An Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) claim denied.

Below is a Scripps graph of the factually accurate “Monthly Average CO2 Concentrations” as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, which shows a steady increase of CO2 from 317 ppm in 1958 to 381 ppm in 2005, an increase of 64 ppm.


You should also note on the above graph a steady and consistent 12 month oscillation of the ppm concentration of an average of 7-8 ppm and on which I took the liberty to include notations so one could easily see the extent of said monthly oscillations.

Please note that the greater amount of CO2 occurs after the Vernal (March) Equinox about the 1st of May and the lesser amount occurring after the Autumnal (September) Equinox about the 1st of October. Thus, shortly after the start of the Vernal Equinox in Spring the atmospheric CO2 starts decreasing and will continue to do so all Summer long until shortly after the start of the Autumnal Equinox in the Fall at which time it will start increasing once again. One can also note from the graph that the average ½ year increase is about 7-8 ppm whereas the average ½ year decrease is about 5-6 ppm which gives a 1-2 ppm net yearly gain in atmospheric CO2.

The increase in quantities of human produced CO2 were not steady and consistent for all those 47 years, were they? So if human activities are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 ….. then how does one explain that steady and consistent 1-2 ppm increase in CO2 from 1958 to 2005? Surely humans were dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere between 2000 and 2005 than they were between 1958 and 1963.

And, how in the world is one going to explain that “human caused” steady and consistent 7-8 ppm yearly fluctuations in CO2 concentrations for each and every one of those same 47 years? Up in summer, down in winter, seems weird to me to be human caused.

And the AGWers have been claiming that human activities put 30 billion tons of COs into the air annually and it all stays up there for a hundred years.

But the data on that Graph proves that claim wrong. The average increase of CO2 per year for those 47 years is 1-2 ppm. And an increase of 1-2 ppm/year based on the total mass of the atmosphere of appx. 5 quadtrillion tons means that the atmospheric CO2 was increasing at a rate of 5 to 10 billion tons/year, …… not 30 billion tons per year.

YUP, do the math, 2 ppm/year increase = 0.0002% of 5 quadttons = 10 billion tons/year.

If in any year 30 billion tons of CO2 was put into the air then the ppm increase for that year would be 6+- ppm and the data clearly shows that has never happened.



,

Is this because of those "H-pyrons"?

I saw that on the Gazette comment boards.

Hilarious.

TerryRC wrote:

Hilarious.

Willing ignorance is such bliss. Isn't it, TerryRC?

Willing ignorance is such bliss. Isn't it, TerryRC?

I will defer to your obvious expertise, preacher.

TerryRC wrote:Willing ignorance is such bliss. Isn't it, TerryRC?

I will defer to your obvious expertise, preacher.

TerryRC, you are a baiter--a master baiter! You believe what you want to believe. I will believe what I want to believe. Either way, it is faith...

The Salt Lake Tribune
12/30/2009 06:36:58 PM MST

A downtown protest of the climate change talks in Copenhagen became a victim of Wednesday's snowstorm.

"Not many people showed up because of the blizzard conditions," said organizer Clea Major, an international studies student at the University of Utah.

It didn't take long for the six friends to pack up a bullhorn and posters they'd planned to use for their "scream-in," an outlet for their frustration about the failure of the Copenhagen climate talks earlier this month to curb the pollution blamed for climate change.

Hardy-har-har-har!

TerryRC, you are a baiter--a master baiter! You believe what you want to believe. I will believe what I want to believe. Either way, it is faith...

You would know more about faith than I would.

I base my opinion on evidence, however. It requires less imagination than faith.

Things like tropical insects expanding their ranges into temperate and taiga regions, rising sea levels and shrinking glaciers we call evidence.

The planet is getting warmer. The mechanisms of how that happens are known and demonstrable in a lab. It is difficult to impossible to believe that people - the most populous, habitat-changing species on this planet - have NOTHING to do with it.

TerryRC wrote:The planet is getting warmer. The mechanisms of how that happens are known and demonstrable in a lab. It is difficult to impossible to believe that people - the most populous, habitat-changing species on this planet - have NOTHING to do with it.

In the CRU Lab at EA, right.

