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

[Dr Kynes]

that's not what i asked.

i asked you if the NOAA is wrong about CO2 being at about 280 PPM over the last 10,000 years. even the graph you posted shows this.

see how that is pretty steady over 10,000 years at about 280 PPM or so? that is your graph.

can we agree on this?

no, it shows that ~8000 years ago it dropped to around 260, then shot up to 285 around 1000 years ago, then started climbing again ~500 years ago faster than ever before...

that doesnt jibe at all with your Skeptical Science graph, or your narrative.

can you agree that this asessment is accurate?

cuz im looking right at the graph from noaa, and it doesnt look anything like your skeptical science graph.

 

[UncleBuck]

i never gave ANY 3-4% NUMBER.

all that shit happened inside your head.

you said 771.4 GT/y (natural) versus 34 GT/y (presumably manmade).

add one to the other, divide the lesser by the larger, and you get the implication that only 4.222% of CO2 emissions are manmade (versus 95.888% natural).

but those 771.4 GT/y of natural emissions are negated by 788.9 GT/y of natural absorption of CO2, for a net result of -17.5 GT/y of natural CO2 emissions (by your own source).

you clearly implied 4.222% based on your own stated numbers, which were outright mathematical deception or mathematical retardation. i am torn as you seem both dumb and a liar.

if you have issues with the numbers, then youll have to follow the links provided, they go right to the IPCC's own publications.

if the IPCC is wrong, then you gots some 'splainin to do.

plus youll have to prove it, which should be funny.

can you find me something from the IPCC stating that manmade emissions of CO2 are dwarved by natural emissions of CO2 then?

because that's what you are saying.

 

[nontheist]

he can't use the english language correctly, but now he wants us to believe he is an expert on certain climate periods.

i can only imagine where he copied and pasted this from.

it appears to be an ian plimer claim which has been thoroughly debunked. the story on the guy who made the claim is hilarious enough, but all that shall be left as an exercise to the reader.

 

[Dr Kynes]

he can't use the english language correctly, but now he wants us to believe he is an expert on certain climate periods.

i can only imagine where he copied and pasted this from.

it appears to be an ian plimer claim which has been thoroughly debunked. the story on the guy who made the claim is hilarious enough, but all that shall be left as an exercise to the reader.

no, it's factual, during the cambrian period (the greatest explosion of life diversity in the history of the world) co2 was at around 7000 ppm, then it dropped dramatically, then rose again, then dropped precipitously, then rose again, then dropped to the floor and then rose again, then dropped into the basement, and is rising again.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

note this is NOT from a "right wing think tank"

 

[UncleBuck]

no, it shows that ~8000 years ago it dropped to around 260, then shot up to 285 around 1000 years ago, then started climbing again ~500 years ago faster than ever before...

that doesnt jibe at all with your Skeptical Science graph, or your narrative.

can you agree that this asessment is accurate?

cuz im looking right at the graph from noaa, and it doesnt look anything like your skeptical science graph.

i'm looking at the graph from NOAA too.

looks like it's been at about 260-285 or so for the last 10,000 years. so about 280 for the last 10,000 years.

if you insist on being laughably pedantic, we can call it ~273 PPM.

why did it shoot up to 400+ PPM just recently?

 

[Dr Kynes]

you said 771.4 GT/y (natural) versus 34 GT/y (presumably manmade).

add one to the other, divide the lesser by the larger, and you get the implication that only 4.222% of CO2 emissions are manmade (versus 95.888% natural).

but those 771.4 GT/y of natural emissions are negated by 788.9 GT/y of natural absorption of CO2, for a net result of -17.5 GT/y of natural CO2 emissions (by your own source).

you clearly implied 4.222% based on your own stated numbers, which were outright mathematical deception or mathematical retardation. i am torn as you seem both dumb and a liar.



can you find me something from the IPCC stating that manmade emissions of CO2 are dwarved by natural emissions of CO2 then?

because that's what you are saying.

no, i never used the "word" (if i dare be so free with the language...) "dwarved", and niether did the IPCC, but i did give the numbers as stated by the IPCC itself, and represented in a cute pictograph by a hysterical website promoting the idea of AGW.

any inferences you drew were not the result of any implication by me.

if i were to characterize the human co2 emissions as compared to natural sources, as (under) estimated by the IPCC, i might say that human emissions were Dwarfed by natural sources.

