Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 Doesn’t Rise Up, Trap And Retain Heat

[Phil C. McNasty]

It did get a lot warmer

A lot warmer?? How do you figure it got a lot warmer??

All our Winters have stayed the same over the last 3 decades.
It has not gotten warmer.

And yes, I know weather does not equal climate.
But how many decades of cold winters before it does equal climate??

 

[fuji]

A lot warmer?? How do you figure it got a lot warmer??

All our Winters have stayed the same over the last 3 decades.
It has not gotten warmer.

And yes, I know whether does not equal climate.
But how many decades of cold winters before it does equal climate??

Average temperatures now are a lot warmer than in the past. Nixon went to China in the late 70s, since then:

 

[fuji]

Nope,...you are wrong.

Actually read my post,...especially the part about what is the predominate green house gas,...because of its positive feed back loop,...which does NOT include CO2 in the loop.

You don't even understand what I wrote. You're senile and until you begin demonstrating improved comprehension there's no point in even trying to educate you.

Go back up and reread the posts about water vapor being an output variable. Until you understand what was said you can't pretend to disagree with it.

 

[FAST]

Blah,...blah,...blah,... :blah:

You don't even understand what I wrote. You're senile and until you begin demonstrating improved comprehension there's no point in even trying to educate you.

Go back up and reread the posts about water vapor being one of the two components of the water vapour positive feed back loop,...the other being temperature. Until you understand what was said you can't pretend to disagree with it.

Just couldn't make one post without resorting to simply making childish insults when you have no answer,...could you fuji.

If you don't understand how a positive feedback loop works,...just ask,...we all here to help YA.

 

[FAST]

A lot warmer?? How do you figure it got a lot warmer??

All our Winters have stayed the same over the last 3 decades.
It has not gotten warmer.

And yes, I know whether does not equal climate.
But how many decades of cold winters before it does equal climate??

Actually you are correct.

The planets temperature rose at a higher rate in the 1920's than in the 1990's.

So this proves that the huge increase in CO2 by China and India had a minimal if any effect.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

It did get a lot warmer. Though your dates are wrong, India and China been expanding their emissions earlier than that.

Well of course they were expanding somewhat, but it was the 1990's when China really took off.
See graph: http://climateparis.org/wp-content/uploads/CO2-predict-China-US-ROW-fm-GDP-s.png

Which brings me back to my original point, if China and India started pumping out so much more CO2's starting in the 1990's, why hasnt earth warmed up considerably since then??

Actually you are correct.

The planets temperature rose at a higher rate in the 1920's than in the 1990's.

So this proves that the huge increase in CO2 by China and India had a minimal if any effect

FAST gets it.

And remember global population increased from 6 billion to 7 billion since the 1990's. Thats a huge CO2 increase, and yet earth didnt warm up much at all

 

[fuji]

Well of course they were expanding somewhat, but it was the 1990's when China really took off.
See graph: http://climateparis.org/wp-content/uploads/CO2-predict-China-US-ROW-fm-GDP-s.png

Which brings me back to my original point, if China and India started pumping out so much more CO2's starting in the 1990's, why hasnt earth warmed up considerably since then??

It has. See the graph I posted.

By the way you need to look at thirty year periods, a change in temperature over a ten or fifteen year period is weather, not climate. The definition of climate is thirty year average weather.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

It has

This is where you're wrong. Yes earth has warmed up slightly, but that increase is not statistically significant PLUS we dont know how much of that warming is part of a natural cycle, and how much is caused by humans. The latter is virtually impossible to gauge.

Oh and btw fuji, can you explain this: https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/08/big-data-finds-the-medieval-warm-period-no-denial-here/

How come the medieval period had a drastic warming period while its obvious there couldnt have been a major manmade CO2 increase??

 

[Moviefan-2]

You want to switch the debate to trivialities about who said what on terb because on the actual topic itself you lost the debate over a year ago.

Fuji confusing warming with "cooling" is a triviality?

LMFAO!

In fact, no one has ever disputed the fact that -- all other factors being equal -- significant increases in man-made CO2 will lead to a minuscule increase in the temperature. I told Fuji that more than a year ago (https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5546228&viewfull=1#post5546228).

However, the debate is about the amplified warming that is supposed to come from water vapour feedback. That makes up the majority of the warming in the computer model predictions, and it is not supported by the observed data. Indeed, the peer reviewed papers in Nature have confirmed the Earth's temperature throughout most of the 21st century has been stagnant.

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n7/full/ngeo2973.html

This is Fuji's approach to science:

- Fuji's mommy tells him that Santa Claus is real and if Fuji is a good boy, there will be presents for Fuji from Santa under the Christmas tree.

- On Dec. 25, 2016, Fuji wakes up to find presents for him under the Christmas tree.

