Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist.

jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
Are you ever going to tell why you run to the mods and report other members for calling you names?
It's time to put your big boy pants on UncleBuck and fight your own battles
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
really, beenthere? or should i say, phatfarmer?

Click to expand...
Are you saying there's not hundreds of members who would agree that you are obnoxious? LOL
You can call me anyone and anything you want UncleBuck, you've overplayed the sock puppet and racist card so much, nobody pays attention to it any longer.
And you won't have to worry about me whining to the mods like a little bitch because it's really doesn't bother me, like it does you.bongsmilie
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
Cool video AC, now let's see the proof that man is causing any of the warming and why Antarctica is growing. LOL
Click to expand...
antarctica is not growing, according to those folks at NASA you love to cite.



and if human activities are not causing CO2 to shoot higher than it has been in over 800,000 years, then what is, beenthere?



termite farts, perhaps?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
Cool video AC
Click to expand...
Thanks
jahbrudda said:
let's see the proof that man is causing any of the warming
Click to expand...
It is a pretty simple, deductive approach. First, we start with a couple of premises and a conclusion and then we demonstrate that the premises are correct. Underlined is a valid deductive argument which means that if the premises are true, the conclusion follows. I apologize if I am not dumbing it down enough for you.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 has increased in the atmosphere as a result of human activity. Therefore human activity is responsible for global warming.

I take it you are not quite stupid enough (risky assumption on my part) to deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas so we need only concern ourselves with the major premise. Here is a peer reviewed scientific study demonstrating that human activity is responsible for the 2 ppm per year increase in atmospheric CO2. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u (Cawley 2011)
ABSTRACT
A recent paper by Essenhigh (Essenhigh, R. H.Energy Fuels2009, 23, 2773−2784) (hereafter ES09) concludes that the relatively short residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere (5–15 years) establishes that the long-term (≈100 year) rise in atmospheric concentration is not due to anthropogenic emissions but is instead caused by an environmental response to rising atmospheric temperature, which is attributed in ES09 to “other natural factors”. Clearly, if true, the economic and political significance of that conclusion would be self-evident and indeed most welcome. Unfortunately, however, the conclusion is false; it is straightforward to show, with considerable certainty, that the natural environment has acted as a net carbon sink throughout the industrial era, taking in significantly more carbon than it has emitted, and therefore, the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 cannot be a natural phenomenon. The carbon cycle includes exchange fluxes that constantly redistribute vast quantities of CO2 each year between the atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial reservoirs. As a result, the residence time, which depends upon the total volume of these fluxes, is short. However, the rate at which atmospheric concentrations rise or fall depends upon the net difference between fluxes into and out of the atmosphere, rather than their total volume, and therefore, the long-term rise is essentially independent of the residence time. The aim of this paper is to provide an accessible explanation of why the short residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is completely consistent with the generally accepted anthropogenic origin of the observed post-industrial rise in atmospheric concentration. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the one-box model of the carbon cycle used in ES09 directly gives rise to (i) a short residence time of ≈4 years, (ii) a long adjustment time of ≈74 years, (iii) a constant airborne fraction, of ≈58%, in response to exponential growth in anthropogenic emissions, and (iv) a very low value for the expected proportion of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. This is achieved without environmental uptake ever falling below environmental emissions and, hence, is consistent with the generally accepted anthropogenic origin of the post-industrial increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Click to expand...
jahbrudda said:
Antarctica is growing
Click to expand...
Maybe you are stupider than I thought.
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
and if human activities are not causing CO2 to shoot higher than it has been in over 800,000 years, then what is, termite farts, perhaps?
Click to expand...
So, we can't adopt voter ID laws because we can't definitively say how many instances occur without being prosecuted, but it's cool to pass legislation against our use of fossil fuels even though you can't definitively prove it's the cause. By your own argument the absence of DEFINITIVE proof negates the need for legislation.

That's a fair trade, we'll drop the pursuit of voter ID laws the moment you drop the entire MMGW malarkey.
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
Arctic climate empirical diagnostics : a contribution to the climate change debate
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
ADAMENKO V. N. (1) ; KONDRATYEV K. Ya. (2) ; VAROTSOS C. A. (3) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Polar Marine Academy, Butlerova Str., 8-227, St. Petersburg 195220, RUSSIE, FEDERATION DE
(2) Research Centre for Ecological Safety, Russian Academy of Sciences, Korpusnaya Str., 18, St. Petersburg 197110, RUSSIE, FEDERATION DE
(3) University of Athens, Panepistimioupolis, Build. PHYS-V, Athens, GRECE
Résumé / Abstract
A hypothesis that global climate warming observed during the last century has been due to anthropogenically induced carbon dioxide concentration growth provoked controversial response. In this context, general considerations have been discussed supporting the viewpoint that the greenhouse global warming hypothesis is doubtful, although, of course, the greenhouse effect contribution should be taken into account. One of the strongest arguments in favor of the above hypothesis is a conclusion drawn from numerical climate modeling data that there must be an enhancement of the greenhouse signal with latitude. In this paper some results of surface air temperature (SAT) observations in the Arctic during the last 20-30 years have been discussed which demonstrate a reduction in SAT in a number of Arctic regions. Some dendroclimatic data relevant to tree growth near the northern forest boundary have also been considered. Analysis of these data (covering larger time periods) reveals that not only the conclusion about polar enhancement of climate warming is wrong but the warming itself could hardly be realistic. So it may be concluded that no noncontroversial information exists that can support the hypothesis of global greenhouse warming.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
Arctic climate empirical diagnostics : a contribution to the climate change debate
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
ADAMENKO V. N. (1) ; KONDRATYEV K. Ya. (2) ; VAROTSOS C. A. (3) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Polar Marine Academy, Butlerova Str., 8-227, St. Petersburg 195220, RUSSIE, FEDERATION DE
(2) Research Centre for Ecological Safety, Russian Academy of Sciences, Korpusnaya Str., 18, St. Petersburg 197110, RUSSIE, FEDERATION DE
(3) University of Athens, Panepistimioupolis, Build. PHYS-V, Athens, GRECE
Résumé / Abstract
A hypothesis that global climate warming observed during the last century has been due to anthropogenically induced carbon dioxide concentration growth provoked controversial response. In this context, general considerations have been discussed supporting the viewpoint that the greenhouse global warming hypothesis is doubtful, although, of course, the greenhouse effect contribution should be taken into account. One of the strongest arguments in favor of the above hypothesis is a conclusion drawn from numerical climate modeling data that there must be an enhancement of the greenhouse signal with latitude. In this paper some results of surface air temperature (SAT) observations in the Arctic during the last 20-30 years have been discussed which demonstrate a reduction in SAT in a number of Arctic regions. Some dendroclimatic data relevant to tree growth near the northern forest boundary have also been considered. Analysis of these data (covering larger time periods) reveals that not only the conclusion about polar enhancement of climate warming is wrong but the warming itself could hardly be realistic. So it may be concluded that no noncontroversial information exists that can support the hypothesis of global greenhouse warming.
Click to expand...
link...
 
jahbrudda

jahbrudda

Well-Known Member
I've been asking you for a citation for your claim that "2009 was the first year ever that the northwest passage remained navigable year round." for two days now, as soon as you give me your citation, I'll give you my link to the peer reviewed article that refutes AGW.

See how that works.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
jahbrudda said:
I've been asking you for a citation for your claim that "2009 was the first year ever that the northwest passage remained navigable year round." for two days now, as soon as you give me your citation, I'll give you my link to the peer reviewed article that refutes AGW.

See how that works.
Click to expand...
Classic.

Beenthere is telling me how citation works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top