AGW vs NATURE- One point at a time

On the contrary you got caught out and have been tap dancing ever since

 

Oh really?... LOL… So you are trying to support a logical fallacy. As stated, you could have gone to the site and found the information yourself, but you chose to attempt subversion to score some point. The reference is on the graph, Dumb just linked from the site he got it who actually did nothing but used it to demonstrate a point. It is your assumption that it was made from the site he linked. Tap dance?... LOL

So far nothing has been debated except the attempt to create logical fallacies and the obvious inability of TV to stick to one point and answer it, as he demanded... LOL.

 

No I think you got yourself caught out because when asked who supplied the data you did not indicate which organisation on the list you provided was the source. And in my post 91 I did correctly indicate the roll of
Woodfortrees.org played in the process. And don't bother going on a scramble to figure out where the data came from because I have already done that

 

Sorry about that, I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that you were indicating that the author of the article Dumb pulled the graph from was the compiler of the graph. As all the data and graphing was done on that site, I assumed that is what you meant. I apologise.

But no, I was not caught out, it is the best TV can understand, so it is directed to his level but I do apolagise for grouping him with you. That is my mistake and sometimes a failing of mine, not to consider others to be different.

So still it would seem you want to support a logical fallacy, or do you have some evidence to dispute the graph?

 

No, it has not been confirmed... That was your claim of correlation... that you cannot confirm or even explain... So please provide evidence of this claim that there is a correlation between CO2 and Warming atmosphere.

The fact you dispute the graphs posted is fine, but the question is why? ‘No idea’ I am guessing. I have referenced the particular graph you are pretending is mysterious. Unfortunately you cannot refute it or even find a source that refutes it, so you lie to create a logical fallacy… LOL

You state they are from dodgy sources but show nothing of those dodgy sources to say that they are incorrect… In case you did not know, that is a logical fallacy. The source is dodgy so the data must be. So far you have shown no rebuttal or even anything to indicate they are not correct… So I assume you have not heard from your handlers so they can give you an opinion. ‘Just refute the evidence no matter what is said, because it does not fit your opinion’. LOL talk about being a drone, unable to think for yourself… LOL

Actually, you should clarify that to mean current trend is upwards. Because overall trend is actually down. Go back 5 million, 6 million or even 20 million (not sure how you expect to do that last one) but considering that the 'trend' 5 million years ago started far higher than it is now and has been since... NO overall trend is still down.

What is your explanation for this? CO2, I am guessing yet you have not demonstrated or even correlated this supposed forcing.

LOL... Natural balanced levels? Please provide your evidence for that one. Perhaps somebody maybe able to tell you what the natural balances of CO2 levels are? So far you have only shown CO2 levels of 400,000 years and simply deny the evidence of other data that shows you are wrong, by a logical fallacy. You have provided no sources to refute and no evidence of anything actually... except your own inability to think for yourself...LOL

LOL... The confirmation that science does not know why Water vapour is dissipating in the atmosphere as the level of CO2 rises. In the theory is that CO2 should increase the devastating effect of water vapour and it is not happening. So that imbalance you are talking about is not demonstrated by such.

A conspiracy theory? Looks like hypocrisy to me... LOL

Yep conspiracy theory... Isn't it funny, when they have nothing they throw conspiracies around... Oh sorry that is supposed to be the side of sceptical side... funny how the religion does it... LOL

So basically it is a religion to you. "If you have faith they will come".... No evidence of support or rebuttal... No answers to questions.... not even support for your claims... you simply provide logical fallacies, strawman and conspiracy theories... LOL. Are you sure you not still in school? LOL

That explains much...

 

Never has been correlation between CO2 and temperature and there never will be.

Is there any corelation between CO2 and temperature?

On a small time scale NO, (11,000 years)

On a medium time scale YES???, (450,000 years)
(NO)Only because the graph is zoomed out

On a long time scale NO, (millions of years)

 

Dumb, you are dragging out anything you can without further investigation aren't you. The creator of the graph acknowledges his mistake in the link below.

First Graph: After closer observation, I got a little suspicious noticing that the co2ppm on the bottom graph was not representative of current levels of 395ppm. Dr Humlum, the creator of the graph uses a single proxy from a confined area, not from updated global records. I'm fairly certain that the configurations of the graph would be totally different had the global proxies been included. As is stated he hadn't actually included recent data, including both temperature and data.
As you can see, the 2010 temperature measure that is pointed out is further additional years of data added to what is a outdated graph.

I AM SURE WE CAN AGREE THAT YOUR FIRST GRAPH IS SHONKY"! Should never be used again in the debate!
http://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=670



Second Graph is legit. I know, I know you hate the way it represents the correlation, but it is clearly there to see.....that's the data



Third Graph Is poorly constructed based on the information in the link. The link actually represents co2 levels at around 300ppm back to 650,000 years ago. The information does not include temperature strangely. I AM SURE WE CAN AGREE THAT THIS GRAPH IS SHONKY AS WELL!

I suppose, your graphs have been debunked. If you can't find credible information dumb, GIVE UP!!!

 

What data? It is just a pretty picture which has been created by data. Please provide the data or some evidence of the correlation and what it is. Your assumption it not enough.

Go back and have a closer look... LOL perhaps a lesson in reading the pretty pictures maybe needed... LOL But it is not legit according to you, but the graph says.... LOL

Oh so you have nothing, so it must be true it is debunked, because it does not suite your faith... LOL please provide the evidence of your claims... No just logical fallacies and strawman debate... LOL

 

The reason you say this graph is legit is because it is a graph that you have posted in support of your claims. Unfortunately TV, because you do not have very well developed skills of observation, reason and logic you cannot see that the graph shows just the opposite, the graph shows that CO2 levels DO NOT affect temperature. It is the other way around, temperature tends to affects CO2 levels, maybe. Although this is what the graph appears to show, this observation is still not necessarily correct because we also have to consider there may be no connection between temperature and CO2 whatsoever and the general congruence of temperature and CO2 rise and fall may be due another factor or factors that are acting on temperature and CO2 levels and causing them to rise and fall in roughly similar ways.

