Climate Change
- Thread starter Addict2sex
- Start date
EV revolution is a scam. No more than 10--15% of ICE car drivers
today will end up driving EVs. It won't be long before prices of copper,
nickel, cobalt and other base metals shoot through the roof. Majority
of drivers today will have to switch to street cars and buses after ICE
car ban is in place.
An El Nino year combined with higher global land and see temps are going to make this fire season in Australia incredibly bad.
Its only Nov and already its crazy.
Its only Nov and already its crazy.
the direct cause and effect relationship between emissions and co2 concentration is just not following the alarmist narrative/ propaganda.
we have twice tried the reduction in emissions experiment
in 2008-2009 and then again with the lockdowns / pandemic
yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
simple dy/dx
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical explanation?
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
we have twice tried the reduction in emissions experiment
in 2008-2009 and then again with the lockdowns / pandemic
yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
simple dy/dx
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical explanation?
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
What an idiotic post.
Those were not serious CO2 emission declines, just slight drops due to recession or pandemic.
sad how some can call 'idiotic " what they do not understand
learn some calculus
just how much more emission reduction in excess of a full global lock down or a full global recession do you expect to drive with your foolish and idiotic propaganda ?
again
we have twice tried the reduction in emissions experiment
yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical explanation?
foolish blithering's and unfounded rhetoric are not a logical explanation
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
learn some calculus
just how much more emission reduction in excess of a full global lock down or a full global recession do you expect to drive with your foolish and idiotic propaganda ?
again
we have twice tried the reduction in emissions experiment
yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical explanation?
foolish blithering's and unfounded rhetoric are not a logical explanation
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
Last edited:
Idiotic post #2.
The damage from climate change to economies will be much more massive than the tiny change necessary to go renewable.
The risks if we do nothing are massive.
again
we have twice tried the reduction in emissions experiment
yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical explanation?
foolish blithering's and unfounded rhetoric are not a logical explanation
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
we have twice tried the reduction in emissions experiment
yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical explanation?
foolish blithering's and unfounded rhetoric are not a logical explanation
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
No, calling a recession an attempt to reduce emissions is idiotic.
Idiotic.
Emissions continue to rise and temps rise as well.
Ocean temps are at a record.
graph reading was taught to you in grade school.... you know......before you dropped / failed out of school,
so why are you so confused ?
annual co2 emissions decreased in 2008 / 2009 & then again during the pandemic
so the experiment was conducted and conducted twice, whether you like it or not
yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical / intelligent explanation?
foolish blithering's and unfounded rhetoric are not a logical explanation
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
so why are you so confused ?
annual co2 emissions decreased in 2008 / 2009 & then again during the pandemic
so the experiment was conducted and conducted twice, whether you like it or not
yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical / intelligent explanation?
foolish blithering's and unfounded rhetoric are not a logical explanation
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
Read your chart.
Was the world still emitting 30+ tonnes of CO2 into the air?
Why would you expect the temperature to go down while we are still adding CO2?
Are you really that daft that you think a slight decline doesn't mean there is still a shit ton of CO2 going into the atmosphere?
Do you not understand what net zero means?
you confuse yourself so quickly
temperature is not referenced in either chart
this theoretical relationship of human emissions driving increasing co2 levels must be valid before attributing any perceived temperature change to human emissions
the latter relationship is invalid and falls apart if the former relationship is invalid
a decrease in the independent variable will produce a change in slope the of dependent variable
a decrease in emissions will produce a change in slope of the co2 concentration
a change in the slope of the co2 concentration is not observed
hypothesis >>> failed
btw the natural exchanges of co2 volumes between land/ atmosphere/ oceans is massive relative to human emissions
this is why there is no change in the slope
i will type slowly so you can keep up
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical / intelligent explanation?
foolish blithering's and unfounded rhetoric are not a logical explanation
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
temperature is not referenced in either chart
this theoretical relationship of human emissions driving increasing co2 levels must be valid before attributing any perceived temperature change to human emissions
the latter relationship is invalid and falls apart if the former relationship is invalid
a decrease in the independent variable will produce a change in slope the of dependent variable
a decrease in emissions will produce a change in slope of the co2 concentration
a change in the slope of the co2 concentration is not observed
hypothesis >>> failed
btw the natural exchanges of co2 volumes between land/ atmosphere/ oceans is massive relative to human emissions
this is why there is no change in the slope
i will type slowly so you can keep up
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical / intelligent explanation?
foolish blithering's and unfounded rhetoric are not a logical explanation
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
There is about 3 Trillion tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere, a change of 5 billion tonnes is about a change of 0.6 parts per million of CO2 concentration.
Your claim is idiotic.
If you turn on a faucet to fill a sink with water will the water levels go down if you decrease the amount of water going into the sink by 5%?
Or will it just keep filling up?
