The farce behind liberal, "I'll tax you again" global warming bullshit - volcanoes!

[Dr Kynes]

You also didn't address how we can accurately measure the known natural carbon emissions and accurately estimate unknown carbon emissions and accurately base climate models accordingly.

because YOU CANT.

thats the problem with the models, and thats why they are non-predictive, and thats why it is NONSENSE

they CAN fairly accurately predict co2 emissions from KNOWN sources, but that assumes a steady state.

volcanoes are known for their UNSTEADY states.

termite co2 doesnt change much, but volcanoes can go from a trickle of co2 and sulphur dioxide to a deluge in moments.

since ~80% of the sea floor is UNKNOWN there is no way to estimate the steady state of an UNKNOWN number of fumaroles, vents, black smokers, volcanoes etc etc etc which lie hidden on the 70% of the earth's surface which is covered by WATER.

they have NO IDEA of the steady state, and no clue about the fluctuations which make steady state assumptions useless.

thats why any documentary you see on the deep oceans invariably starts with "We know more about the surface of the moon than we do about the deep oceans"

the climate models start off with unsupported assumptions, they modify the data with MORE assumptions, then they fiddle with the dials to try and make it work, and it STILL cant predict shit because there are too many assumptions, and they left out too much important shit.


all the rest of your idiotic post was pure sophistry.

 

[UncleBuck]

volcanoes are known for their UNSTEADY states.

why did volcanoes and termites suddenly become so active?

 

[Dr Kynes]

this thread is stupid. Who ever thinks global warming is not real is an idiot.

do tell.

For one all volcanoes in the world only make up 2% of the co2 emitted into the atmosphere.

ha ha ha ha ha

Man made machines account for over 90% of co2 emmissions.

you forgot the main thrust of that (made up) statistic, and that is "ABOVE THE BASELINE"

annual man made co2 emissions worldwide for 2012: ~ 34 gigatonnes
annual termite co2 emissions: 50 gigatonnes

see the BIG arrows pointing up in that image? those are NATURAL co2 emissions and the NATURAL emissions of co2 tot up to ~771.4 gigatonnes per anum

771.4 gigatonnes
vs
34 gigatonnes..

it doesnt take a math wiz to figure out that your full of shit.

If all the forests weren't chopped down for lumber. They would be able to process more co2.

irrelevant hyperbole.

Now Obama was a dumbass for giving a speech about global warming I front of air force one and using to hop from airport to airport and back that's only a 2 hour drive each way.. Spending 5 million of tax payer money on his weekend that should be for another thread.

huh? teh fux you on about?

Al gore is a dumbass and Obama is the worst president in history. Global warming is real.

two truths and a lie.

 

[Dr Kynes]

why did volcanoes and termites suddenly become so active?

and you trot out that silly graph again??

so noaa is lying when they publish this graph which differs markedy from yours..

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/flueckiger2002/flueckiger2002.html

if youre gonna lie, at least try to use some new material.

note it's the same goddamned time frame, but totally different data. cuz yours is full of crap.

i guess human industry REALLY started fucking shit up around 7000 years ago, cuz thats when co2 started its climb.

 

[UncleBuck]

see the BIG arrows pointing up in that image? those are NATURAL co2 emissions and the NATURAL emissions of co2 tot up to ~771.4 gigatonnes per anum

771.4 gigatonnes
vs
34 gigatonnes..

it doesnt take a math wiz to figure out that your full of shit.

i was waiting for you to make this claim.

you're claiming that humans are only responsible for about 4% of CO2.

that claim was made previously by red1966.

where does this claim come from? let's just check back to when i first debunked this claim:

so i took it upon myself to look for citation of red's claim that humans are responsible for less than 3% of CO2 emissions annually.

here is what i found: a political blog from the heritage foundation!



http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/27/man’s-contribution-to-global-warming/

they cite a study from the national center for policy analysis, which is a right wing think tank funded by (you guessed it) exxonmobil and the koch brothers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis

red sure does despise "political blogs" a whole lot for someone who depends on them wholly and completely for his misguided worldvoew.

