Correction... 2015 was not the warmest year

[jem]

I am not saying they are wrong. I am pointing out that your side is grafting instrument data onto proxy data and not clearly explaining the issues with that process. In short... how the hell do you know all the co2 in the air at the time was captured and still in the ice. And then how do you know how to associate that bubble of air with a time period.

When you read the papers... you see there is a lot of guestimating going on. So I don't need to write a paper... you just need to read them.

and note...

I still do not see you producing any real science saying man made co2 is causing warming.
I still do not see you proving that the entire increase is due to man made co2.
so I will help you.

What percent of total emissions is man's emission and how precise are the things that measure them. I have done that research. I understand the issues. lets see you actually do something useful and prove something with science.

 

[futurecurrents]

I am not saying they are wrong. I am pointing out that your side is grafting instrument data onto proxy data and not clearly explaining the issues with that process. In short... how the hell do you know all the co2 in the air at the time was captured and still in the ice. And then how do you know how to associate that bubble of air with a time period.

When you read the papers... you see there is a lot of guestimating going on. So I don't need to write a paper... you just need to read them.

and note...

I still do not see you producing any real science saying man made co2 is causing warming.
I still do not see you proving that the entire increase is due to man made co2.
so I will help you.

What percent of total emissions is man's emission and how precise are the things that measure them. I have done that research. I understand the issues. lets see you actually do something useful and prove something with science.

MY side? You mean the science? lol

So you can't even acknowledge that the sudden rise in CO2 is due to man yet you want some proof of AGW. Is that right?

 

[jem]

belolw is a page where people actually discuss the science... unlike you. you may disagree with their point of view... but they use data to support their points.

We have dealt with this before... I have linked to graphs which show the change in atmospheric co2 tracks with change in ocean temps...
not man's emissions.

Stop being a troll fc and discuss real science.

http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/...atural-sources/#sthash.AgKaDXGl.SOfzhlxc.dpbs

It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been.

As the sun gets quiet in the next few years, sea surface temperature will begin to fall, and the rise in CO2 will cease. If the sun stays quiet for 30 or 40 years, ocean surface temperatures will fall far enough to reverse the CO2 rise, the globe will enter a new little ice age, and things will get really interesting.

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/...atural-sources/#sthash.AgKaDXGl.SOfzhlxc.dpuf

I'm sure the ice researchers are interested in your brilliant technical analysis of their mistakes in making the measurements.

So do you believe that man has caused the increase or not?

 

[futurecurrents]

So you can't even acknowledge that the sudden rise in CO2 is due to man yet you want some proof of AGW. Is that right?

Answer the question troll....yes or no.

belolw is a page where people actually discuss the science... unlike you. you may disagree with their point of view... but they use data to support their points.

We have dealt with this before... I have linked to graphs which show the change in atmospheric co2 tracks with change in ocean temps...
not man's emissions.

Stop being a troll fc and discuss real science.

http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/...atural-sources/#sthash.AgKaDXGl.SOfzhlxc.dpbs

It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been.

As the sun gets quiet in the next few years, sea surface temperature will begin to fall, and the rise in CO2 will cease. If the sun stays quiet for 30 or 40 years, ocean surface temperatures will fall far enough to reverse the CO2 rise, the globe will enter a new little ice age, and things will get really interesting.

- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/...atural-sources/#sthash.AgKaDXGl.SOfzhlxc.dpuf

 

[jem]

troll...
I have answered the question...I go with this answer.

"It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources."

Now where is your science... other than cute graphs which do nothing to explain why co2 lags warming.

So you can't even acknowledge that the sudden rise in CO2 is due to man yet you want some proof of AGW. Is that right?

Answer the question troll....yes or no.

 

[futurecurrents]

troll...
I have answered the question...I go with this answer.

"It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources."

So that's what you believe even after seeing these charts. You're full of shit. Troll. Or you are incredibly stupid. I go with the former.

and this

and this

 

[jem]

try to understand what this chart is showing you... when you do you will see why we mistake your ignorance for your trollness.

Now tell me does the annual carbon increase match the green line or blue line.
I will make it easy for you... if man is putting out the green line but the annual carbon increase more closely follows the blue line... what do you think is 10 times more likely to be the cause of the increasing level of co2 in the atmosphere... the green line or the blue line.

 

[jem]

and you might consider this showing that the annual carbon increase close matches... the el nino la nina cycle. not the amount of co2 man puts out.

http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...not-vice-versa/#sthash.21q54jIo.vYHbYJGJ.dpbs

 

[futurecurrents]

Jem, I'm putting you ignore. I have no desire to deal with a psychotic liar that eagerly and knowingly peddles denier lies and has zero interest in the actual truth.

In short, go fuck yourself you goddamned liar, again.

 

[gwb-trading]