Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

[Padawanbater2]

then it should be super easy for you to show once again that termites produce more than 30 billion tonnes of CO2.

"Termites produce methane, not CO2. Furthermore, termites produce less than 15% of the global methane per year:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v30...

More recent research suggests 15% is an order of magnitude too large:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1998/98...

Termites are important in an ecological sense. In general it is not a good idea to get rid of a major component like that. Besides, man is already working to reduce termite methane emissions:

http://www.ghgonline.org/methanetermite....

One last reference for the global importance of termite CH4 emissions:

http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html

And the outgassing of methane from hydrates in the arctic permafrost is going to dwarf the termite source."

Owned

 

[Dr Kynes]

Termite co2 production: 4x10 to the 15th grams per year
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD095iD04p03619/abstract;jsessionid=C27504760D670280181A1AF106C65C25.f03t01?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

human production of co2 from every possible source, from an agw hysterical website:33.4 gigatonnes per year
http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-emissions.html

still gonna pretend i didnt cite that one?

water's effectiveness vs co2 requires you to do math, so you naturally wont touch that one with a ten foot pole

the forest fires causing cooling issue IS FACTUAL. smoke clouds do reflect sunlight, and reduce temps locally
the global part is hypothetical, but not as hypothetical as "Co2 makes global warming"

you are still flailing blindly in the face of evidence, and pretending the evidence doesnt exist

 

[Dr Kynes]

"Termites produce methane, not CO2. Furthermore, termites produce less than 15% of the global methane per year:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v30...

More recent research suggests 15% is an order of magnitude too large:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1998/98...

Termites are important in an ecological sense. In general it is not a good idea to get rid of a major component like that. Besides, man is already working to reduce termite methane emissions:

http://www.ghgonline.org/methanetermite....

One last reference for the global importance of termite CH4 emissions:

http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html

And the outgassing of methane from hydrates in the arctic permafrost is going to dwarf the termite source."

Owned

you didnt read the material either.

termites produce more carbon dioxide than all human activity combined.
termites ALSO produce methane at a level around 30% of human production
termites also produce sulphur dioxide in significant amounts
termites also produce chloroform and hydrogen chloride in large amounts.

your citation from Nature makes no contention about termite production of Co2 one way or another, since it is focused on methane, exclusively.

in order for your claim that termites dont produce co2 to be credible, you would have to prove they dont breathe oxygen, and their gut bacteria dont either
that would be idiotic, retarded impossible and ridiculous.

go ahead, find any article anywhere that discusses how termites dont breather oxygen or that they exhale something other than co2, or that their gut bacteria are similarly deviant from the norm of all animal life.

your other statements in that post were so absurd i had to ponder how retarded you must be.
it appears you are profoundly retarded.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v30...
MAKES NO CLAIM about co2 at all. you made that bullshit claim up.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1998/98...
makes no claim about any "15% being an order of magnitude too large"
the abstract says that their research conflicts with the IPCC's termite claims, which have not been examined in this thread at all.
when AGW looneys start citing research that says the IPCC is wrong, then the world has truely gone mad

http://www.ghgonline.org/methanetermite....
this one... seriously what are you pretending this shit says?
are you suggesting methane is good?
that more methane would slow AGW's juggernaut roll into doomsday?
teh fux?
"In general it is not a good idea to get rid of a major component like that"~you the king of the retards

what is that supposed to mean? or is that just some shit you threw out to make yourself sound contemplative and wise? it didnt work.

http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
404 file not found.
either you simply copied this shit form somebody else's website, or you googled "termite methane" and just copied all the resulting links and made up your own guesses as to what they might say.

thats not how you make a claim, support a claim, or dispute somebody else's claim.

thats how you make yourself look like a moron.

 

[UncleBuck]

Termite co2 production: 4x10 to the 15th grams per year
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD095iD04p03619/abstract;jsessionid=C27504760D670280181A1AF106C65C25.f03t01?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

4x10^15 GRAMS is 4 billion tons, or about 3.6 billion tonnes.

that one has been debunked for the millionth time, time for you to move onto your next thuper thmart confusion tactic.

still gonna pretend i didnt cite that one?

you still gonna pretend it's true?

water's effectiveness vs co2 requires you to do math, so you naturally wont touch that one with a ten foot pole

as established above, your math is not to be trusted to even calculate an amount, much less to prognosticate about effects.

i want a citation for the "hundredfold" (no, 500x! no, million billion trillion!) effect of water vapor over CO2, especially considering you are too stupid to even account for the staying power of CO2 over water vapor.

the forest fires...reduce temps locally
the global part is hypothetical

not only is it "hypothetical" (to put it as kindly as possible for you), it is unproven and uncited by any study whatsoever, and contradicted by many, many more studies.

debunked.

you are still flailing blindly in the face of evidence, and pretending the evidence doesnt exist

no, i see your shitty evidence. not cutting it.

i want citation. preferrably peer reviewed scientific publications, not right wing hacks at political front groups like the sydney institute, which is funded by shell oil ever since the whole denying tobacco's effects craze wore off and phillip morris stopped funding them.

you are a stooge, a clown, a hack, and a liar.

 

[UncleBuck]

termites produce more carbon dioxide than all human activity combined.

repeating a lie won't make it true.