 

[UncleBuck]

and you trot out that silly graph again??

so noaa is lying when they publish this graph which differs markedy from yours..

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/flueckiger2002/flueckiger2002.html

if youre gonna lie, at least try to use some new material.

note it's the same goddamned time frame, but totally different data. cuz yours is full of crap.

i guess human industry REALLY started fucking shit up around 7000 years ago, cuz thats when co2 started its climb.

NOAA you said?

 

[Padawanbater2]

and you trot out that silly graph again??

so noaa is lying when they publish this graph which differs markedy from yours..

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/flueckiger2002/flueckiger2002.html

if youre gonna lie, at least try to use some new material.

note it's the same goddamned time frame, but totally different data. cuz yours is full of crap.

i guess human industry REALLY started fucking shit up around 7000 years ago, cuz thats when co2 started its climb.

"To read or view the full study, please visit the AGU website.
It was published in Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Vol. 16, No. 1, March 2002."

...

http://www.agu.org/pubs/toc/gb/old/gb_16_1.html

 

[nontheist]

i was waiting for you to make this claim.

you're claiming that humans are only responsible for about 4% of CO2.

that claim was made previously by red1966.

where does this claim come from? let's just check back to when i first debunked this claim:

so i took it upon myself to look for citation of red's claim that humans are responsible for less than 3% of CO2 emissions annually.

here is what i found: a political blog from the heritage foundation!



http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/27/man’s-contribution-to-global-warming/
they cite a study from the national center for policy analysis, which is a right wing think tank funded by (you guessed it) exxonmobil and the koch brothers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis
red sure does despise "political blogs" a whole lot for someone who depends on them wholly and completely for his misguided worldvoew.

 

[UncleBuck]

let's see.

that image came from the mahattan institute for policy research.

who are they?

The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (renamed in 1981 from the International Center for Economic Policy Studies) is a conservative American think tank

who do they get their funding from?

The Manhattan Institute received over $31 million in grants from 1985 to 2012, from foundations such as the Koch Family Foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Foundations, and the Smith Richardson Foundation.[13] The Manhattan Institute does not disclose its corporate funding, but the Capital Research Center listed its contributors as Bristol-Myers Squibb, ExxonMobil, Chase Manhattan, Cigna, Sprint Nextel, Reliant Energy, Lincoln Financial Group Foundation, and Merrill Lynch. Throughout the 1990s the Tobacco industry was a major funding source for the institute. [14]





who would have thought?



a POLITICAL front group funded by the KOCH BROTHERS and EXXON MOBIL, whose funding from tobacco dried up after the whole tobacco denial debate fizzled out.



congratulations, you are retarded.

nice sig.

 

[Dr Kynes]

"To read or view the full study, please visit the AGU website.
It was published in Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Vol. 16, No. 1, March 2002."

...

http://www.agu.org/pubs/toc/gb/old/gb_16_1.html

yep. but it was 10,000 years of co2, not 10 years between 2002 (publication) and 2012 (skeptical science's Reverse-Correct InfoSpeak and GoodFacts)

what are you implying? that in the last 12 years the 10,000 years of co2 trapped in the ice transformed to match Official Policy?

it's on Noaa's website, with detailed information, so youre perhaps intimating that it may be suspect?

is that journal on your Name And Shame list for publishing heretical non-approved articles?

make an assertion or keep your snide allusions to yourself.

youre clownshoes.

 

[Padawanbater2]

because YOU CANT.

Yes we can

thats the problem with the models, and thats why they are non-predictive, and thats why it is NONSENSE

The models aren't a complete picture, but they absolutely carry predictive power. Scientists accurately predicted in the 80's the CO2 levels and temperatures we see today, you deny it

they CAN fairly accurately predict co2 emissions from KNOWN sources, but that assumes a steady state.

volcanoes are known for their UNSTEADY states.

Better go tell the scientists, I'm not sure they got the memo..

termite co2 doesnt change much, but volcanoes can go from a trickle of co2 and sulphur dioxide to a deluge in moments.