 

[UncleBuck]

so should we compare our current climate to the climate we had at earth's formation?

doesn't really seem relevant.

i mean, the earth, and thus its climate, was not quite comparable when we were barely forming as a planet, or 500 million years ago, when things looked a lot different, geologically speaking.

 

[UncleBuck]

any inferences you drew were not the result of any implication by me.

then why did you not include that NATURAL co2 absorption is greater than NATURAL co2 emissions?

is MANMADE co2 absorption similar to MANMADE co2 emissions?

you made a very dishonest, misleading, and outright fraudulent claim to lend credence in your own special little dishonest way to the claim that only 3-4% of CO2 emissions are manmade.

your implication was in your math, which lacked a critical component once again. this time it was honesty, not inability to do simple exponents.

 

[Dr Kynes]

i'm looking at the graph from NOAA too.

looks like it's been at about 260-285 or so for the last 10,000 years. so about 280 for the last 10,000 years.

if you insist on being laughably pedantic, we can call it ~273 PPM.

why did it shoot up to 400+ PPM just recently?

yep. co2 concentrations are higher now than they were 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, but they are very very low compared to a million years ago, and nearly nonexistent when compared to the scores from 500 million years ago.

what Big Oil company was responsible for that co2 catastrophe (which didnt stop the ice age that came during the peak...) and the much higher levels found throughout the history of the earth?

even your own (new) graph shows co2 falling to LESS THAN 200 ppm a few thousand years ago.

meanwhile the issue of your repeated use of the bullshit fake graph from skeptical science remains a turd in your punch bowl.

this is not the first time (or even the fourth) that i had to show you that graph was bullshit, yet you trotted it out again and again.

 

[nontheist]

so should we compare our current climate to the climate we had at earth's formation?

doesn't really seem relevant.

i mean, the earth, and thus its climate, was not quite comparable when we were barely forming as a planet, or 500 million years ago, when things looked a lot different, geologically speaking.

lol Your argument is co2 directly effects temperature, that clearly is not the case. Back to the drawing board.

 

[Dr Kynes]

then why did you not include that NATURAL co2 absorption is greater than NATURAL co2 emissions?

is MANMADE co2 absorption similar to MANMADE co2 emissions?

you made a very dishonest, misleading, and outright fraudulent claim to lend credence in your own special little dishonest way to the claim that only 3-4% of CO2 emissions are manmade.

your implication was in your math, which lacked a critical component once again. this time it was honesty, not inability to do simple exponents.

it' fraudulent?

are you saying the IPCC is engaged in FRAUD???

cuz thats where those numbers came from, in IPCC 4, WG1, chapter 7.
and repeated again in IPCC 5, WG1, chapter 5.

ohh my.

thats some heady Climate Denying youre doing there.

i hope pada doesnt turn on you like a rabid wolverine.

 

[UncleBuck]

it' fraudulent?

are you saying the IPCC is engaged in FRAUD???

cuz thats where those numbers came from, in IPCC 4, WG1, chapter 7.
and repeated again in IPCC 5, WG1, chapter 5.

ohh my.

thats some heady Climate Denying youre doing there.

i hope pada doesnt turn on you like a rabid wolverine.

you clearly either forgot to include that (by your own source) NATURAL co2 absorption > NATURAL CO2 emissions, or you were too stupid to calculate that part. or you were purposely omitting that part.

was it fraud, stupidity, or forgetfulness?

 

[UncleBuck]

lol Your argument is co2 directly effects temperature, that clearly is not the case. Back to the drawing board.

is your argument that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? that there is not a clear, direct relationship between CO2 and temps?

or is your argument that hominids could easily exist at 4000+ PPM of CO2, as we saw in the ordovician period?

