Heat Generated by 120 ppm of additional CO2

[Crick]

Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive

 

[Darkwind]

So, CO2 generates heat now? What an amazing energy source it must be!

 

[Crick]

In our environment, yes it does and yes it is.

The Earth is 510.1 trillion square meters so the energy being added to the planet is 1.168129 quadrillion watts.

Just figure out a way to use that and we'll be home free. Electric barbecues for every house.

 

[Darkwind]

In our environment, yes it does and yes it is.

The Earth is 510.1 trillion square meters so the energy being added to the planet is 1.168129 quadrillion watts.

Just figure out a way to use that and we'll be home free. Electric barbecues for every house.

lol

Wow. Do you realize that co2 does not generate energy? You know, in science, it is of utmost importance to be precise in your terms.

 

[DGS49]

Poor choice of words, but point taken. The claim is not that atmospheric CO2 "generates heat," but that it disproportionately adds to the Greenhouse Effect.

Still, it's difficult to believe when atmospheric CO2 is a very minor component - a tiny fraction of the main greenhouse gas, water vapor.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive

/----/ Save the planet - hold your breath - send Al Bore more money before you pass out.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive

No link to the chart, no empirical evidence provided back to 1750, no verification of emission scenarios to temperature change.

Models all the way down...………………, NONE falsifiable.

Why do you like pseudoscience so much?

 

[Oddball]

 

[Crick]

Poor choice of words, but point taken. The claim is not that atmospheric CO2 "generates heat," but that it disproportionately adds to the Greenhouse Effect.

Still, it's difficult to believe when atmospheric CO2 is a very minor component - a tiny fraction of the main greenhouse gas, water vapor.

I said "in our environment" which would include our pre-industrial atmosphere, our sun and our land and sea absorbing SW radiation. Under those circumstances, CO2 DOES generate heat.

 

[Crick]

Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive

No link to the chart, no empirical evidence provided back to 1750, no verification of emission scenarios to temperature change.

Models all the way down...………………, NONE falsifiable.

Why do you like pseudoscience so much?

The graphic comes from AR5 and it has been posted on this forum over a hundred times. If YOU are not familiar with it, do not make the assumption it is a common lacking. There are tons of empirical evidence behind that graph. It is NOT developed from models. And, when used properly models have value and cannot be rejected out of hand as deniers are wont to do. Without models you have NO WAY to project what will happen in the future. So telling us that you reject all models and do not believe it is going to get warmer is a non-sequitur. You have made a projection without a scientific basis to do so.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive

No link to the chart, no empirical evidence provided back to 1750, no verification of emission scenarios to temperature change.

Models all the way down...………………, NONE falsifiable.

Why do you like pseudoscience so much?

The graphic comes from AR5 and it has been posted on this forum over a hundred times. If YOU are not familiar with it, do not make the assumption it is a common lacking. There are tons of empirical evidence behind that graph. It is NOT developed from models. And, when used properly models have value and cannot be rejected out of hand as deniers are wont to do. Without models you have NO WAY to project what will happen in the future. So telling us that you reject all models and do not believe it is going to get warmer is a non-sequitur. You have made a projection without a scientific basis to do so.

I know it is from the IPPC report, but WHERE in the report, its so freaking big!

Meanwhile as usual you ignore what you can't address, it is a habit you have developed over time, which is why you are a known lover of Pseudoscience bullcrap.

"No link to the chart" Still no link

"no empirical evidence provided back to 1750, no verification of emission scenarios to temperature change." You ignored it.

"Models all the way down...………………, NONE falsifiable". You ignored it.

"Why do you like pseudoscience so much?" You ignored this fact about you.

You offer nothing scientific because you don't know what that is, which is why Pseudoscience is what you end up pushing, which the inevitable default position when you are a science illiterate, that is a fact you can't live down.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

lol........lets see how long this thread lasts before falling into oblivion.

That's pretty much where it started; with the OP demonstrating his extreme, abject ignorance of basic science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive

No link to the chart, no empirical evidence provided back to 1750, no verification of emission scenarios to temperature change.

