Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Josephwalker, Feb 12, 2018.

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,394
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature, which is the point at issue.
    Any honest person knows that saying temperature drives CO2 does not preclude CO2 having an influence on temperature. Which drives which depends on their relative influence. If a temperature increase of 1C increases CO2 by 10%, but a 10% increase in CO2 only increases temperature by 0.1C, then sure, CO2 has an effect on temperature, but it is then correct to say that temperature drives CO2, and not the other way around.

    I think you know this.
    No, only the cooked, fraudulent "science" of AGW screamers does.
    Only when the error is that of AGW screamers.
    Ice and snow surface area is the driver, not volume, duh.
    According to AGW nonscience.
    That was the trendless ~60y ocean cycle, which had cooled the earth for the previous 30y.
    There was also increasing CO2 in the previous 30y cooling period, so CO2 can't be a driver.
    Because temperature drives CO2.
    Disproved above.
    No, AGW theory does not explain why temperature fell when CO2 rose in the 1940-1970 period, nor does it explain why temperature leads CO2 in the ice core data. These facts are simply hand-waved away.
    Not according to AGW models, with their absurd overestimate of water vapor feedback.
    No cult, and no theory. It's a known fact.
     
  2. Beer w/Straw

    Beer w/Straw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2017
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    339
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Female
    Neither is right.

    CO2 traps the temp rise from the incoming solar radiation. But I take it you too don't like NASA facts.

    :EDIT:

    And outgoing solar radiation.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2018
  3. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Madam, you are projecting.

    Your religion is neither fact nor science.

    And you opinion is neither fact nor science.
     
  4. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Spoke as true religious fanatic hating science.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2018
  5. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ??
     
  6. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I concede the point. What skeptics actually called this period was an end to global warming. So yeah, my bad.
     
  7. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That is better, professor.

    You can do some basic common sense, but the basic common sense should tell you that you should stay away from science you have no clue about in order not to look like another religious fanatics.

    And I think you a bit behind the cult of CO2, the climatologists already shuffled numbers around, sent heat to oceans and other places nobody can see and announced that there was no pause.

    You cannot win with the cult.
     
  8. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    A mistypo, an extra s, should be read as follows:

    [You] Spoke as true religious fanatic hating science.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2018
  9. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For those wondering...this right here is what denial looks like.
     
  10. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    .??? The explanation was more confusing then the original statement.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2018
  11. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    For those wondering...this right here is what denial looks like. ^^^
     
  12. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Faux is busy selling these guys that scientists spend their days making up numbers to make themselves look good.
    Heck, it seems plausible to them. It’s the model developed at Faux.
     
  13. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    One does not have to be a scientist, but just a sane person in order to look to my posts and your replies and see that you cannot be reasoned to exactly in he same way as a religious fanatic cannot be reasoned to.

    And if one has any idea about natural sciences one would see that you have absolutely no clue.

    Let us recap:

    I posted just a few of theories of natural sciences I had to take and pass exams on in an institution of higher learning and I asked you to do what?
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2018
  14. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    For those who are wondering religious fanaticism looks exactly like this^^^^

    Faux?

    What is is that?

    Faux looks like another chimera living in a insane mind of a religious fanatic who feels he has to put his life fighting it, doesn't it?
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2018
  15. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, what institute of higher learning is it ?
    Just look up their website and check out their science department and summary of their synopsis on global warming. Tell us all what it says.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2018
  16. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It works because true believers that call people like myself deniers which is a religious term not a scientific one have cult like worship of the AGW dogma.
     
  17. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What skeptics called it was evidence that the AGW hypothesis was wrong and man's C02 contribution is not the primary driver of climate change.
     
  18. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you want to cherry pick an El Nino as your start date and La Nina as your end date and then on top of that you want to ignore 90%+ of the warming and call it a day? I mean, yeah, when you work really hard to ignore the warming I can see how you might come to that conclusion. That is denial.
     
  19. Beer w/Straw

    Beer w/Straw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2017
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    339
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Female
    Or, deliberate ignorance because it would unsettle his "religious" beliefs?
     
  20. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What you just admitted was man's C02 contribution is not the primary climate driver and was easily overwhelmed by El nino. Case closed.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2018
  21. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    El Nino erased man's C02 contribution that's science not religious beliefs.
     
  22. Beer w/Straw

    Beer w/Straw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2017
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    339
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Female
    No, that's MAGIC!
    :)
     
  23. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see you are still a loss for words and can't defend your position.
     
  24. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think there's some confusion here. Natural variability didn't magically stop once humans came along. But, the natural variability produces an effect that's like a sine wave oscillating about the zero baseline. There are ups and downs, but there's no long term upward or downward trend. In mathematical terms this would be similar to y = sin(x). However, what CO2 is producing is a steady upward tendency to the temperature. In mathematical terms this is similar to y = x + sin(x). Go to this website (https://www.desmos.com/calculator) and see the behavior of each equation. The equivalent of what deniers do is to focus on the flat part of the second equation and ignore the secular upward trend. In other words, the x values on the graph are cherry-picked in just the right way to show no change in y. No reasonable person can look at the graph of y = x + sin(x) and not see that the slope is positive over large ranges of x despite having flat spots when cherry-picking smaller ranges of x.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2018
  25. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Problem with your hypothesis is the earth has been warming since the last ice age ended and as the very minor el Nino event showed man's contribution to climate is a bit player that can and will be overwhelmed by a myriad of natural events. We are just along for the ride
     

Share This Page