The fact that someone still thinks climate change isn't happening in the face of overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus is shocking.
You once said something along the lines of if climate change is true then deniers are actively participating in the greatest crime against humanity.
Personally I think anyone who understood that and then didn't do the due diligence on the research becomes morally culpable.
too bad for you the natural exchanges of co2 volumes between land/ atmosphere/ oceans is massive relative to human emissions
this has been pointed out to you more than once
you just ignore what is inconvenient or more often, what you do not not understand
your so called overwhelming evidence is primarily propaganda based on faulty computer models
your so called consensus is irrelevant , as scientific hypothesis validation is based on observable experimental data, not manipulated opinion polls
however its moot as catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not true
get that through your head
you do not think, you parrot propaganda like an obedient little ideologue
you would say anything to support the loonie left agenda
you have zero credibility to make moral judgements on others
what you claim you think is worthless
At best you are comic relief
sadly for you science is based on what you term ' fuzzy math'
explain how a high school drop out can take an absolute position on a controversial scientific hypophysis based on 'fuzzy math'
-log (I/Io)= EBC
The truth of the matter is your position is politically / ideologically driven
what you claim you think is worthless
this has been pointed out to you more than once
you just ignore what is inconvenient or more often, what you do not not understand
your so called overwhelming evidence is primarily propaganda based on faulty computer models
your so called consensus is irrelevant , as scientific hypothesis validation is based on observable experimental data, not manipulated opinion polls
you misquote me ... again
however its moot as catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is not true
get that through your head
you have a long and continuous history of intentionally misleading others
you do not think, you parrot propaganda like an obedient little ideologue
you would say anything to support the loonie left agenda
you have zero credibility to make moral judgements on others
what you claim you think is worthless
At best you are comic relief
sadly for you science is based on what you term ' fuzzy math'
explain how a high school drop out can take an absolute position on a controversial scientific hypophysis based on 'fuzzy math'
-log (I/Io)= EBC
The truth of the matter is your position is politically / ideologically driven
what you claim you think is worthless
Last edited:
The measurements of air and sea temperatures have confirmed the accuracy of the models for years now.
There is literally no evidence to back up your faulty logic.
The models are impressively accurate, temperatures have risen as expected.
Sea temperatures are rising and 9/10's of the planet's warming is in the seas.
would anyone other than frankfooter care to comment?
if there is a logical and intelligent explanation for the observations below i would like to hear it
the direct cause and effect relationship between emissions and co2 concentration is just not following the alarmist narrative/ propaganda.
we have twice tried the reduction in emissions experiment
in 2008-2009 and then again with the lockdowns / pandemic
yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
simple dy/dx
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical explanation?
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
if there is a logical and intelligent explanation for the observations below i would like to hear it
the direct cause and effect relationship between emissions and co2 concentration is just not following the alarmist narrative/ propaganda.
we have twice tried the reduction in emissions experiment
in 2008-2009 and then again with the lockdowns / pandemic
yet co2 concentration continued to increase without any change in the slope of the graph
simple dy/dx
the observed experimental data does not support the hypothesis that man -made emissions are the primary driver of increased co2 concentration.
do any alarmists have a logical explanation?
while you are it,
please explain why we need to destroy the global economy / risk famine in order to try and repeat the failed experiment?
You think a dip of emissions of 2/35 or about 5% in one year should show up clearer in a chart with a longer term time scale.
Your second chart shows waves that are annual, the wavy red line goes up and down annually with global patterns,.
So a 5% change in output would show as a 5% difference in two of those annual red waves.
Is your chart zoomed in enough to be able to show a 5% difference?
No.
so you are claiming the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere is not very sensitive to changes in human emissions?
OK
after all the natural exchanges in co2 between land/ atmosphere/ oceans are massive relative to human emissions
so you say the emissions reductions that resulted from
- a devastating economic recession (2008/2009) or
- a global lockdown (2020)
so exactly how much economic contraction and human suffering do you think will be required to alter the ever increasing concentration of co2 in the atmosphere ?
and please do not insult us by claiming EVs, renewables, carbon taxes , windmills and solar panels are a realistic pathway to the comical net zero fantasy.
the net zero lie has been laid bare
you do not think carefully about what you post
Strick adherence to your ideology is not a substitute for critical thinking
Reread my post larue.
You are expecting to see a 5% change in one of the annual red waves in your CO2 chart. Its there but its zoomed out too far for you to see.
Its like you posted a chart of annual temperatures and expected to be able to see daily changes.
You need to look at a chart where you can zoom into one of those waves and there you will see the changes you expect.
For instance, the NASA chart for CO2 on this page allows you to zoom in on the years in question and there you can see the 5% or so change you would expect.
Carbon Dioxide Concentration | NASA Global Climate Change
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.
I challenge you to to the NASA site and look at the years in question and tell me if you can detect the 5% annual change you would expect or not.