Accounted for

since ~80% of the sea floor is UNKNOWN there is no way to estimate the steady state of an UNKNOWN number of fumaroles, vents, black smokers, volcanoes etc etc etc which lie hidden on the 70% of the earth's surface which is covered by WATER.

"80% of the seafloor is unknown"

Did you fall down and hit your head? They have mapped the ocean floor, how else would they know what the deepest part of the ocean is?

"1990 saw the start of the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) which continued until 2002. Geosat seafloor mapping data became available in 1995."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanography#History

"The seabed has been explored by submersibles such as Alvin and, to some extent, scuba divers with special equipment. The process that continually adds new material to the ocean floor isseafloor spreading and the continental slope. In recent years satellite images show a very clear mapping of the seabed, and are used extensively in the study and exploration of the ocean floor."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_floor

they have NO IDEA of the steady state, and no clue about the fluctuations which make steady state assumptions useless.

"NO IDEA" ladies and gentlemen.. it's all a big mystery..

thats why any documentary you see on the deep oceans invariably starts with "We know more about the surface of the moon than we do about the deep oceans"

Possibly before 1946.. Do you still use a VCR and stand outside the closed Blockbuster video too?

More men have been on the Moon than to the bottom of the ocean, so why would that quote shock you even if it were true? We've mapped both

the climate models start off with unsupported assumptions, they modify the data with MORE assumptions, then they fiddle with the dials to try and make it work, and it STILL cant predict shit because there are too many assumptions, and they left out too much important shit.

 

[Dr Kynes]

NOAA you said?

yep, thats some wacky projections there.

projections aint facts numbnuts, and the facts were published by Noaa showing that in fact co2 was ANYTHING but static before 1855.

that long ass timeframe smooths the data, cuz you wouldnt want to be consistent or anything,

fuck, im tired of arguing with you and yor ever changing polemics.

do yourself a favour and read this.

it answers a lot of questions, and may help you see why your POLITICAL agenda is irrelevant to the issue.

http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/strickland1.html

 

[Dr Kynes]

Yes we can

The models aren't a complete picture, but they absolutely carry predictive power. Scientists accurately predicted in the 80's the CO2 levels and temperatures we see today, you deny it



Better go tell the scientists, I'm not sure they got the memo..



Accounted for



"80% of the seafloor is unknown"

Did you fall down and hit your head? They have mapped the ocean floor, how else would they know what the deepest part of the ocean is?

"1990 saw the start of the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) which continued until 2002. Geosat seafloor mapping data became available in 1995."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanography#History

"The seabed has been explored by submersibles such as Alvin and, to some extent, scuba divers with special equipment. The process that continually adds new material to the ocean floor isseafloor spreading and the continental slope. In recent years satellite images show a very clear mapping of the seabed, and are used extensively in the study and exploration of the ocean floor."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_floor



"NO IDEA" ladies and gentlemen.. it's all a big mystery..



Possibly before 1946.. Do you still use a VCR and stand outside the closed Blockbuster video too?

More men have been on the Moon than to the bottom of the ocean, so why would that quote shock you even if it were true? We've mapped both

read this numbnuts.

http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/strickland1.html

 

[Padawanbater2]

what are you implying?

That it's pretty funny you just bitched yesterday about 404 links I supposedly post when I cite sources, then you just posted a 404 link citing a source. So that's what, the 3rd time now you've done some hilariously silly shit like that and thought nobody would notice?

 

[nontheist]

let's see.

that image came from the mahattan institute for policy research.

who are they?

The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (renamed in 1981 from the International Center for Economic Policy Studies) is a conservative American think tank

who do they get their funding from?

