Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

LOL Oh spare us Legal. Everyone remembers the cow farting fiasco from your flat earth scientists.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/samlem...estimated-how-bad-cow-farts-are/#37d4ccf78a90

 

LOL You've proven nothing except they have an opinion its "likely" without evidence to support that they could eliminate all other factors by your own admission.

You are right that I refuse to believe your dogma when you don't have the numbers to back you up.

That's why you keep running when I ask you to quote any of your flat earth studies that actually give numbers of man made CO2 vs natural CO2.

 

HHAHAHAHA That's right. Attack the site with no evidence they are wrong. Such a classic Legal response. No evidence just dismiss it because it doesn't agree with your dogma.

No I argue they lack the evidence for your worthless theory because they don't and I've quoted them each time proving it. Not the same thing at all.

Unlike you I'm not going to attack your website I'll just quote the article to prove you wrong once again

Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3).

So its not 100% therefore you cannot claim that CO2 is the cause for temperatures to rise and your website does not take into account (what a shocker) of the thousands of years when CO2 did not follow the temperature of the planet. If it was the cause it would be 100% of the time and history of the planet has shown that is 100% false.

See I don't have to dismiss your websites for you without reading them as you do with no evidence. All I have to do is quote them.

 

Relax, we can fix this whole thing by sending Greta over to yell "HOW DARE YOU" at the thermometer. Right? I mean it would do just as much good for the environment as the wealth redistribution scam behind this entire climate hysteria agenda is doing. Actually, heh, probably not considering that Greta's so called "zero carbon" sailing trips actually involve multiple private jet flights for multiple crew members, publicists, and various agenda handlers.

 

God you just don't read carefully do you. Earthboy absolutely did. Post 543

We have to ask ourselves what other factors in orbital mechanics or solar activity were at play which you do not in saying that what was happening in the Ordovician proves that those stoopid climate scientists have it all wrong and you are the one true guy who is clever enough to peruse fossil fuel industry funded websites and figure it all out.

For God's sake Legal how many times am I going to have to prove you wrong about your own heroes?

 

LOL Because they don't. Please do not fabricate facts that don't exist.

If you are going to go with the BS claim that human based CO2 is larger than natural CO2 on this planet your own article proved you dead wrong.

But go ahead, quote it yourself. This should be amusing


You love asking questions let see if you can answer some very simple ones with factual evidence.

What is the percentage of man made CO2 vs natural CO2 on this planet right now. I'll be generous and let you go back 10-15 if you have to.

And what is your actual evidence that only human produced CO2 is the primary source for climate change?


My guess is you won't answer either one directly if we stay true to form

 

@MrTLegal your own website about CO2 production:

https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm <---your website's numbers

Veggies and animals 220 gigatones of CO2 per year

Ocean 332 gigatones

Humans 29 Gigatons.

Your own website puts human production of CO2 vs natural CO2 at 5.25%

Now that your own website has outed your fraud, where is your evidence that only the human produced 29 gigatons or 5.25% of all CO2 is strong enough on its own to be the primary source of climate change?

End this flat earther theory of yours right now with your answer cited with factual evidence.

Go.

 

You should probably know that although we announced our intention to leave the Paris agreement in 2017, we didn't begin the process of formally leaving the agreement until late 2019. The data in the article you shared is for the year 2017

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/773474657/u-s-formally-begins-to-leave-the-paris-climate-agreement

 

So what ???

 

This is true, and their population is actually closer to 4x higher than ours. Also, we're actually producing more Co2 overall than India, even though their population is also around 4x higher than ours. As far as co2 production per capita goes, we produce more than both India and China, however in past years Australia has actually produced more co2 per capita than the US

 

Well, to put it in simple terms, the notion that the US had the largest co2 reduction in 2017 without being a part of the Paris agreement is false, since the US was very much still in the Paris agreement in 2017. You see, the author of the article (along with the many people who share the article) assumed that the US was already out of the Paris agreement in 2017, since we announced our intention to leave the agreement in June of that year.

 

Keep reading the article instead of stopping right after the first data point that you like.

How does the article address the fact that natural CO2 emissions are ~20x higher than human CO2 emissions?

 

We can fix the problem by reducing CO2 emissions in the longer term and by planting a **** load of trees everywhere to buy us enough time to get to that point.

 

Where is the fiasco?

 

*sigh*

You literally respond to a post that provides numbers on natural vs human induced CO2 emissions and you have been quoted - numerous times - articles on numbers regarding the accumulation of human induced CO2 in the upper atmosphere.

And the reason why I have an admission that scientists are unable to eliminate all other variables is because we are being rational individuals and permitting the possibility that there are unknown variables. It is the height of idiocy to claim victory simply because the other side says, "We are 95% confident in our conclusion, but recognize that there are limits to our knowledge because the system is complex."

Especially when your "victory" includes placing the blame for the warming instead on "maybe a bunch of reasons."

 

Your non-recognized sources have been addressed and their failures exposed.

Meanwhile, the extent of your exposure of the recognized sources is a circular argument where you use your own conclusion as your evidence. That is also a classic legal argument by the way.

This is the 2nd time you've used a circular argument in this one post.

First you said, "they lack the evidence...because they don't." And now you are saying, "So it's not 100% therefore you cannot claim it is the cause...if it was the cause it would be 100% of the time."

Circular. You see that, right?

You are also demanding that we prove CO2 be the sole cause of all climate change which has never been the argument. It is the most dominant factor currently, but I already provided you a list of other variables and asked you to provide more. Any one of those could be the reason by the climate started to shift in whatever period of hundreds or thousands of years ago that you'd like to discuss and then CO2 concentrations increased or decreased and that further drove the climate change.

 

That's your quote for proving that he said "CO2 was not a primary factor in the climate change at that period?" When he said, "We have to ask ourselves what other factors in orbital mechanics or solar activity were at play?"

You do not need an explanation of the fact that other factors being in play does not somehow deprive CO2 of being a primary factor.

 

I would first demand that you finish reading the article and stop dodging the question with a hand wave of "they don't," but I already noted your dodge in a different post.

The data necessary to help answer your questions can be found, in part, here. Note: I am saying "in part" because this quote does not also referenced the measurements for global temperature over the same time frame.

Given that "About 40% of these anthropogenic CO2 emissions have remained in the atmosphere (880 ± 35 GtCO2) since 1750" and given that the CO2 concentration has risen about 280ppm to ~405ppm (Figure 1.3 below) and that the amount of CO2 from 1750 to 1950 rose a total of 30 points, it is a conservative estimate to say that approximately 25% of the total CO2 concentration is human added. Of the accumulated CO2, an ultra conservative estimate would be that 70% is the result of human produced CO2.

We can see that further by looking to the natural radiative adding (i.e. solar intensity and volcanic activity) is approximately 2% of the total radiative forcing from 2011 (figure 1.4).

 

Well if you want something done put government on it because that always works right? 'We' as in America should not be expected to rob ourselves of economic stability out of some hysterical fear of a looming apocalypse when the true threat is and shall continue for the next century to be: CHINA. In the last three decades our net CO2 emissions have increased by roughly 2%. In that same time period China's CO2 emissions, you ready for this, 270% increase and they aren't stopping any time soon. Their energy demands will continue to grow exponentially and if you thought the US had a coal problem them friendo you should check out China because they love them some coal over there.

I'm not saying we should just throw our hands up and do nothing simply because our reductions would be incomparable to China's increases. But why exactly should I suffer economically just to placate the climate mob when I know damn well it would make a difference in the here and now? What should any of us Americans be forced to endure such dramatic changes as those being proposed/demanded by progressives especially when the all too common side effect of their policy crafting just happens to make their benefactors and cohorts money in the process?

Our technology will get us where we need to be. When its mature enough to be effective on both a cost and functional plane it will take over because the market, not government regulation, will make it happen. And when that day comes we can consider policy that further mandates its adoption both domestically and internationally. But that day is not today and so I'm not getting on this bandwagon. Its a) not the right time, b) not worth sacrificing our economic stability for, c) not going to end up making a damn considering China, and d) not tolerable to allow the redistribute wealth scheme riding this climate panic wave. Eventually it will be, we'll get there, maybe not soon but it will happen. And thats ok because, contrary to what dingbat alarmists fear mongers like AOC and Greta have been brainwashing people with, the world isn't going to end in a few years.

But I like your tree planting suggestion. In fact I think all these people out there protesting and screaming their heads off on this subject should shut up for a day or two and go plant a tree.

 

If you have to ask then you have merely been posing as a climate change groupie, as obviously you haven't been keeping up with ALL of the leftist script.

 

I have been following the climate change science, closely, for a while now and that is precisely why I am asking what the actual **** you think you are saying? No one wants to shove a cork up a cows ass to reduce methane emissions.

 

To put it in simpler terms the Paris agreement had nothing whatsoever to do with the CO2 reduction. It was the result of an increase in US fossil fuel production.

And again in simple terms the reduction in the US CO2 emissions has had zero effect on global warming.

 

So you are just going to flat out makes things up now huh Legal? Quote your article where it states human produced CO2 is 20 times the effect on climate change than natural CO2. Since you are just outright making things up now go ahead, quote your article where it says that.

 

Try reading. I said

 

In other words, signing the Paris accords was a complete waste of time and money as we would be reducing CO2 emissions anyway.

CO2 emissions has had zero effect on global warming. Zero. It's also NOT melting glaciers.