And they ain't telling anyone how they know it and ain't giving anyone a demostration of their secret mechanisms.

But they don't have to for you to believe them, right?

They have proof of their Degrees and that's all the proof you need.


GEEEZUS, and you don't have a clue as to the real science stated in my lead post.

Since Joe is cutting "budgets" on wasteful spending he could sure save taxpayer dollars by cutting you.

,

.

GEEEZUS, and you don't have a clue as to the real science stated in my lead post.

Since I never even addressed your meandering and difficult to follow post, you don't know whether I understood it or not.

I did, it is just unworthy of comment. You conclusion is not verifiable by that one graph.

BTW, that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates IR can be demonstrated in a freshman physics lab.

Since Joe is cutting "budgets" on wasteful spending he could sure save taxpayer dollars by cutting you.

Say that to my face, fat boy.

The fact is, however that I bring in money to the state coffers, mostly federal.

TerryRC wrote:Since I never even addressed your meandering and difficult to follow post, you don't know whether I understood it or not.

The hell you say ........ and your following statement proves it.

The planet is getting warmer. The mechanisms of how that happens are known and demonstrable in a lab. It is difficult to impossible to believe that people - the most populous, habitat-changing species on this planet - have NOTHING to do with it.

That was an idiotic statement.

TerryRC wrote:I did, it is just unworthy of comment. You conclusion is not verifiable by that one graph.

You didn't, not a clue, and that is what forced you to say it was unworthy, a CYA cop-out response. You are not smart enough to know what is or is not verifiable. You are only mimicking Socialistic liberal rhetoric you were brainwashed with by Socialist liberal Instructors and Professors and are little more than a lemming doing as you were nurtured to do.

TerryRC wrote:BTW, that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates IR can be demonstrated in a freshman physics lab.

Yup, and you can demostrate the same thing with a cement block or a shovel full of dirt. But you can't prove CO2 causes AGW ..... because it don't. And my lead post proves it don't. But it doesn't prove it to brainwashed lemmings because they have "locked" their mind to everything contrary to their Socialist agenda and only bow to their chosen Degreed Royalty and no one else no matter what.

.

That was an idiotic statement.

Says you.

You didn't, not a clue, and that is what forced you to say it was unworthy, a CYA cop-out response. You are not smart enough to know what is or is not verifiable. You are only mimicking Socialistic liberal rhetoric you were brainwashed with by Socialist liberal Instructors and Professors and are little more than a lemming doing as you were nurtured to do.

Oh, Sam. Your conclusion:

If in any year 30 billion tons of CO2 was put into the air then the ppm increase for that year would be 6+- ppm and the data clearly shows that has never happened.

How do you draw that conclusion from that graph?

Yup, and you can demostrate the same thing with a cement block or a shovel full of dirt. But you can't prove CO2 causes AGW ..... because it don't. And my lead post proves it don't. But it doesn't prove it to brainwashed lemmings because they have "locked" their mind to everything contrary to their Socialist agenda and only bow to their chosen Degreed Royalty and no one else no matter what.

That was a class-act rant.

We know the planet is warming. I think it LIKELY that people have something to do with it.

You on the other hand, deny any human factor in global warming entirely .

Yet, somehow, I am the close-minded one.

You are the lemming, Sammy.

TRC,

I am a skeptic but I do not consider it out of the realm of possibility that man's actions are destroying the earth.

So I should like you to show me three things:

1-The evidence that man's actions have led to global warming.
2-That global warming is universally bad.
3-Whether or not we are overdue for an ice age.

I enter this fray in good faith--the only thing that I resent is having people like Al Gore pronounce the debate "settled," which I think we both can recognize is a statement of someone who doesn't want to be bothered with an intelligent defense of his position.

You on the other hand, deny any human factor in global warming entirely .

LIAR, ....... LIAR, ........ PANTS ON FIRE.

TRC, manmade "heat islands" contribute to increased temperatures.



.

As recommended by SheikBen, That's a good discussion to start my activities in this forum.

You might know about scandal in CRU. Computer hackers broke into the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England and downloaded thousands of e-mails and documents.