 

TV when you start being realistic and when you can understand the data you are viewing i will respond.

Until that time you can go on parading your bells and whistles, which we all know on this forum are nothing more than hot air.

You'll get a response when you put down something worthy to respond to.

 

There is a clear correlation between the 2, which can not be disputed. Amplification is the key word....Now what is happening is that unnatural levels(Man made) of co2 in our atmosphere will obviously amplify warming over and above what nature intended. Remember co2 levels and temperature have been at the same levels for 650,000 years. It's a bit like a match being the initial source of fire, but then throw some twigs, sticks, logs, trees, sawmills or even forests on the fire...lol(You got one big problem by the way if you do this!). More wood on the fire means a bigger fire and amplifies the heat! The wood isn't the main driver is it, but it certainly keeps the fire going.

 

I think you are a little bit taken aback that more and more people are highlighting flaws in your information buddy. If you had a response I'm sure you would have responded!

 

That post seems to be more about your posting style TV. You have failed to stick to your own rules you set out in this thread.

 

All I can say to that TV is you had better give mumy a kiss goodnight and hop into bed, you've got school tomorrow.

 

On a serious note, it is quite clear that humanity has an issue on its hands. How we deal with it to slow down warming is a bone of contention. Economists have suggested that the ETS is our best option econically. As has been discussed the direct action could be a good option but extremely expensive to get the same result. It should be a serious issue that we all need to fully consider. If Abbott becomes next prime minister we need to let him know that it is alright to flip flop on this one, it is more about the immediate future of our children and grandchildren than politics.

 

But TV

How do you feel about paying a carbon tax that reduces CO2 emissions on paper through the purchase of carbon credits.

And in the real world our CO2 and the worlds CO2 emissions will keep going up ???????????

Dont you feel as though your being ripped off???????

 

Dumb, lets just settle the last point first. Honestly, do you really believe warming is not an issue? I had my doubts until you took me down the road of serious investigation.

 

No i dont believe warming is an issue, its all part of the natural cycle of the Earth, temperature fluctuates up and down.

Hell if we listened to these bozos in the 1970's they were calling for global cooling cause we were on the decending part of the peak, and they wanted to melt the arctic, didn't think about polar bears then.

If we look into our past CO2 has never driven major climate change or a greenhouse effect, even when we had 7000ppm compared to todays 390ppm, if the earth's sinks could handle it then what has changed now.

You also have to look at when did most of the global warming happen last century it happened before 1940 and we know that in 1940 manufacturing shot through the roof and therefore CO2 emissions due to WW2, from 1940 to 1970 we had global cooling and these clowns well you know what they wanted to do.

Nearly 1/3 of ALL manmade CO2 has been released into the atmosphere since 1998 yet temperatures are remaining stable.



The temperature rise is due to the elnino and not CO2 but this is their opportunity for shock and awe so they can enslave us through for our energy use, its bad enough they have enlsaved us through the debt system we have today now they want to charge the whole world on energy use.

No the earth has warmed but its just part of her natural cycle, can anyone believe that we can somehow control the Earth's temperature, we maybe the dominant species on the planet but we have a ways to go before we can do that sort of thing.

Ou history tells us that todays temperature and CO2 levels are some of the lowest we have ever had.

The Earth has warmed but its her natural cycle nothing to do with manmade CO2 emissions which are dwarfed by natural CO2 emissions.

Natural CO2 emissions every years = 720 Giga tonnes

Manmade CO2 emissions every year = 30 Giga tonnes

30/720 = 0.04166%

Man emitts 4% of all the CO2 emissions here on Earth the other 96% comes from nature.

How can manmade CO2 emissions detroy us?

You dont have to be a proffesser to work that one out!!!!


.

 

So again we have nothing but your opinion and lies.

Do you ever think you will supply some evidence of your claims?

 

There is no use debating the next topic with you, we will have to continue down this line.

As technology advances so does our understanding of our world. Hell mobile phones and Internet to name a couple weren't advanced enough for general use. There are numerous other technologies and information that weren't known back then that are now. Of course scientists may have been suspicious but it doesn't mean it was some crazy conspiracy!

We are overloading what nature intended and therefore amplifying the situation. Trees are one of our main carbon sinks and we know what ripping them out means don't we....or should know anyway! Why are carbon credits part of the the ETS system for goodness sake!

While you keep coming up with old debunked material, I'll keep debunking it. Shouldn't have to dumb!

Show me a graph that demonstrates cooling as a trend and I will believe you. At this stage you havent, you've only shown me graphs that provide select data that deceivingly shows oscillations! Forget about prior to 650,000years ago, the world was still finding balance and the planet was much different.

 

No TV just considers it Took over 65 million years to develop for man kind. the planet is balanced for humans and that is the way it is going to stay... He wants evidence but only for the last 450,000 years because he can not simply deny longer... LOL He does not consider the planet does not care about human kind and will continue to change no matter what he thinks. The universe revolves around human kind... LOL... his Authority is enough to debunk things, he does not need evidence... Just his opinion..LOL

 

There is no use discussing climate action such as the ETS, direction action plan and carbon tax etc, with you guys, if you believe there is not a need for it. I think the discussion should be left to those who want to consider options we should and could take as a nation. Your disagreement with AGW is on the record and therefore respect your opinion.