- Thus, Fuji insists the existence of the presents proves that Santa is real.

Even worse, he accuses anyone who questions Santa's existence of attacking the scientific method.

The reality is that the presents for Fuji under the Christmas tree don't prove that Santa is real.

And scientific research that shows that CO2 -- on its own -- will produce a minuscule amount of warming over the next 100 years or so doesn't prove the AGW hypothesis that recent warming (in the late 20th century) was primarily caused by man-made emissions.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

The problem I have with science is how can they know for sure that our last tiny bit of global warming we had in last 30 years was:

1. Completely caused by Man's CO2??
2. Not caused at all by manmade CO2??
3. Partially caused by Man's CO2, and partially natural fluctuations by earth's climate??

Please answer this

 

[FAST]

There's an article in some nature magazine.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Scientific research that shows that CO2 -- on its own -- will produce a minuscule amount of warming over the next 100 years or so doesn't prove the AGW hypothesis that recent warming (in the late 20th century) was primarily caused by man-made emissions

Here is where I somewhat agree with you. I am personally still on the fence whether CO2's cause this massive amount of global warming that the tree-huggers want us to believe it does.

I think that pumping out hundreds of tons of carbon emissions will change the climate somewhat, it almost has to.
But to suggest that earth will drastically warm up because of all our fuel emissions has so far been proven wrong!!

COMPLETELY wrong!! As in FUCK OFF you're wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :biggrin1:
(not you personally MovieFan)

Why, because earth entered its second industrial age (when China & India started tagging along), and it made virtually no change as far as warming up the planet is concerned.

So where are we going with all this??

Now, if you wanna make the case that earth needs to get off fossil fuels because smog is disgusting and we need to strangle oil barons, then I'm all for that and we are all on the same page. How's that???!!!

Cheers!!!!!

#FuckAllThoseOilSheiksRightInThePussy

 

[FAST]

Here is where I somewhat agree with you. I am personally still on the fence whether CO2's cause this massive amount of global warming that the tree-huggers want us to believe it does.

I think that pumping out hundreds of tons of carbon emissions will change the climate somewhat, it almost has to.
But to suggest that earth will drastically warm up because of all our fuel emissions has so far been proven wrong!!

COMPLETELY wrong!! As in FUCK OFF you're wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :biggrin1:
(not you personally MovieFan)

Why, because earth entered its second industrial age (when China & India started tagging along), and it made virtually no change as far as warming up the planet is concerned.

So where are we going with all this??

Now, if you wanna make the case that earth needs to get off fossil fuels because smog is disgusting and we need to strangle oil barons, then I'm all for that and we are all on the same page. How's that???!!!

Cheers!!!!!

#FuckAllThoseOilSheiksRightInThePussy

There are a lot of examples of why stating that only the CO2 is increasing the planets temperature is wrong.

The decrease in the planets temp. from 1945 through 1980 is one. That's 35 years by the way.

 

[fuji]

Well of course they were expanding somewhat, but it was the 1990's when China really took off.
See graph: http://climateparis.org/wp-content/uploads/CO2-predict-China-US-ROW-fm-GDP-s.png

Which brings me back to my original point, if China and India started pumping out so much more CO2's starting in the 1990's, why hasnt earth warmed up considerably since then??


FAST gets it.

And remember global population increased from 6 billion to 7 billion since the 1990's. Thats a huge CO2 increase, and yet earth didnt warm up much at all

It's total global CO2 output you want to look at. In any case you question was why isn't it warmer now and the answer is it is considerably warmer now.

 

[fuji]

Fuji confusing warming with "cooling" is a triviality?

LMFAO!

In fact, no one has ever disputed the fact that -- all other factors being equal -- significant increases in man-made CO2 will lead to a minuscule increase in the temperature. I told Fuji that more than a year ago (https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Frankfooter&p=5546228&viewfull=1#post5546228).

However, the debate is about the amplified warming that is supposed to come from water vapour feedback. That makes up the majority of the warming in the computer model predictions, and it is not supported by the observed data. Indeed, the peer reviewed papers in Nature have confirmed the Earth's temperature throughout most of the 21st century has been stagnant.

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n7/full/ngeo2973.html

This is Fuji's approach to science:

- Fuji's mommy tells him that Santa Claus is real and if Fuji is a good boy, there will be presents for Fuji from Santa under the Christmas tree.

- On Dec. 25, 2016, Fuji wakes up to find presents for him under the Christmas tree.

- Thus, Fuji insists the existence of the presents proves that Santa is real.

Even worse, he accuses anyone who questions Santa's existence of attacking the scientific method.

The reality is that the presents for Fuji under the Christmas tree don't prove that Santa is real.

And scientific research that shows that CO2 -- on its own -- will produce a minuscule amount of warming over the next 100 years or so doesn't prove the AGW hypothesis that recent warming (in the late 20th century) was primarily caused by man-made emissions.