 

[Padawanbater2]

you didnt read the material either.

termites produce more carbon dioxide than all human activity combined.
termites ALSO produce methane at a level around 30% of human production
termites also produce sulphur dioxide in significant amounts
termites also produce chloroform and hydrogen chloride in large amounts.

your citation from Nature makes no contention about termite production of Co2 one way or another, since it is focused on methane, exclusively.

in order for your claim that termites dont produce co2 to be credible, you would have to prove they dont breathe oxygen, and their gut bacteria dont either
that would be idiotic, retarded impossible and ridiculous.

go ahead, find any article anywhere that discusses how termites dont breather oxygen or that they exhale something other than co2, or that their gut bacteria are similarly deviant from the norm of all animal life.

your other statements in that post were so absurd i had to ponder how retarded you must be.
it appears you are profoundly retarded.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v30...
MAKES NO CLAIM about co2 at all. you made that bullshit claim up.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1998/98...
makes no claim about any "15% being an order of magnitude too large"
the abstract says that their research conflicts with the IPCC's termite claims, which have not been examined in this thread at all.
when AGW looneys start citing research that says the IPCC is wrong, then the world has truely gone mad

http://www.ghgonline.org/methanetermite....
this one... seriously what are you pretending this shit says?
are you suggesting methane is good?
that more methane would slow AGW's juggernaut roll into doomsday?
teh fux?
"In general it is not a good idea to get rid of a major component like that"~you the king of the retards

what is that supposed to mean? or is that just some shit you threw out to make yourself sound contemplative and wise? it didnt work.

http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
404 file not found.
either you simply copied this shit form somebody else's website, or you googled "termite methane" and just copied all the resulting links and made up your own guesses as to what they might say.

thats not how you make a claim, support a claim, or dispute somebody else's claim.

thats how you make yourself look like a moron.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Owned in visual format just for you Kynes, so you don't have to hurt your head anymore reading about confusing sciencey stuff

 

[Padawanbater2]

Just look at all those dumbass people on youtube buying into the hoax!

 

[UncleBuck]

View attachment 3176170

Just look at all those dumbass people on youtube buying into the hoax!

that is a horrible way to go about making a point.

have you read youtube comments ever in your life on anything?

 

[UncleBuck]

i made a math mistake too, let's see if kynes can spot it.

 

[NoDrama]

View attachment 3176170

Just look at all those dumbass people on youtube buying into the hoax!

21,532 isn't really that many people.

 

[NoDrama]

i made a math mistake too, let's see if kynes can spot it.

Wow, who woulda thought that Bucky's conversion to tonnes sucks ass as does his original math that is off by nearly 10%. You will never get the right answer using Math Bucky, you would be far better off asking someone else to do it for you.

 

[UncleBuck]

Wow, who woulda thought that Bucky's conversion to tonnes sucks ass as does his original math that is off by nearly 10%. You will never get the right answer using Math Bucky, you would be far better off asking someone else to do it for you.

how was kynes' math?



his was only off by about 1000%.

 

[Dr Kynes]

so you wish
to maintain that:
termites dont produce co2 (despite the evidence)
your links that dont say what you assert are still valid
your psuedo-profundities are meaningful
and a 404 message proves you know what you are talking about.

great job.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Owned

Every bullshit talking point defeated in 17 minutes from a scientist who actually studies the climate

 

[Dr Kynes]

4x10^15 GRAMS is 4 billion tons, or about 3.6 billion tonnes.

that one has been debunked for the millionth time, time for you to move onto your next thuper thmart confusion tactic.



you still gonna pretend it's true?

as an ASU Dropout Alumnist, you may not recognize this thing:

http://web2.0calc.com/

but it does mathie things when you hit the squareish little buttony things

i will walk you through it:

4x10e15 (four times ten to the fifteenth power) =40000000000000000 grams per year
now take a snack break. drink some juice and have a cookie, that was hard!

next step:
40000000000000000 grams per year / 1.oe15 (take away 15 zeroes) = 40 gigatonnes.

humans produce 33.4 gigatonnes of co2 per year, by the most outrageously inflated estimate i could find.

it's not nap time yet, one more math problem!!

40 - 33.4 = 6.6 gigatonnes more carbon dioxide every year from termites than made by humans (pretty much exactly the Co2 production of the US's fossil fuel consumption per year)

no, i see your shitty evidence. not cutting it.

i want citation. preferrably peer reviewed scientific publications, not right wing hacks at political front groups like the sydney institute, which is funded by shell oil ever since the whole denying tobacco's effects craze wore off and phillip morris stopped funding them.

"The Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres" is a right wing think tank.
cool.
the 66 other publications, including university science textbooks, that cite this study are also part of this right wing think tank too
i guess Nature is also a right wing think tank as well.

ok, now take a nap, you worked really hard.
you still suck at this but youre getting better! (no youre not but i thought you needed some positive reinforcement)

 

[Dr Kynes]

how was kynes' math?



his was only off by about 1000%.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

ohh thats rich!!

 

[Dr Kynes]

repeating a lie won't make it true.

Ha Ha HA Ha HA ha HA Ha ohh stop, youre killing me!!

ohh man...



keep going like that and ASU will sue you to stop your claims of being a Dropout!

youre making them look even worse than they are!



wow, im still laughing.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Say, Kynes, do you accept the theory of evolution for the explanation of diversity of life on Earth?

 

[NoDrama]

Say, Kynes, do you accept the theory of evolution for the explanation of diversity of life on Earth?

I'm sure he does, as I do, which now invalidates that video completely.

They found a correlation between liberals and being easily duped.