Global Warming 'Splained

[boedicca]

You've got the definition of cult all wrong, bub.

Those of you who worship "faith based science" are The Cult.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And nobody stated that the warming would be perfectly linear, old gal.

However, April makes the 314 straight month that the global average has been above the average for the 20th century. And, in spite of a very strong La Nina, April was the seventh warmest April on record.

Have you told Phil Jones about this?

Based on what altered data set?

You're lost in your own little delusional world of denier cult myths and so nothing you say on this forum makes any sense whatsoever. You are a worthless troll.

And the reason you still can't show us one (1) lab experiment showing how a 60PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature is....

 

[boedicca]

C'mon CF...WHERE'S YOUR FAITH!?!?!?!?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

C'mon CF...WHERE'S YOUR FAITH!?!?!?!?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu3VTngm1F0]YouTube - ‪George Michael - Faith (US Version)‬‏[/ame]

 

[Trakar]

...And this is just the start, even if we could cease all open-cycle combustion of fossil fuels today, it would take a century or more before the planet equilibrates to the additional CO2 we have already added to the atmosphere, and several millenia before temperatures begin to decrease to where they would have been without mankind's atmospheric dumping. So far we seem to be stuck at (or near) the top end of (Business As Usual) which means not just continued emissions, but continued accelerating emission rates. If this continues unabated we could easily see a tripling of preindustrial atmospheric CO2 levels within the next 6-10 decades and an initiating of planetary conditions that will, over a few centuries, come more to resemble those of the PETM, rather than anything that has existed on this planet in the history of our species.

Unfortunately, you are sorely misinformed. The itsy bitsy amount of warming we have seen since end of the Little Ice Age is very moderate on a global, millenial scale.

Please support this assertion with appropriate supportive scientific cite or reference.

 

[boedicca]

...And this is just the start, even if we could cease all open-cycle combustion of fossil fuels today, it would take a century or more before the planet equilibrates to the additional CO2 we have already added to the atmosphere, and several millenia before temperatures begin to decrease to where they would have been without mankind's atmospheric dumping. So far we seem to be stuck at (or near) the top end of (Business As Usual) which means not just continued emissions, but continued accelerating emission rates. If this continues unabated we could easily see a tripling of preindustrial atmospheric CO2 levels within the next 6-10 decades and an initiating of planetary conditions that will, over a few centuries, come more to resemble those of the PETM, rather than anything that has existed on this planet in the history of our species.

Unfortunately, you are sorely misinformed. The itsy bitsy amount of warming we have seen since end of the Little Ice Age is very moderate on a global, millenial scale.

Please support this assertion with appropriate supportive scientific cite or reference.

Here you go, you said little booby. The earth is far older than the 150 or so years upon which the AGW focuses.

Filehanerozoic Climate Change.png - Wikimedia Commons


And let's have a look at temps since the last major glacial period.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

 

[Trakar]

Lengthen bond maturities?

ROFLOL!

Indeed, If I could just figure out how to sell low interest, long-term maturity bonds from my company to people who are unlikely to be able to redeem them in say 30 years (which unfortunately is probably how long I'll have to keep at what I'm doing),...my grandkids would probably really like it.

Of course, if the economy is completely trashed, money on paper isn't going to do me much good.

 

[Trakar]

...The time scale the AGW Mongers focus on is equally irrelevant. Yes, 110 million years is largely irrelevant to humanity...but 150 years is irrelevant for The Globe.

The time scales that are relevant have been posted repeatedly, and show that the current change is not unusual.

Cite or reference?

Irrelevent to what?

 

[Trakar]

...Have you told Phil Jones about this?

Based on what altered data set?

Compelling and verifiable evidences and supports for any relevent altered datasets?

 

[RollingThunder]

Unfortunately, you are sorely misinformed. The itsy bitsy amount of warming we have seen since end of the Little Ice Age is very moderate on a global, millenial scale.

Please support this assertion with appropriate supportive scientific cite or reference.

