Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[furcifer]

Here's one on the effects of anthropogenic CO2 in the ocean:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288741192_Anthropogenic_CO2_in_the_ocean

Again, just request it and the author will send it to you in a few days.

This one shows how CO2 from fossil fuels is causing the ph of the ocean to become more acidic. Something you also deny is happening due to the LARGE amount of CO2 humans are producing.

 

[sendler2112]

Hot weather in Europe right now.
.
https://weather.com/safety/heat/news/2019-06-26-record-breaking-heat-wave-europe-june-2019
.

 

[furcifer]

Here's another on the effects of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2003JD003865

Again, all of these studies support AGW theory.

I think perhaps what you don't realize is how climate science is being conducted. There are thousands of studies on the climate and CO2 being conducted around the world. Each is a piece of evidence, a part in the puzzle. You can't see the picture from one piece of the puzzle. You need someone to put it all together.

 

[Hillhater]

Again, all of these studies support AGW theory.

You continue to have problems telling the difference between ..”support for a theory”,..and “Proof of a theory”

If your reading/comprehension/discussion..skills were a fraction of your “copy/paste” skills ....( badly let down by your Editing ability though),..then you might have noticed that there is NOTHING in those posts that offer any SCIENTIFIC PROOF of human responsibility for the increase in CO2.
They all make statements and assumptions that CO2 increase is human controlled, but NO PROOF.
I defy you to read those posts and “copy paste” any paragraph you can find that provides any proof .
Again.. your discussion technique of answering a “show proof” question , with a “No, you show dissproof”.... is not going to cut it....That is just childish evasion of the question.

 

[furcifer]

then you might have noticed that there is NOTHING in those posts that offer any SCIENTIFIC PROOF of human responsibility for the increase in CO2.

lol, what utter nonsense.

Fossil fuels release CO2 from human use. That's a proven fact. Of course none of those papers prove cars and coal plants release CO2 from human use. It's called anthropogenic CO2 and just about every paper you didn't read discusses it's effects.

You're not making sense. This might work on people at your local pub, but you'd have to be pretty dull not to see your begging for what it is.

IT'S A FACT, burning fossil fuels produces CO2, which we call anthropogenic CO2. YOU DON'T NEED TO PROVE FACTS, because THEY'RE FACTS!

 

[Hillhater]

then you might have noticed that there is NOTHING in those posts that offer any SCIENTIFIC PROOF of human responsibility for the increase in CO2.

IT'S A FACT, burning fossil fuels produces CO2, which we call anthropogenic CO2. YOU DON'T NEED TO PROVE FACTS, because THEY'RE FACTS!

so, that is your version of science ? ..is it. ?
But oncee more your comprehension ability lets you down.
You were not supposed to be proving that burning fossil fuel produces CO2,...
..the statement that you made and were asked to provide proof for was that all the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, is due to human activity...Which is not a “Fact” but simply an assumption,..an unproven theory. !
What next to avoid an answer ??

 

[billvon]

you might have noticed that there is NOTHING in those posts that offer any SCIENTIFIC PROOF of human responsibility for the increase in CO2.

Is that a joke? Or are you serious? You really don't know if the megatons of CO2 we emit in the atmosphere results in an increase of megatons of CO2 in the atmosphere?

You must be easy prey for scam artists.

 

[furcifer]

Here's a study on projectile motion:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e752/16b0e51fcd0b5155c4dcd261c69e3ea08339.pdf


FAKE! There's NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR GRAVITY in this paper.

They just ASSUME it's 9.81 m/s^2. Without proving it!

I'm so smart. Look at me!

 

[furcifer]

were asked to provide proof for was that all the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, is due to human activity...Which is not a “Fact” but simply an assumption,..an unproven theory. !
What next to avoid an answer ??

Wow.

So it's not proven that humans burning fossil fuels produces CO2? It's just a theory???

You're hilarious. I bet you fart then claim it wasn't you because methane is naturally occurring. THERE'S NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF!

"Since my fart particles are indistinguishable from swamp gas, the rise in methane in this room, despite my consumption of beans, cannot be scientifically proven. Ergo, I did not fart, the fart was always here"

 

[furcifer]

[youtube]Hdrq1-my2zs[/youtube]

 

[Hillhater]

were asked to provide proof for was that all the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, is due to human activity...Which is not a “Fact” but simply an assumption,..an unproven theory. !
What next to avoid an answer ??