In fact we have seen warming in every thirty year period, warming was not stagnant. It did slow but never stopped. You really just lose the point.

Show me an article in Nature or Science that bscjds up your crazy kook bullshit about the result being minescule. Considering you have been consistently wrong in your predictions and claims to date, I don't believe you and I don't believe your crazy kook blogs and YouTube videos.

 

[basketcase]

...
3. Partially caused by Man's CO2, and partially natural fluctuations by earth's climate??

Please answer this

This is the only area left that scientists see as unsettled. We know that CO2 has an impact and the vast majority of the experts see CO2 as the largest factor. For example as cutandpasteman showed earlier, solar forcing is cyclical and does not produce a warming trend but the data shows a clear warming trend.

But more importantly, rapidly changing climate is bad for our society and CO2 is the only significant factor we can impact.

 

[FAST]

In fact we have seen warming in every thirty year period, warming was not stagnant. It did slow but never stopped. You really just lose the point.

Show me an article in Nature or Science that bscjds up your crazy kook bullshit about the result being minescule. Considering you have been consistently wrong in your predictions and claims to date, I don't believe you and I don't believe your crazy kook blogs and YouTube videos.

Wrong again fuji.

The decrease in the planets temp. from 1945 through 1980 is one,...according to NASA and NOAA,... and that's 35 years by the way.


There are a lot of examples of why stating that only the CO2 is increasing the planets temperature is wrong.

And once again with the,...if it doesn't appear in some discredited nature magazine,...it isn't true,... bull shit.

 

[fuji]

Wrong again fuji.

The decrease in the planets temp. from 1945 through 1980 is one,...according to NASA and NOAA,... and that's 35 years by the way.


There are a lot of examples of why stating that only the CO2 is increasing the planets temperature is wrong.

And once again with the,...if it doesn't appear in some discredited nature magazine,...it isn't true,... bull shit.

No one is saying that CO2 is the only factor, that's one of those straw men you and FAST try and create so you can pretend to have a point. The claim is that human produced CO2 is warming the planet, which is a proven fact, and that it's a major factor (not only factor) in the temperature changes.

Picking 1945 see a starting point of also hilarious, obviously WW2 destroyed a lot of infrastructure at the outset of that period, which chooses The OPEC embargo as the end. Nice cherry picking!

However your cherry picking is also another sideshow that ignores that my comment was in relation to recent temperatures in response to Phil and this question about China.

As for discredited your track record of being consistently wrong does mean I won't accept any of your kook websites. When your join FAST in calling NATURE discredited you vote yourself off the island of reason.

 

[FAST]

No one is saying that CO2 is the only factor, that's one of those straw men you and FAST try and create so you can pretend to have a point. The claim is that human produced CO2 is warming the planet, which is a proven fact, and that it's a major factor (not only factor) in the temperature changes..

Wrong again,...the water vapour feed back loop is responsible for 90% of the so called "global warming".
And there is only TWO components/variables in the water vapour feed back loop,...as per NASA,...or is that another "kooky site".

.

Picking 1945 see a starting point of also hilarious, obviously WW2 destroyed a lot of infrastructure at the outset of that period, which chooses The OPEC embargo as the end. Nice cherry picking!.

Not cherry picking,...you have included that period of time in every one of you statements that the planet has been warming for every 30 year period since 1700.
When in fact the temp. of the planet actually decreased,...during that period of 35 years,...according to NASA and NOAA,...must be two other kooky sites.
Your ,..."In fact we have seen warming in every thirty year period, warming was not stagnant. It did slow but never stopped",...is just another fuji lie,...as usual.

As for discredited your track record of being consistently wrong does mean I won't accept any of your kook websites. When your join FAST in calling NATURE discredited you vote yourself off the island of reason.

And just what kook web site did I link to,...???

I did Not post any link to the discredited web site of some nature magazine,...that's your useless reply to everything you have no answer for.

 

[fuji]

Wrong again,...the water vapour feed back loop is responsible for 90% of the so called "global warming".
And there is only TWO components/variables in the water vapour feed back loop,...as per NASA,...or is that another "kooky site".

.

Not cherry picking,...you have included that period of time in every one of you statements that the planet has been warming for every 30 year period since 1700.
When in fact the temp. of the planet actually decreased,...during that period of 35 years,...according to NASA and NOAA,...must be two other kooky sites.
Your ,..."In fact we have seen warming in every thirty year period, warming was not stagnant. It did slow but never stopped",...is just another fuji lie,...as usual.




And just what kook web site did I link to,...???

I did Not post any link to the discredited web site of some nature magazine,...that's your useless reply to everything you have no answer for.

The level of water vapor is driven by CO2.

If you want to continue this discussion you will need references to articles in credible journal