Off Topic Climate Change

Nonsense, now, explain what I should infer from the NDIR sensor? I want to follow your "logic" down the rabbit hole

 

Are you now reading up on the very **** you were asking me about?

you can't provide one shred of evidence that Co2 drives temp and climate, none nada nil, because it doesn't and never has.

****ing google scholars I swear, you clueless sack of nothing

 

NASA
Average yearly AIRS CO2 data shown in yellow is laid over MODIS vegetation data in green

please log in to view this image

CO2 and greenery yearly. Breathe in breathe out. No doom

Almost all of it is gobbled up every year. You deranged lunatic.

Biggest scientific scam in human history.

 

Somehow this

please log in to view this image

is evidence that Co2 is driving global temperatures and making weather NOT worse than the past and making it NOT warmer than the past?

It's my own fault for talking to a ****in eco mut that does nothing to actually help anything environmental, unlike myself who has been doing conservation projects for 25 years

 

Perhaps a little more googling will lead you out of the warren

 

perhaps you can post what evidence you have that Co2 is driving temperatures now when it never has in the past?

Then provide evidence for all the other woes claimed? Ocean acidification? heatwaves, hurricanes and so on, droughts, and I will show you that all these things happened and more often were worse when Co2 was below 300ppm

oh wait there is none, I smash OA studies claiming so, for breakfast. Bad weather ones too, as all are based on models and assumptions. Drought was ALWAYS worse in the past. 200 year mega droughts without the CO2 in California, 145 day long storms

 

You actually believe the Hockeystick was not fraud, and think Mann is a scientist.

Mann 2008 et al, his second hockeystick came from an upside down contaminated sediment proxy from Finland, without it, no hockeystick, AN UPSIDE DOWN PROXY SERIES!

His first came from deleting proxy data for the 20th century and replacing it with thermometer records cos the proxy data went down in temps. If they went down when thermometor data went up, then the proxies were not reliable for before then..

Plus, he uses stripbark chronologies, PNAS said in 2006 that they SHOULD NOT be used as they are NOT a good proxy for temperature, and yet Mann still used them, and Pages2017 has all 20 stripbark chronologies used in Mann's 1998 paper, that has been completely discredited.

 

I said the ocean heat content study the media all pushed was bullshit junk science a couple of weeks ago



The study was error ridden and yet the media all reported this to great alarm

 

All of these articles are misinforming the public, the study was junk science, error ridden rubbish that showed no such thing, and this happens all the time.
Junk science, unashamedly promoted

no wonder the average person believes this horseshit

 

Nope, I don't do spoon-feeding.

We've done the discussion on past CO2. There is strong correlation of past c02 and temperature. You ended up denying that the solar output has increased over time if I remember rightly.

Here an example

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf

So you've found a picture of an NDIR sensor. Care to now explain to everyone how it can measure minute differences in CO2? Yet supposedly these ppm have no effect according to your claim.

 

There is no ****ing strong correlation between CO2 and the past you pathological lying moron

US 100 years

please log in to view this image

There isnt even a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature for the past 20 years, ugh you lying ****
last 20 years global

please log in to view this image

last 10000 years ice cores

please log in to view this image

600 million years global

please log in to view this image

You are a demonstrable ****ing liar

 

You could have posted this but then, you'd have to admit temp goes up around 600 to 800 years BEFORE CO2.


800k years of TEMP LEADING CO2 NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND

 

Lol!

There was me thinking you'd have a peer reviewed paper to dispute the evidence I supplied and the references to other research it makes.

Unsurprisingly the reply has none of these things.

It's why I don't seriously debate you anymore. It would just be a repeat performance.

 

This is how ******ed you are, the plots I posted are the result of several hundred peer reviewed studies from all over teh world to reconstruct global CO2 and temperatures over 600 million years vs your single fringe pdf that no one supports

Then the studies that used the ice core data to show Co2 and temp over Greenland (Greenland is important as it is so responsive to temperatures, that is why the climate scientists use it as an alarmist tool, until it stops melting that is You dont know ****.

The CRU temperature series you put stock in, no correlation in the past 20 years
The 800k/yr CO2 temp is also the result of many studies, all peer reviewed.

Essentially, I represent the consensus position on CO2 vs temp, I thought you types loved consensus

So, it's basically a few hundred papers all peer reviewed vs your single fringe bollocks that is supported by non one else.

Are you not tired of being smashed. maybe if you learned something about the topic you moron, you might have an argument to put forward.


Before data adjustments by the 100s, temp and CO2 only correlated from 1970 to 1998 in the modern record, as of 1990, and then the data started changing. I can easily prove this with before and after, adjusted Temperature data records

The Met and NASA are STILL changing the temperatures for 1800s and early 1900s and all through to the recent record., as in they are still doing this now. **** off

They use models to change the past MEASUREMENTS. That is not science

 

what is funnier still, with your sks found paper is you never read it. and even if you did you dont understand the first thing in it

 

From the abstract
"
The correspondence between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and globally averaged surface temperatures in the recent past suggests
that this coupling may be of great antiquity. Here, I compare 490 published proxy records of CO2 spanning the Ordovician to Neogene
with records of global cool events to evaluate the strength of CO2 -temperature coupling over the Phanerozoic (last 542 my"

I can see straight away, from the paper, that there was a careful selection of proxies.

I wonder what ex post screening was done to rule out other proxy series that that other papers used? it doesn't say, no mention of criteria selection either. In fact the paper says nothing of certainty even, it's vague and provides nothing solid at all

So like the pages2017 hockeystick paleo community, this another heroine addiction to only proxies that give the answer they want.

It also states that this "suggests", suggests is not anything like strong evidence, and this paper does not explain why hundreds if not thousands of other papers got it wrong, and it should have,


You are an illiterate fool who knows nowthing about this topic and only reads what he wants to see, you never read this paper and that is the most tragic pathetic intellectual failure ever

 

You don't have the first clue about how a study is conducted do you? never mind statistical analysis? Your opinion on papers like this are worth less than nothing.

What it is not, is enough to overturn 100 years of science on this topic of historical Co2 levels. You are a failure. Stop embarrasing yourself.

You might be a lad on facebook discussions, I see that in how you post. I've seen your kind, Ignorant but cocky.

You are out of your depth

 

The paper is littered with language like this

"Although more CO2 data are needed, the current patterns are suggestive of CO2 -temperature coupling." let me translate "we have no data but a lack of data suggests something" << **** off


You gotta be ****ing kidding me. You never read paper did you, you clown

facebook climate warriors are known for their posting of papers they never read and dont know how to read.

 

Pfft. Your problem is that you're relying on researchers and ignoring the stuff in the media.

 

aye, and relying on all research, so one can tell what is bunk and what is not.

Others on here, post research they never read and dont understand, then throw terms around like "peer reviewed" when they dont even read the papers

it's called borrowing the authority of others