So it's not proven that humans burning fossil fuels produces CO2? It's just a theory???

??????
What is it with your inability to read and understand a simple statement ??
Read it again and try to understand what I said !

 

[Hillhater]

Is that a joke? Or are you serious? You really don't know if the megatons of CO2 we emit in the atmosphere results in an increase of megatons of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Serious !..
Do you KNOW then bill ?
All the extra 120+ ppm are solely due to human activity ?
..or just some of it ?..if so, how much of it ?
Either way, you must have seen the PROOF ?
So perhaps you can quote the relevant science that proves it ?
Or do you just “BELIEVE” it because that is the mantra you have been indoctrinated with ?

 

[Punx0r]

I would think a quick back-of-an-envelope calculation based on the total mass of the atmosphere (which is known) and the mass of CO2 emitted by people (which is also known) would show that the increase in concentration is more than accounted for. The difference (likely large) would be the extra CO2 taken up by the oceans and ecosystem.

 

[Hillhater]

And .., to you that is sufficient proof that human activities are responsible for the increase i atmospheric CO2 ??
....very rigorous science .

 

[furcifer]

??????
What is it with your inability to read and understand a simple statement ??
Read it again and try to understand what I said !

IT IS A PROVEN FACT, HUMANS BURNING FOSSIL FUELS HAS INCREASED THE AMOUNT OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE. THIS IS CALLED "ANTHROPOGENIC CO2" ALL OF THOSE STUDIES LOOK AT THE EFFECTS OF ANTHROPOGENIC CO2. THE CONCLUSION, FROM ALL OF THE STUDIES IS THAT IT IS CAUSING AN INCREASE IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. WE CALL THIS "AGW"

It was called AGW for this specific reason. Some morons can't distinguish between the natural warming and cooling cycles of the planet, and the Anthropogenic warming (and cooling) CAUSED BY BURNING FOSSIL FUELS.

Seriously, it's only been very dumb people that don't understand, or don't want to understand, there's a difference between the change in climate and the change in the climate caused by humans. For example, El Nino and La Nina are part of the natural cycle of global warming and cooling. Absent humans they would still occur. El Nino is not AGW, but it is a global warming period.

This is why you probably get labelled a "Denier". In order to maintain your narrative you need to ignore simple facts, and the only way to ignore facts is to deny they exist.

 

[furcifer]

So perhaps you can quote the relevant science that proves it ?
Or do you just “BELIEVE” it because that is the mantra you have been indoctrinated with ?

Glaciers disappearing, ocean ph changing, global average temperatures rising, ice core samples, satellite observations, decrease in atmospheric O2, isotope counting, tree rings... And not 1 study, multiple studies conducted around the world.

Here's a paper on that:

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ef200914u

This "it could be natural" is old bag man. This paper refutes another paper from 2006? that suggested it could be natural. This is the type of stuff hillhater needs to look at. There are questions, and there are theories, but the preponderance of evidence in favour of AGW. The ones that don't tend to contribute to our understanding of why it's only been an increase of about 0.5 instead of 4.5 degrees.

 

[furcifer]

I would think a quick back-of-an-envelope calculation based on the total mass of the atmosphere (which is known) and the mass of CO2 emitted by people (which is also known) would show that the increase in concentration is more than accounted for. The difference (likely large) would be the extra CO2 taken up by the oceans and ecosystem.

Of course this is another way to determine if CO2 is natural or from humans. Prior to us using fossil fuels the ocean was emitting CO2, now it's absorbing it. At least in terms of the net flux.

 

[Punx0r]

And .., to you that is sufficient proof that human activities are responsible for the increase i atmospheric CO2 ??
....very rigorous science .

Your argument is that manmade CO2 emissions are not sufficient compared to natural sources to cause the rise in concentration in the atmosphere and oceans. The quick calc is a simple sanity-check that would make your theory impossible. The reality is manmade is more than enough to account for the rises in concentration we've seen.

After that your only possible refuge would be to argue burning fossil fuel doesn't release CO2 or that fossil fuels are not in fact fossil, but part of the carbon cycle and so renewable. Both prepisterous and desperate.

 

[furcifer]

After that your only possible refuge would be to argue burning fossil fuel doesn't release CO2 or that fossil fuels are not in fact fossil, but part of the carbon cycle and so renewable. Both prepisterous and desperate.

I can't decipher what he's saying through the hand waving and nonsense.