Here you go, you said little booby. The earth is far older than the 150 or so years upon which the AGW focuses.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/boedicca-albums-more-boedicca-s-stuff-picture3539-phanerozoic-climate-change.png[/IMG
[url=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png]File:Phanerozoic Climate Change.png - Wikimedia Commons[/url][/QUOTE]

You are such a silly retard, bowedbydick. You talk about warming being "very moderate on a global, [B][SIZE="4"][COLOR="Red"]millenial[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B] scale" and then when asked for some scientific references to support your contentions, you cite a chart that covers 542 million years. LOL. Sooooo retarded. Millennial (actual spelling) refers to thousand year periods, not millions of years.

This is the relevant chart.

[IMG]http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/sweet-spot-big.jpg


***

 

[boedicca]

Your "Relevant Chart" includes bull shit extrapolations regarding future trends which are just as accurate as the ones in 2000 which predicted that the dot com bubble would last forever.

 

[RollingThunder]

Your "Relevant Chart" includes bull shit extrapolations regarding future trends which are just as accurate as the ones in 2000 which predicted that the dot com bubble would last forever.

Just more retarded nonsense from someone who is totally clueless about the science involved.

 

[Trakar]

...And the reason you still can't show us one (1) lab experiment showing how a 60PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature is....

Equipment needed:

Two large, thick-wall, insulated pressure vessels with IR transparent sealed ports.
IR generator
dry Nitrogen source
dry CO2 source
precision temp. measurement equipment
vaccuum pump

Purge the two vessels, carefully fill one container with 100% dry Nitrogen and then fill the other with 99.99994% dry Nitrogen and 0.00006% dry CO2. Seal both vessels affix IR source to IR transparent port and power up, await equilibration of systems (shouldn't take more than a few hours--EDIT--depending upon the size of your samples! --end EDIT--), and then measure the ambient air temperature within the container to the nearest ten thousandth of a degree. Carefully repeat entire procedure three times carefully recording all data. At this level the temperature differential will be small, but if laboratory practices are duly rigorous, you should be able to record a significant difference between the to sample atmospheres in accord with mainstream physics findings and understandings.

There are more simple ways to test and verify the GHG potential of CO2 (or any other GHG) but this methodology fulfills your specifications and will produce verification of the more traditional obtained results. If you have any questions or problems please feel free to ask or share them.

 

[Trakar]

C'mon CF...WHERE'S YOUR FAITH!?!?!?!?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu3VTngm1F0]YouTube - ‪George Michael - Faith (US Version)‬‏[/ame]

Do you get teased much for being a George Michael fan?

 

[Trakar]

Unfortunately, you are sorely misinformed. The itsy bitsy amount of warming we have seen since end of the Little Ice Age is very moderate on a global, millenial scale.

Please support this assertion with appropriate supportive scientific cite or reference.

Here you go, you said little booby. The earth is far older than the 150 or so years upon which the AGW focuses.


Filehanerozoic Climate Change.png - Wikimedia Commons

This appears to be a single site measurement of an isotope of Oxygen, which says virtually nothing directly about Global CO2 levels or Global temperatures. Please cite or reference the paper that it comes from.

And let's have a look at temps since the last major glacial period.


File:Holocene Temperature Variations.png - Wikimedia Commons

And this says nothing about CO2 levels but does indicate that global temperatures are dramatically warmer now than they have been at any time in the last 12,000 years.

I was asking for support for your assertions, but I do appreciate your efforts and support for what I stated in the first place.

 

[daveman]

You are a worthless troll.

You really should seek professional help for your projection issues.

An anonymous message board isn't proper therapy.

Noticing that you and ol' CrustyFrankfurter are ignorant denier cult trolls is simply being perceptive. You've both been bamboozled by the propaganda and misinformation that the fossil fuel industry has pumped into your heads. You both reject the testimony of the world science community and the mountains of evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming/climate changes and instead hold tight to the myths and lies fed to you by politically and economically motivated ideologues and stooges for the oil corps. You're both anti-science ignoramuses severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Or, in simple language that you can understand, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

You serve your masters well, and you will be rewarded.

