount of CO2 by the number of years and arrive at the number.

Originally my numbers were far greater than Dr. Crisp's. in an exchange of emails it turned out that this was due to some confusion about the powers of 10 and the word "giga" which apparently means something different in Europe than it does here. But using just the powers of 10 we arrived at the same number within calculation error.

The problem is this - while atmospheric CO2 grew linearly, the use of fossil fuels during this time grew exponentially.

Furthermore, the surface waters of the ocean are heated far above the level of absorption of CO2 and are boiling CO2 off. What's more we have some 200 active volcanoes and at least 10 of them are in violent eruption now. 25% of the gas exuded from volcanoes is CO2 and it is from the mantle so it is indistinguishable from man-made CO2.

We also have new active volcanic activity along the mid-oceanic ridges.

This all adds up to FAR more CO2 emitted into the atmosphere than we are being told is there even with the panic stricken WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE game from the True Believers.

So WHERE is this CO2 going? It sure as hell isn't going into the ocean which is presently a net producer.

And then in case you are unaware, the Antarctic continent is surrounded by a wind stream that essentially blocks it off from the rest of the world. The past levels of CO2 are mostly assumed by the CO2 levels in the Vostok Ice Core samples. This jet stream surrounding Antarctic isolates and limits the mixing of CO2 from the outside atmosphere to the continent. Therefore the BEST you could get from the Vostok core samples is a very general average (completely ignoring other limiting factors) and this in an area which large amounts of photosynthesis from plankton and very little means of generating CO2 itself.

So these core samples would vastly under represent the actual CO2 levels. What's more we know that Antarctica continent hasn't been in the position it is presently in for very long (on a geologic timeline).

We do not KNOW enough to be able to say anything about this entire CO2 level crap and we DO know that physically sampled and chemically analyzed samples from the northern hemisphere have had SUBSTANTIALLY larger levels of CO2 than anything shown on any of the geologic estimating systems.

While you're talking about junk science perhaps you would like to inform me of your professional credentials to judge these things? Or are you just taking NOAA's word for it because they have the AMA and the American Horticultural Association agreeing with them?


We do get ice core samples from Greenland as well.

Giga means 10 to the 9. Here and in the US.
05-03-2017 19:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Ceist wrote:

It's an old unpublished junkscience rant by sky dragon slayer Tim Ball on the crank magnet Friends of Pseudoscience blog.


You won't mind telling us how you can challenge Dr. Bell's claims? Exactly WHAT credentials do you have to challenge a Professor who used to teach at the University of Winnipeg?

Again I'll ask - after your attacks on acknowledged experts precisely what is your educational background? Or in lieu of that what is your experience since actual field work can be as valuable?
05-03-2017 22:34
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:

It's an old unpublished junkscience rant by sky dragon slayer Tim Ball on the crank magnet Friends of Pseudoscience blog.


You won't mind telling us how you can challenge Dr. Bell's claims? Exactly WHAT credentials do you have to challenge a Professor who used to teach at the University of Winnipeg?

Again I'll ask - after your attacks on acknowledged experts precisely what is your educational background? Or in lieu of that what is your experience since actual field work can be as valuable?

You can't have been at this for very long if you are unaware that Tim Ball is NOT an 'acknowledged expert'- he's a loon. A "Sky Dragon Slayer".

Other than that, you only have to fact-check the extreme nonsense claims and conspiracy theories greenhouse effect denier Tim Ball writes on blogs. You clearly didn't. That seems to be because you un-sceptically and mindlessly accept any old nonsense junkscience claims from conspiracy blogs that you believe supports your ideology.
05-03-2017 22:37
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:

It's an old unpublished junkscience rant by sky dragon slayer Tim Ball on the crank magnet Friends of Pseudoscience blog.


You won't mind telling us how you can challenge Dr. Bell's claims? Exactly WHAT credentials do you have to challenge a Professor who used to teach at the University of Winnipeg?

Again I'll ask - after your attacks on acknowledged experts precisely what is your educational background? Or in lieu of that what is your experience since actual field work can be as valuable?

You can't have been at this for very long if you are unaware that Tim Ball is NOT an 'acknowledged expert'- he's a loon. A "Sky Dragon Slayer".

Other than that, you only have to fact-check the extreme nonsense claims and conspiracy theories greenhouse effect denier Tim Ball writes on blogs. You clearly didn't. That seems to be because you un-sceptically and mindlessly accept any old nonsense junkscience claims from conspiracy blogs that you believe supports your ideology.


Since you haven't any credentials whereby you can judge a professor who worked at a major university I suspect you don't have any. That makes you stupid claims just that - stupid. As I said elsewhere - you don't need to supply any credentials because you already have.




Join the debate Another Blow to the CO2 Record:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CO2 increase9117-08-2019 17:57
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
CO2 saturated water409-08-2019 06:43
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)2031-07-2019 23:12
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact