Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2


Locutus
+1
#1
The genius of Al Gore

Give Al Gore an A for marketing and an F for science. But, hey, we all know the sale is in the marketing. The genius of Al Gore was to make his invalid myth simple:
  1. Our CO2 emissions increase Atmosphere CO2, and
  2. Atmosphere CO2 heats the Earth.
What could be simpler? Al Gore assumed his two invalid claims were true. His marketing job was to make you believe bad things happen when Atmosphere CO2 rises.

Everybody believed Al Gore. Well, almost everybody. His simple, inaccurate description of how our climate works created a generation of science deniers, some with PhD’s. Al Gore turned climate science into a political-environmental movement.

The alarmists’ goal is to scare you into believing our CO2 causes climate change. Once scared into an invalid belief, you will tend to hold that invalid belief forever.

Those who believe Al Gore’s marketing believe they can make the Earth cooler by reducing our CO2 emissions. Al Gore has sold them a bridge to nowhere.

Climate alarmists are like the Aztecs who believed they could make rain by cutting out beating hearts and rolling decapitated heads down temple steps.

Both of Al Gore’s two assumptions are wrong. This article shows how his first assumption is wrong. Nature, not human CO2 emissions, causes the changes in Atmosphere CO2.

The Logical Fallacy of Climate Change

Climate alarmists tell us climate change causes bad stuff to happen, and if bad stuff happens, they claim it is our fault. The alarmist logic goes like this:

If human CO2 causes climate change, then bad stuff will happen.

Bad stuff happens. Therefore, human CO2 causes climate change.

This alarmist claim is the well-known logical fallacy called “Affirming the Consequent.” Here is an example that illustrates this logical fallacy:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich.

Bill Gates is rich. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

The logical error is to assume that every result has only one possible cause. Shrinking glaciers do not prove we caused them to shrink.

The relevant climate change questions are about cause and effect.

The relevant climate change questions are not whether the climate has changed. Climate always changes. The only relevant climate change questions concern cause and effect:
  1. Do Human CO2 emissions significantly increase Atmosphere CO2?
  2. Does Atmosphere CO2 significantly increase climate change?
Climate alarmists must prove BOTH answers are YES. Otherwise, they lose their case.

This article shows why the answer to the first question is NO. A future article will show why the answer to the second question is also NO.

Why Human CO2 emissions do not cause climate change.

read on


Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2 (external - login to view)
 
Cannuck
+2
#2  Top Rated Post
Well, that settles it then

Hehehehe
 
petros
+2
#3
But but but...warmest year "on record".

And sources, I bet his citations are from University of Evil in Dallas Texas.


Oh, wait!


References

CDIAC, 2016: Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions. Global Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions

Courtney, Richard S, 2008: Limits to existing quantitative understanding of past, present and future changes to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. International Conference on Climate Change, New York.

IPCC, 2007a: Working Group 1: The Scientific Basis. IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPCC, 2007b: Report 3. The Carbon Cycle and Atmosphere Carbon Dioxide. www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-03.pdf (external - login to view) – Oceans Land Emissions = 100

NOAA, 2016: ESRL CO2 data beginning in 1959. ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/tren...nnmean_mlo.txt

Olivier, Jos et. al., 2015: Trends in global CO2 emissions: 2015 Report. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_d...port-98184.pdf (external - login to view)

Salby, Murry, 2012: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate. Cambridge University Press. 666 pp. https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Atmos...oding=UTF8&me= (external - login to view)

Salby, Murry, 2015: CO2 follows the Integral of Temperature, video. Murry Salby: CO2 follows Integral of Temperature (external - login to view)

Salby, Murry, 2016: Atmosphere Carbon Dioxide, video. edberry.com/blog/climate-phys...-18-july-2016/ (external - login to view)

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Well, that settles it then

Hehehehe

 
EagleSmack
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post



Rofl!
 
MHz
#5
Trees and other green things??
 
darkbeaver
+1
#6
Al Gore is planetophile. He should be humped by a mountain.
 
Curious Cdn
+1
#7
The genius of Al Gore was to make his invalid myth simple:

The planetary scientists at NASA cooked up this "myth" back in the sixties and seventies, not Al Gore. They were trying to explain why Venus is much hotter than it's proximity to the sun should cause it to be. The Venetian atmosphere is thick with CO2 and it seems to trap and relect infrared energy to the point that Venus is as hot as fire. Yes, it is closer to the sun but not THAT much closer. The greenhouse gas theory originated there and it was extrapolated to apply to our planet, as well.
 
taxslave
#8
Poor flossy. Pwned again.
 
Danbones
#9
Congress: Obama Admin
Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans
Investigation claims Obama admin retaliated against scientists, politicized DoE
Obama Admin Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans (external - login to view)

who put the con in consensniff?
 
Cannuck
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

The genius of Al Gore was to make his invalid myth simple:

The planetary scientists at NASA cooked up this "myth" back in the sixties and seventies, not Al Gore. They were trying to explain why Venus is much hotter than it's proximity to the sun should cause it to be. The Venetian atmosphere is thick with CO2 and it seems to trap and relect infrared energy to the point that Venus is as hot as fire. Yes, it is closer to the sun but not THAT much closer. The greenhouse gas theory originated there and it was extrapolated to apply to our planet, as well.



Will you Fack off with your fancy schmancy science bull****? People are tryin' to have a good cry.
 
darkbeaver
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

The genius of Al Gore was to make his invalid myth simple:

The planetary scientists at NASA cooked up this "myth" back in the sixties and seventies, not Al Gore. They were trying to explain why Venus is much hotter than it's proximity to the sun should cause it to be. The Venetian atmosphere is thick with CO2 and it seems to trap and relect infrared energy to the point that Venus is as hot as fire. Yes, it is closer to the sun but not THAT much closer. The greenhouse gas theory originated there and it was extrapolated to apply to our planet, as well.

Venus is hot cuz it's new (within recorded history) the origin of comet fear.

If there are any Martians left they would verify the suggested.

All cooked by discharge events I'm afraid.

My new book, out this month, How the Bankers Par Boiled Mars.
 
MHz
#12
250MYA the siberian Traps started erupting and that lasted for about 1MY and in that time it erupted something like 3M cubic kilometers out. My abacus would take me too long and the brains around here should be able to go where I do not seem to be able to go without a detour to put the numbers in the right place so the answer (want the 'Q' word?) is as close as humanly possible to logical as possible. (I don't ever care if that is not proper English. If some drop out over it so much the better.

Back to the math. If the average increase was in a scale of 10 and worked out to 1 degree C every 100,000Y and at the end of that period the north would be ice-free and the equator would be ???? as far as I know. The currents might have been faster so the winds would be faster, etc. Lave to that high temp could be determined so the total input could be determined and that same input would be needed today. Oddly enough the 40,000 miles of oceanic rifts could be looked at as the Siberian Rift as far as heat output is it was spreading at a certain rate. The fault-line speeding up and down would affect the weather and the winds above the water, a lit of water.

I assume at the end of that the scientific answer would be left, loosely refereed to as 'a fact'.If that is correct then I can carry on as is.
 

Similar Threads

43
57
The construction of the upper atmosphere.
by eanassir | May 15th, 2009
1
Atmosphere quite clean today
by Walter | Aug 25th, 2008
no new posts