"Man Made Global Warming From CO2 Emmissions... TOTAL BULLSHIT!!

jem is the typical conservative mind. Rigid. He is unable to comprehend that CO2 can both lag and lead temps or that it can act to both cool and warm the earth. He is unable to keep those ideas in his mind at the same time. Another interesting observance of the conservative mind. Rigid, simple,delusional and unable to accept new information. Also highly selective about what information he will consider. He rejects any info that runs counter to his delusions.
 
This is a very fascinating and literate article on volcanic CO2 for anyone interested in such. It was written by Timothy Casey, an Australian petroleum geologist, and so some will immediately dismiss it. I found it a beautiful review of our present knowledge with regard to volcanic and other forms of magmatic CO2 emissions, and the problems to be encountered in carbon isotope analysis of CO2. Also, there is buried, deep in the article, a plausible alternative cause for our current warming cycle having nothing to do with CO2 that I have not seen suggested anywhere else. The discussion Casey has provided also may be relevant to explaining why satellite sensing of CO2 emission show heavy emission in some of the least populated areas of the earth, central Africa for instance.

For those of you after serious scientific detail with regard to the current "climate change" issue that we previously referred to as AGW, this is a great read.

http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/


Cool. A petroleum geologist. Not only qualified but unbiased.

LOL

Are you for real pie?

Pie, the 40% increase in CO2 is not from volcanoes. Volcanoes did not suddenly start spewing extra CO2 at the start of the industrial revolution. You truly strain credulity. You really should work for a conservative think tank if you don't already.
 
Last edited:
I think I know why pie is so confused. He doesn't know what a real scientific paper looks like. It certainly does not have titles for the paragraphs like the following....

How Volcanoes make the Carbon Budget Holier than Thou

Calculated Estimates: Glorified Guesswork

Abusing Doctor Suess: Pulling the Cat out of the Hat

and then there is the place one can donate money to this website. Gee, I wonder how much Koch bros money goes there?

Piezoe is a deceitful fraud. Period.

Wait, maybe piehole is Murray Salby!
 
Last edited:
And it has nothing to do with the reality of this........


Co2ClimateChangeAndFossilFuel.jpg


[Edited by Magna:] Besides Baron's warning above you also have a Private Message to be read. I suggest you take the warning and the message seriously.

Just to be sure that we are keeping count - futurecurrents has posted this exact url image 69 times. He has posted the same image using other urls a total of 102 times. This is much more than a half dozen times.

and yes, this is the definition of excessive.

Clyf4wr.jpg
 
of course you have zero proof that co2 leads temperature...
we keep asking for the data... and you present your distorted chart that does not show anything but that co2 lags temps.

if you had any science showing co2 leads tems... you would have a nobel prize.

Note saying co2 is a greenhouse gas and it has gone up... means nothing about what it does.
It follows but lags change in ocean temps by one year...


jem is the typical conservative mind. Rigid. He is unable to comprehend that CO2 can both lag and lead temps or that it can act to both cool and warm the earth. He is unable to keep those ideas in his mind at the same time. Another interesting observance of the conservative mind. Rigid, simple,delusional and unable to accept new information. Also highly selective about what information he will consider. He rejects any info that runs counter to his delusions.
 
Just to be sure that we are keeping count - futurecurrents has posted this exact url image 69 times. He has posted the same image using other urls a total of 102 times. This is much more than a half dozen times.

and yes, this is the definition of excessive.

Clyf4wr.jpg


What's the matter? Hate seeing the single best proof that you are an idiot?
 
of course you have zero proof that co2 leads temperature...
we keep asking for the data... and you present your distorted chart that does not show anything but that co2 lags temps.

if you had any science showing co2 leads tems... you would have a nobel prize.

Note saying co2 is a greenhouse gas and it has gone up... means nothing about what it does.
It follows but lags change in ocean temps by one year...


You're fucked up.
 
http://abcnews.go.com/US/ice-visible-lake-superior-weeks-ahead-schedule/story?id=26939239

Ice Visible on Lake Superior Weeks Ahead of Schedule

Cold temperatures and snow across the Great Lakes in November is certainly nothing out of the ordinary, but this morning, a layer of ice was visible on parts of Lake Superior in Ashland, Wis.

While this may not seem unusual given the current stretch of unseasonably cold temperatures, it is actually several weeks earlier than normal.

The first sightings of ice on Lake Superior and the Great Lakes overall usually occur during the beginning to middle of December. However, a perfect combination of last season's record ice coverage, cooler summer temperatures, and an early blast of arctic air this fall has allowed for areas of ice to form earlier than normal for the second year in a row.
 
Cool. A petroleum geologist. Not only qualified but unbiased.

LOL

Are you for real pie?

Pie, the 40% increase in CO2 is not from volcanoes. Volcanoes did not suddenly start spewing extra CO2 at the start of the industrial revolution. You truly strain credulity. You really should work for a conservative think tank if you don't already.

I called your attention to a nice review of the literature bearing on our current knowledge re volcanic emissions and the various conflicting estimates of the amount of magnitic emissions. The author's training clearly qualifies him to write such a review, whereas I would think him less qualified to post on the other topics on his blog. All of this information re volcanic activity was new to me.

I thought his article on the Greenhouse effect, somewhat missed the boat, so to speak. It was an interesting review of the very early history; he claims Arrhenius misunderstood Fourier. However his review is strictly from an equilibrium thermodynamic viewpoint , and this alone can''t provide an adequate understanding of the Greenhouse Effect. He did not evidence any understanding of the photophysics; and he failed to recognize that non-equilibrium thermodynamics is involved. It is the relative rates of heat production and dissipation rather than just the amounts of production and dissipation that must be taken into account.
 
Back
Top