I don't think he knows what a theory is.

The "LAW" of global warming is this: more heat = hotter (it's basically an application of the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics)

The theory, proven by experiments, is that the increase in greenhouse gases, like CO2 absorb more heat than the rest of the atmosphere (namely nitrogen and oxygen), and thus trap more heat.

The "theory" describes the mechanism to which the "law" applies.

Since he doesn't understand science I believe he is under the impression that if something is a theory it remains hypothetical. Nothing could be further from the truth. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH SCIENTIFIC PROOF THERE IS, AGW WILL ALWAYS REMAIN A THEORY.

So as far as I can tell he thinks because AGW is a theory there is no scientific proof. This leads him to believe all of the studies must be wrong because if they were right there would be proof, and AGW wouldn't be a theory.

I've tried to explain why this is so wrong but he doesn't seem to understand. I tried using gravity but that didn't work.

 

[billvon]

Serious !..
Do you KNOW then bill ?

Yes, I do.

Imagine a man with an old septic system living above you. It overflows and is flowing into your yard. Over a few days you see it build up into a stinking puddle. You ask him to clean it up. He says "hey, that's not my sewage." You point to the sewage that is actually running out of the top of the tank, running down the hill and ending up in your yard. He says "sure, maybe the most recent stuff. But the rest is NOT MY SEWAGE and you have NO PROOF!"

Would you believe him, and think "dang, he's right - that must be my sewage and I have to get started cleaning it up?"

Did you know that "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

 

[Dauntless]

Did you know that "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

Are you saying you actually tried to look up the right answer instead of depending on your own truthiness? Not to seem skeptical Bill, but in light of your past posts. . . .

 

[Punx0r]

Maybe this will help if his mental block really is caused by simple semantics:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid.

Here's a summary of the various proofs that the CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere is manmade:

https://skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html

Although it probay won't be convincing if you believe all the world's scientists are engaged in some vast, illogical conspiracy...

I thought this one on emipirical proof of AGW was interesting, if for no other reason than it actually puts a number on the excess heat the Earth is accumulating due to the increased greenhouse effect: 190 tera-watts!

 

[Hillhater]

??????
What is it with your inability to read and understand a simple statement ??
Read it again and try to understand what I said !

IT IS A PROVEN FACT, HUMANS BURNING FOSSIL FUELS HAS INCREASED THE AMOUNT OF CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE. THIS IS CALLED "ANTHROPOGENIC CO2" ALL OF THOSE STUDIES LOOK AT THE EFFECTS OF ANTHROPOGENIC CO2. THE CONCLUSION, FROM ALL OF THE STUDIES IS THAT IT IS CAUSING AN INCREASE IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. WE CALL THIS "AGW"

I think i am beginning to see your problem....
..is English your 2nd/3rd language ?
..because you have a serious problem understanding simple questions....
Or you just cannot read !
Lets keep this real simple for you..
Forget AGW..
Forget Global Warming..
You were only asked to provide the proof that the INCREASE of CO2in the atmosphere is entirely due to human activity.

 

[Hillhater]

The "LAW" of global warming is this: more heat = hotter (it's basically an application of the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics)

The theory, proven by experiments, is that the increase in greenhouse gases, like CO2 absorb more heat than the rest of the atmosphere (namely nitrogen and oxygen), and thus trap more heat.
nderstand. I tried using gravity but that didn't work.

Using that “LAW”, how do you explain those periods (1945 - -1980,...1998 - 2015, ). When temperatures did not increase, and in some periods declined, whilst CO2 and other GHG’s continued to increase ??

 

[Hillhater]

Imagine a man with an old septic system living above you. It overflows and is flowing into your yard. Over a few days you see it build up into a stinking puddle. You ask him to clean it up. He says "hey, that's not my sewage." You point to the sewage that is actually running out of the top of the tank, running down the hill and ending up in your yard. He says "sure, maybe the most recent stuff. But the rest is NOT MY SEWAGE and you have NO PROOF!"

Would you believe him, and think "dang, he's right - that must be my sewage and I have to get started cleaning it up?"

You have oversimplified the situation..
How about if there were more than one other source connected to that septic system before it started overflowing.
You would immediately assume it was the last person connected that caused the overflow , ignoring any other possibilities.?
would you ?......even if that last person joined the system 50 years before the problem appeared ?
There ..i think that is more representative !