The Manhattan Institute received over $31 million in grants from 1985 to 2012, from foundations such as the Koch Family Foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Foundations, and the Smith Richardson Foundation.[13] The Manhattan Institute does not disclose its corporate funding, but the Capital Research Center listed its contributors as Bristol-Myers Squibb, ExxonMobil, Chase Manhattan, Cigna, Sprint Nextel, Reliant Energy, Lincoln Financial Group Foundation, and Merrill Lynch. Throughout the 1990s the Tobacco industry was a major funding source for the institute. [14]





who would have thought?



a POLITICAL front group funded by the KOCH BROTHERS and EXXON MOBIL, whose funding from tobacco dried up after the whole tobacco denial debate fizzled out.



congratulations, you are retarded.

nice sig.

let's see.

that image came from the mahattan institute for policy research.

who are they?

The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (renamed in 1981 from the International Center for Economic Policy Studies) is a conservative American think tank

who do they get their funding from?

The Manhattan Institute received over $31 million in grants from 1985 to 2012, from foundations such as the Koch Family Foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Foundations, and the Smith Richardson Foundation.[13] The Manhattan Institute does not disclose its corporate funding, but the Capital Research Center listed its contributors as Bristol-Myers Squibb, ExxonMobil, Chase Manhattan, Cigna, Sprint Nextel, Reliant Energy, Lincoln Financial Group Foundation, and Merrill Lynch. Throughout the 1990s the Tobacco industry was a major funding source f





who would have thought?



a POLITICAL front group funded by the KOCH BROTHERS and EXXON MOBIL, whose funding from tobacco dried up after the whole tobacco denial debate fizzled out.



congratulations, you are retarded.

nice sig.

It's a conspiracy!

 

[Dr Kynes]

That it's pretty funny you just bitched yesterday about 404 links I supposedly post when I cite sources, then you just posted a 404 link citing a source. So that's what, the 3rd time now you've done some hilariously silly shit like that and thought nobody would notice?

theres not enough data on the noaa website to satisfy you?

well heres the whole fucking thing.
this aint some asshole's blog where the entire thing just fucking vanishes when his geocities account expires.

http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~stocker/papers/flueckiger02gbc.pdf

i just copied the title, and hit the googles, and POW, first result.

your 404's are direct fails (meaning you didnt even read the link you posted) while this one is simply a result of housekeeping.

my link worked perfectly, they had a 404 in their shit (which would not be used by most cuz it leads to the egghead stuff that you wouldnt understand anyhow) , but the data was still available.

damn youre dumb.

 

[nontheist]

That it's pretty funny you just bitched yesterday about 404 links I supposedly post when I cite sources, then you just posted a 404 link citing a source. So that's what, the 3rd time now you've done some hilariously silly shit like that and thought nobody would notice?

link works for me

 

[UncleBuck]

yep, thats some wacky projections there.

projections aint facts numbnuts, and the facts were published by Noaa showing that in fact co2 was ANYTHING but static before 1855.

that long ass timeframe smooths the data, cuz you wouldnt want to be consistent or anything,

fuck, im tired of arguing with you and yor ever changing polemics.

do yourself a favour and read this.

it answers a lot of questions, and may help you see why your POLITICAL agenda is irrelevant to the issue.

http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/strickland1.html

funny, we weren't arguing about the projections, numbnuts.

great attempt at changing the topic though.

and nice stab at the end of the POLITICAL AGENDA right after you cited CATO blog numbers on human percentage of CO2 emissions.

do you even believe your own shit anymore?

 

[Dr Kynes]

It's a conspiracy!

come now, you know that political affiliations are GOOD when youre a lefty, but Poison if youre a righty.

dont be so hard on bucklefuckle, he's havin a rough week.

 

[Padawanbater2]

read this numbnuts.

http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/strickland1.html

Dogshit. They presented "Climate-gate" the same way you do, failing to realize 8 independent investigations found no wrongdoing or misuses of science at all


This is a good example of your fanatical denial in light of all the evidence against you, you simply choose to ignore it and keep bringing it back up again and again and again. Also another great example of my previous point about how you're the one that does that bullshit, not me. You still have yet to cite any example of me doing it, there's 2 against you already.

If you're found not guilty in a murder case in 8 different courts and some dummy still thinks you're guilty... I mean, what logical argument are you going to convince someone with who doesn't value logic?