 

[boedicca]

Your "Relevant Chart" includes bull shit extrapolations regarding future trends which are just as accurate as the ones in 2000 which predicted that the dot com bubble would last forever.

Just more retarded nonsense from someone who is totally clueless about the science involved.

More nonsense from TrollingBlunder.

AGW Mongers often quote the change in temps since the mid 1800s, which was the end of the mini Ice Age. They ignore the long history of climate change over millions of years for a reason: it shows they are making much ado about nothing.

 

[daveman]

...And the reason you still can't show us one (1) lab experiment showing how a 60PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature is....

Equipment needed:

Two large, thick-wall, insulated pressure vessels with IR transparent sealed ports.
IR generator
dry Nitrogen source
dry CO2 source
precision temp. measurement equipment
vaccuum pump

Purge the two vessels, carefully fill one container with 100% dry Nitrogen and then fill the other with 99.99994% dry Nitrogen and 0.00006% dry CO2. Seal both vessels affix IR source to IR transparent port and power up, await equilibration of systems (shouldn't take more than a few hours--EDIT--depending upon the size of your samples! --end EDIT--), and then measure the ambient air temperature within the container to the nearest ten thousandth of a degree. Carefully repeat entire procedure three times carefully recording all data. At this level the temperature differential will be small, but if laboratory practices are duly rigorous, you should be able to record a significant difference between the to sample atmospheres in accord with mainstream physics findings and understandings.

There are more simple ways to test and verify the GHG potential of CO2 (or any other GHG) but this methodology fulfills your specifications and will produce verification of the more traditional obtained results. If you have any questions or problems please feel free to ask or share them.

Congratulations. You just proved how CO2 behaves in a small pressure vessel when exposed to a very narrow band of the EM spectrum.

Are you saying the entire planet will behave the same way? That there aren't hundreds more variables at play in the real world?

Sorry. Not good enough for me to support crippling the economies of the entire Western world

Do you really want to

 

[Trakar]

...And the reason you still can't show us one (1) lab experiment showing how a 60PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature is....

Equipment needed:

Two large, thick-wall, insulated pressure vessels with IR transparent sealed ports.
IR generator
dry Nitrogen source
dry CO2 source
precision temp. measurement equipment
vaccuum pump

Purge the two vessels, carefully fill one container with 100% dry Nitrogen and then fill the other with 99.99994% dry Nitrogen and 0.00006% dry CO2. Seal both vessels affix IR source to IR transparent port and power up, await equilibration of systems (shouldn't take more than a few hours--EDIT--depending upon the size of your samples! --end EDIT--), and then measure the ambient air temperature within the container to the nearest ten thousandth of a degree. Carefully repeat entire procedure three times carefully recording all data. At this level the temperature differential will be small, but if laboratory practices are duly rigorous, you should be able to record a significant difference between the to sample atmospheres in accord with mainstream physics findings and understandings.

There are more simple ways to test and verify the GHG potential of CO2 (or any other GHG) but this methodology fulfills your specifications and will produce verification of the more traditional obtained results. If you have any questions or problems please feel free to ask or share them.

Congratulations. You just proved how CO2 behaves in a small pressure vessel when exposed to a very narrow band of the EM spectrum.

Are you saying the entire planet will behave the same way?...

That's your strawman, I was simply providing what was being requested.

 

[RollingThunder]

You really should seek professional help for your projection issues.

An anonymous message board isn't proper therapy.

Noticing that you and ol' CrustyFrankfurter are ignorant denier cult trolls is simply being perceptive. You've both been bamboozled by the propaganda and misinformation that the fossil fuel industry has pumped into your heads. You both reject the testimony of the world science community and the mountains of evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming/climate changes and instead hold tight to the myths and lies fed to you by politically and economically motivated ideologues and stooges for the oil corps. You're both anti-science ignoramuses severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Or, in simple language that you can understand, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

You serve your masters well, and you will be rewarded.

LOLOLOL....you are such a delusional nutjob....and soooo clueless....everything I just said to ol' Bowedbydick and CrustyFrankfurter goes for you too, Daveboy.....you poor confused dupe...