 

[Dr Kynes]

you clearly either forgot to include that (by your own source) NATURAL co2 absorption > NATURAL CO2 emissions, or you were too stupid to calculate that part. or you were purposely omitting that part.

was it fraud, stupidity, or forgetfulness?

i made no such claim.

the poster to whom i was replying stated directly that

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

which was clearly untrue.

why you assume i am committing some fraud by citing the IPCC's own numbers to refute a factual error is curious, spurious and injurious.

but it didnt make me furious.

im too high and my vision is Blurrious.

 

[UncleBuck]

your repeated use of the bullshit fake graph from skeptical science remains a turd in your punch bowl.

when you stretch out the tiny, 10,000 year period on this:

to a different x-axis (10k years instead of 800K+ years), it looks smoother. like this.

and if you narrow that graph even further and smooth it, you get this.

note that years before present are rearranged. this should help you in understanding that yo uare saying exactly what i am saying.

just because you are an idiot does not make the graph fake. you are simply too retarded to understand graphs or exponents apparently.

 

[Dr Kynes]

is your argument that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? that there is not a clear, direct relationship between CO2 and temps?

or is your argument that hominids could easily exist at 4000+ PPM of CO2, as we saw in the ordovician period?

as i citerd to pada before in this very thread, co2 doesnt become toxic until ~100,000 ppm, or 10% by volume

at 4000 ppm you wont have any trouble breathing.

http://www.analox.net/carbon-dioxide-dangers.php

 

[UncleBuck]

i made no such claim.

your claim was that NATURAL emissions were 771.4 GT/y versus 24 GT/y of human emissions.

you neglected to mention that NATURAL absorption was 788.9 GT/y.

that is either forgetfulness (you knew to include it but forgot to), idiocy (you did not know to negate natural emissions with natural absorption), or maliciousness (you knew but tried to deceive anyway).

in any case, you are either an idiot, forgetful, or a liar.

you choose.

 

[skunkd0c]

UncleBuck:

I wasn't working or making any contributions to the partnership. I was sitting on a forum 12-16 hrs a day amassing 10's of thousands of hateful posts where 9 of 10 involved me calling someone names. She worked and went to school trying to better her life and would come home every day to find me spewing hateful stuff on my forum. I say it's my forum because that was the attitude I had. I had no skills, no life experience but thought I was an expert in every subject, vehemently defending my stance by attacking personal those that disagreed. My obsession got so bad that I even stalked men across the internet trying to find personal info about them I could use to "win" an argument. I wasn't so much trying to convince anyone of my ridiculous uneducated position, i was just trying to cause harm. Her parents were supporting us because they loved their daughter, they even tried to get me to earn some money for my allowance by paying me to empty the kitty litter, but I didn't time for that, there were names to be called.
Finally, the wife decided she would try to help me be productive so she left her family and paid for us to move to another state. I continued with the same behavior of manic forum posting instead of helping to support our family. I convinced her that it wasn't me, it was where we moved to so we went back home. In a last ditch effort to save our marriage, she agreed to move yet again. Her parents were fed up at this point and declined to pay for yet another move so I was forced to go into my own money that I squirreled away by not helping with bills. When I tried to strong arm the wife for half the costs I knew she didn't have it and would have to go to her parents. Her parents had finally had enough and refused saying a man in his 30's should be grown up enough to take care of his own.
They finally convinced her to leave me and in hindsight I understand and don't blame her. Although at first I did. In fact, I have always blamed others for my shortcomings which is how I got there in the first place.

has anyone posted pics of "wife" ?
pics or it never happened / tits or gtfo
something like that

 

[nontheist]

is your argument that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? that there is not a clear, direct relationship between CO2 and temps?

or is your argument that hominids could easily exist at 4000+ PPM of CO2, as we saw in the ordovician period?

Totally man made DERP DERP

 

[UncleBuck]

View attachment 3185723

Totally man made DERP DERP

totally not manmade.