Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[furcifer]

You were only asked to provide the proof that the INCREASE of CO2in the atmosphere is entirely due to human activity.

Perhaps you haven't heard, the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

Apparently burning coal and gasoline for 200 years had something to do with it.


100% proven, and experimentally verified.

 

[furcifer]

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 ??

Absorption. Flux. Decadal oscillation (Pacific).

Since we are talking about the climate over the past 200 years, figuring out a few flat spots is pointless. Art least in terms of your denial. It's still all part of an upward trend that began when humans started using fossil fuels as a primary energy source.

 

[furcifer]

 

[furcifer]

 

[furcifer]

 

[furcifer]

 

[furcifer]

Carbon dioxide levels measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Baseline Atmospheric Observatory rose by 3 parts per million to 405.1 parts per million (ppm) in 2016, an increase that matched the record jump observed in 2015.

 

[furcifer]

In this case, up means up, not down.

"“Today’s CO2 concentration of ~400 ppm exceeds the natural variability seen over hundreds of thousands of years,” the WMO bulletin read."

 

[furcifer]

"concentrations of carbon dioxide, or CO2, in the atmosphere surged to their highest level in 800,000 years."

 

[furcifer]

"CO2 growth rate sets new record in 2015-16. Increase in the past ten years is 100 to 200 times as fast as the increase that ended the last ice age"

 

[furcifer]

After 30 years of research, the question itself hasn’t changed, but the reasoning behind it couldn’t be more different. Oceanographers started out wanting to know if the ocean was keeping up with the amount of carbon dioxide people are putting into the atmosphere. Instead, they found that people aren’t the only players changing the ocean carbon cycle. Over decades, natural cycles in weather and ocean currents alter the rate at which the ocean soaks up and vents carbon dioxide.

 

[Hillhater]

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.

No matter how “widely accepted” a theory is...it does not make it a FACT let alone a LAW !
A theory always remains liable to be proven incorrect.

...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

Why would you use another forum discussion as some form of “proof” ??
BUT.. without wasting time on all his “proof” points..
1) chart 1, total CO2 levels are shown to start rising even BEFORE human inputs start......EXPLAIN ??
2) C13/C12 ratio has reduced from -7.4 to -8.1 on his chart ( currently -8.5 ref NOAA)..
Scary chart ?.. BUT he fails to explain the significance of this change in relation to CO2 levels...Can you explain the significance ??.. (i can ! :wink: )

 

[Hillhater]

You were only asked to provide the proof that the INCREASE of CO2in the atmosphere is entirely due to human activity.

Perhaps you haven't heard, the increase is from burning fossil fuels.
Apparently burning coal and gasoline for 200 years had something to do with it.
100% proven, and experimentally verified.

It doesent matter how often you say it,..it wont make it proven .
You will have to either show the proof or shut up.

 

[Hillhater]

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 ??

Absorption. Flux. Decadal oscillation (Pacific).

BINGO...!!
So, you have now admitted that there are other factors at play that directly influence global temperatures.
And obviously some of them have been more influential than the AGHG theory.

PS please stop reposting irrelavent crap !

 

[furcifer]

You were only asked to provide the proof that the INCREASE of CO2in the atmosphere is entirely due to human activity.

Perhaps you haven't heard, the increase is from burning fossil fuels.
Apparently burning coal and gasoline for 200 years had something to do with it.
100% proven, and experimentally verified.

It doesent matter how often you say it,..it wont make it proven .
You will have to either show the proof or shut up.

lol, OK

Fuel + O2 → CO2 + H2O

 

[furcifer]

BINGO...!!
So, you have now admitted that there are ither factors at play that directly influence global temperatures.
And obviously some of them have been more influential than the AGHG theory.

PS please stop reposting irrelavent crap !

Yes, CO2 from humans namely.

Fuel + O2 → CO2 + H2O

 

[furcifer]

Fuel + O2 → CO2 + H2O

SCIENTIFIC PROOF!

 

[furcifer]

This just in, water not wet.

No scientific proof. Not one study published proves it!

Where's the evidence?

 

[furcifer]

 

[furcifer]

No matter how “widely accepted” a theory is...it does not make it a FACT let alone a LAW !
A theory always remains liable to be proven incorrect.

[youtube]KF6SNxNIV08[/youtube]

 

[Hillhater]

OH dear, im sorry, i seem to have tipped you over the edge..
..or you are on crack !

 

[furcifer]

1) chart 1, total CO2 levels are shown to start rising even BEFORE human inputs start......EXPLAIN ??

lmfao, you can't even read a chart!

sharp increase around 1850, same time we started using fossil fuels. Pretty much level prior to this.

 

[furcifer]

 

[furcifer]

It's all just a coincidence!

It you understood science you'd know when correlation proves causation. But yuh basic.

 

[furcifer]

OH dear, im sorry, i seem to have tipped you over the edge..
..or you are on crack !

No worries. Your speculating on drugs having something to do with the conversation is the first thing you've said that makes sense. I would have went with a head injury, but potatoe, potatoe.