Models all the way down...………………, NONE falsifiable.

Why do you like pseudoscience so much?

The graphic comes from AR5 and it has been posted on this forum over a hundred times. If YOU are not familiar with it, do not make the assumption it is a common lacking. There are tons of empirical evidence behind that graph. It is NOT developed from models. And, when used properly models have value and cannot be rejected out of hand as deniers are wont to do. Without models you have NO WAY to project what will happen in the future. So telling us that you reject all models and do not believe it is going to get warmer is a non-sequitur. You have made a projection without a scientific basis to do so.

Well Crick provides a pile of IPCC shit again..

Tell me Crick.. How did you and your IPCC clones stop Natural variation? You and your IPCC pile of crap assume that all warming was due to CO2... Yet only 0.003% of the warming is even capable of being attributed to man and his input of CO2.

Once again your inability to think critically shows you a fool...

 

[Crick]

Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive

No link to the chart, no empirical evidence provided back to 1750, no verification of emission scenarios to temperature change.

Models all the way down...………………, NONE falsifiable.

Why do you like pseudoscience so much?

The graphic comes from AR5 and it has been posted on this forum over a hundred times. If YOU are not familiar with it, do not make the assumption it is a common lacking. There are tons of empirical evidence behind that graph. It is NOT developed from models. And, when used properly models have value and cannot be rejected out of hand as deniers are wont to do. Without models you have NO WAY to project what will happen in the future. So telling us that you reject all models and do not believe it is going to get warmer is a non-sequitur. You have made a projection without a scientific basis to do so.

I know it is from the IPPC report, but WHERE in the report, its so freaking big!

Meanwhile as usual you ignore what you can't address, it is a habit you have developed over time, which is why you are a known lover of Pseudoscience bullcrap.

"No link to the chart" Still no link

"no empirical evidence provided back to 1750, no verification of emission scenarios to temperature change." You ignored it.

"Models all the way down...………………, NONE falsifiable". You ignored it.

"Why do you like pseudoscience so much?" You ignored this fact about you.

You offer nothing scientific because you don't know what that is, which is why Pseudoscience is what you end up pushing, which the inevitable default position when you are a science illiterate, that is a fact you can't live down.

That graph, displaying anthropogenic forcing factors, may be found on Page 14 of the Summary for Policy Makers within "The Physical Science Basis" of AR 5, available at AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC. Scroll down to the page headlined "Report" and click on the link to download the Summary for Policy Makers. When complete, scroll to Page 14.

I have provided lots of empirical evidence to 1750 and further. I haven't the faintest idea if I've ever presented the data from which that chart was constructed. But now you know where it came from. You can investigate it yourself.

Do tell me how you came to the conclusion that that chart was made entirely from models, none of which could be falsified, when you had no idea where that chart came from.

I will continue to ignore obviously rhetorical questions.

I suspect based on your questions and your charges that I needn't worry about your opinions re science literacy. And so I won't.

Have a nice night.

 

[Toronado3800]

View attachment 251546

Maybe, maybe not. How conservative are you going to be?

I have 24 spark plugs and 80 valves between my 3 cars so I'm not saying go crazy. We gotta out compete the Chinese anyways. But yeah, not rolling back existing laws until the botanical garden has to prepare to flee st louis again is a start.

 

[koshergrl]

Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive

You have a link for that garbage I'm sure.

 

[Oddball]

View attachment 251546

Maybe, maybe not. How conservative are you going to be?

I have 24 spark plugs and 80 valves between my 3 cars so I'm not saying go crazy. We gotta out compete the Chinese anyways. But yeah, not rolling back existing laws until the botanical garden has to prepare to flee st louis again is a start.

Pascal's wager isn't an argument.

 

[koshergrl]

Did anybody else see the story about some ice pack being at 150 percent for the 7th time in the last 90 years or something?

 

[Toronado3800]

View attachment 251546

Maybe, maybe not. How conservative are you going to be?

I have 24 spark plugs and 80 valves between my 3 cars so I'm not saying go crazy. We gotta out compete the Chinese anyways. But yeah, not rolling back existing laws until the botanical garden has to prepare to flee st louis again is a start.