There were a long list of e-mail exchanges where those scientists discuss with colleagues how to manipulate the data they want to show the world.
They would have us believe that the overwhelming majority of "real" scientists agree with them while the few dissenters are all either crazed. Likewise, most journalists aren't qualified or capable of working through the climate data. So they opt for the consensus.

The climate industry really is an industry. Climate scientists make their money and careers from government, academia, the United Nations and foundations.

That, sir, was a fine and objective first effort. Welcome.

acacio wrote:As recommended by SheikBen, That's a good discussion to start my activities in this forum.

You might know about scandal in CRU. Computer hackers broke into the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England and downloaded thousands of e-mails and documents.

There were a long list of e-mail exchanges where those scientists discuss with colleagues how to manipulate the data they want to show the world.
They would have us believe that the overwhelming majority of "real" scientists agree with them while the few dissenters are all either crazed. Likewise, most journalists aren't qualified or capable of working through the climate data. So they opt for the consensus.

The climate industry really is an industry. Climate scientists make their money and careers from government, academia, the United Nations and foundations.

Now Acacio, iffen you continue to persist in posting similar verbiage to these forums I can see from the above that you and I won't have much to argue or disagree about.

Cheers

Acacio,

Great to hear from you. I think you are quite correct that there is a climate industry, and all researchers (or at least most all of them) are paid by someone with a real agenda. The difference is that it is obvious to spot the agenda of Exxon but harder to spot (or at least peg) the agenda of governments, politicians and the UN.

TerryRC:

In case you missed them, I'd like evidence/answers to the following:

1-The evidence that man's actions have led to global warming.
2-That global warming is universally bad.
3-Whether or not we are overdue for an ice age.

1-The evidence that man's actions have led to global warming.

Remember acid rain? People said the same thing - man isn't powerful enough to cause huge areas to have toxic lakes.

There is a good deal of evidence. Start here: Skeptical Science (linky clicky). It is simple enough.

2-That global warming is universally bad.

I didn't say it was. It isn't going to be a picnic, though.

Fresh water will become scarce in many parts of the world. Famine will follow drought. Deserts will expand. Tropical diseases will spread to cover most of the temperate zones. Anyone living on the coast near sea level will have to be moved - that means most of out ports, also.

I could go on, but I think you get the drift.

3-Whether or not we are overdue for an ice age.

We likely are. So?

Look at it this way: no technological society has ever reduced its need for energy, only increased it (thanks, Freeman Dyson). We have all of our eggs in a basket made of non-renewable energy sources and we KNOW that source is finite. Turning to alternative energy sources is the ONLY intelligent thing to do.

Doing it in a manner that doesn't pollute or ruin our planet is only good stewardship.

Assuming that correlation is causation, and therefore AGW has been "proved," by what reasoning, then, is global warming said to reduce fresh water and lead to an expanse of tropical diseases?

If you are looking for a culprit for malaria, by the way, try the creeps that got rid of DDT at the expense of millions of human lives.

Incidentally, Terry, my home is warmed with natural gas, and we sure are using a lot of it these days I wonder if "warming" (as the "tropics" move north, could even decrease our dependence on natural gas and foreign oil?)

One more thing, if'n we are overdue for an ice age, would that not be a most miserable event? Why would it be any better than AGW? Do you have 90,000 years to spare?

If you are looking for a culprit for malaria, by the way, try the creeps that got rid of DDT at the expense of millions of human lives.

DDT isn't gone. It is made and used in many third world countries.

Tropical mosquito need warmer temperatures. That they will spread is obvious.

Incidentally, Terry, my home is warmed with natural gas, and we sure are using a lot of it these days I wonder if "warming" (as the "tropics" move north, could even decrease our dependence on natural gas and foreign oil?)

What do you use to air-condition?

One more thing, if'n we are overdue for an ice age, would that not be a most miserable event? Why would it be any better than AGW? Do you have 90,000 years to spare?

I don't know as though it would be any worse, in terms of it's effects on humans.

TerryRC wrote:Turning to alternative energy sources is the ONLY intelligent thing to do.

Doing it in a manner that doesn't pollute or ruin our planet is only good stewardship.

And I'm sure we as a society will. As soon as a viable alternative becomes available. But right now, there isn't one.