Pascal's wager isn't an argument.

Let's say I'm saying be careful for the sake of being careful.

I will counter that avoiding classic logical fallacies leads folks to make mistakes all the time.

There is some minuscule chance my gun is going to go off while I'm moving it about so I don't point it at folks even though the safety is on and I'm sure it isn't loaded.

That or folks yell "straw man' or a semi applicable logic circle when they don't have an answer.

 

[Crick]

Look at the bottom section Frank. "Total Anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] relative to 1750". That is the amount of warming provided by the human activities listed in the graph. Ask and ye shall receive

No link to the chart, no empirical evidence provided back to 1750, no verification of emission scenarios to temperature change.

Models all the way down...………………, NONE falsifiable.

Why do you like pseudoscience so much?

The graphic comes from AR5 and it has been posted on this forum over a hundred times. If YOU are not familiar with it, do not make the assumption it is a common lacking. There are tons of empirical evidence behind that graph. It is NOT developed from models. And, when used properly models have value and cannot be rejected out of hand as deniers are wont to do. Without models you have NO WAY to project what will happen in the future. So telling us that you reject all models and do not believe it is going to get warmer is a non-sequitur. You have made a projection without a scientific basis to do so.

Well Crick provides a pile of IPCC shit again.

Well... let me stop you right there for a moment. Neither you nor any of your denier friends has ever successfully demonstrated that anything the IPCC puts out in the way of data products could be described as "a pile of shit". And in all your posts, you have demonstrated a strong tendency to make claims without providing any evidence and very often with no reasoning whatsoever. You like to make unsubstantiated assertions; unsubstantiated by anyone. So we should not be all that surprised that you would call the IPCC's data products "a pile of shit" without have ever explained why.

Tell me Crick.. How did you and your IPCC clones stop Natural variation?

Obviously, no one has stopped natural variation. And I haven't the faintest fuck of an idea who you refer to with the term "your IPCC clones".

You and your IPCC pile of crap assume that all warming was due to CO2... Yet only 0.003% of the warming is even capable of being attributed to man and his input of CO2.

Hmm... 0.0003% of the warming. I am wondering where you came up with that number. It is close to the pre-industrial level of CO2 (280 ppm) expressed as a percent of the entire atmosphere. However, humans would be responsible for the 131 ppm [411ppm current - 280ppm pre-industrial] we have added to that level. In any case, he seems to be saying that the Earth's atmosphere, in its entirety, is responsible for the observed warming. That, of course, is false

The correct calculation would be that anthropogenic CO2 was responsible for 131/411ths of the current CO2-based greenhouse warming. Or you could say that anthropogenic CO2 was responsible for a 411/280ths increase in CO2-based greenhouse warming since 1750. The two statements are functionally identical. So the actual value of human responsibility is more than 100,000 TIMES greater than Billy Boy has just claimed.

Here are the atmospheric CO2 levels the Earth has experienced since 1958:

As I hope you can see, there is very little "natural variation" in that data. The isotopic analysis has shown that the portion of CO2 in the atmosphere not sourced from fossil fuel combustion has remained remarkably stable. Almost every iota of the increase displayed in that graph originated from human activity. And thus every iota of the warming caused by the greenhouse effect acting on that added CO2, then, can also be credited to human activity.

Once again your inability to think critically shows you a fool...

Billy, do you remember when I set up a signature here that was simply composed of several quotes from you and I think a note regarding your claim to be working on that atmospheric physics doctorate? Do you know why I took that off? Do you?

Because I looked at what you had written, in arguments about these topics and about yourself and I said to myself "the last thing this guy needs right now is someone else giving him shit". And so I got rid of the signature. You didn't seem to notice. I ignored you for a bit, but as time went by and you continued to post the things you do, I came to lose a great deal of the sympathy that had popped into my head that day. Now, at the moment, we (particularly me, I think) are working under a public moderator proscription to cease personal attacks. So I will not be making the comments you might be expecting of me and that, being honest, I would enjoy making.