OH my Arctic glaciers are melting!!! Wait where are the glaciers going???

[flacaltenn]

calculus physics chemistry? I've taken all that at pre and post grad level

Not to brag but I did calculus in elementary school and physics and chemistry in high school.

That's why you're HERE and not over on the Caitlin Jenner/Ashley Madison threads I guess.. Although reading temperature data in a spreadsheet and understanding Climate history is something that most USMB posters could do if they WANTED to...

 

[jc456]

hey socks, YES, how many flippin times must we tell you YES. Yes, yes, yes, and I stated I'll even volunteer to tell anyone of them to their faces. So, schedule me a visit with any of them and I will call them Liar to their faces. Any of them.

As jc and so many deniers here illustrate daily, profoundly stupid people tend to be brimming with confidence. That's part of the Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

Sweet little jc isn't a liar. He actual believes all the gibberish that he spouts. He just doesn't have the mental ability to resist his cult's brainwashing, or to realize even how thorough his brainwashing is.

and yet here you are on an internet forum afraid to post up an experiment that disproves my position. Yeah, the gibberish is flowing freely from your mind.

 

[kwc57]

Because regardless, THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE ANYWHERE that ANY possible changes in human activity will significantly reduce the warming that will inevitably occur.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ...

We've seen such moron conspiracy babbling thousands of times before. It's just boring in its stupidity and detachment from reality.

But then, when every bit of the science, data, logic, common sense, economics and history contradicts a person, conspiracy ranting is about the only path left to them.

Oh, thanks for further confirmation that every single denier here is a proud member of the hysterical right-wing fruitloop political cult. That is, denialism is 100% political hucksterism. You will never find a denier who isn't constantly wetting himself over the fear of phantom socialists.

In stark contrast, the real climate science crosses all political boundaries all across the world. Because it's science.

So sayeth the High Priest of the Church of Global Warming, so shall it be!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

Just for the record -- you don't NEED an experiment for the warming power of CO2. I can give you the textbook calculations at any time.. All based on simple physics, geometry and chemistry..

What you NEED is an experiment to prove that a 2degC "trigger" (aided by man's piddling emissions) will cause MASSIVE positive feedbacks to kick in that MULTIPLY that warming over CENTURIES... By what USED TO BE -- magic multipliers of 3 or even 6.. THAT's where the whole made up crisis came from. From theories about how UNSTABLE and FRAGILE the Earth's climate system really is.. Plenty to be skeptical of in those assertions..

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, there are some formulas for vapor pressure in liquids as the temperature increases. So that puts more water vapor in the air for a given temperature increase. As as noted so many times here by the denialists, water vapor is a strong GHG.

http://phys.org/news/2014-07-vapor-global-amplifier.html

 

[Old Rocks]

So, Mike, what you are saying is that all the scientists from the many nations and cultures are all liberals, and engaged in fraud. Pray tell, what would be the reason for this? And who is behind it all? Must be one guiding hand to control that many people, especially considering these are the smartest people we have.

Tell me, Mike, have you ever taken any science courses in college? You know, the 200 courses in college in calculus, physics, chemistry? If not, why do you feel competant to make accusations of scientists who have not only done those courses, but the courses in their fields through grad level.

Yep --- Proven fact.. Just ask RDean --- only 6% of scientists are Republicans !!!

Another one of the "polls" on science that have been so helpful to the debate..

Gee GoldiRocks? calculus physics chemistry? I've taken all that at pre and post grad level and STILL you guys call me incompetent....

Really? And yet you state that CO2 can only increase the temperature by it's own GHG affect?

 

[flacaltenn]

So, Mike, what you are saying is that all the scientists from the many nations and cultures are all liberals, and engaged in fraud. Pray tell, what would be the reason for this? And who is behind it all? Must be one guiding hand to control that many people, especially considering these are the smartest people we have.

Tell me, Mike, have you ever taken any science courses in college? You know, the 200 courses in college in calculus, physics, chemistry? If not, why do you feel competant to make accusations of scientists who have not only done those courses, but the courses in their fields through grad level.

Yep --- Proven fact.. Just ask RDean --- only 6% of scientists are Republicans !!!

Another one of the "polls" on science that have been so helpful to the debate..

Gee GoldiRocks? calculus physics chemistry? I've taken all that at pre and post grad level and STILL you guys call me incompetent....

Really? And yet you state that CO2 can only increase the temperature by it's own GHG affect?

Actually my position is that our warming in the last 100 years is MORE than explained by the CO2 ONLY power of warming. And the rest of the runaway life-threatening, Prezidential demagoguing Global Baloney is fading away as the REAL Climate science develops..

From preindustrial levels of 280ppm to 400ppm -- we are on track with your Arhennius et al science and the REST of the this religious fairytale is in a fiery tailspin...... How much has it warmed since Arhennius? And what was the CO2 increase?

 

[Crick]

Alaska glaciers sending 75 billion tons of water into sea each year

Look at this 100-year-old glacier in Alaska disappear and try not to go 'whoa.'

Melting glaciers of Alaska

 

[jc456]

Alaska glaciers sending 75 billion tons of water into sea each year

Look at this 100-year-old glacier in Alaska disappear and try not to go 'whoa.'

Melting glaciers of Alaska

So it's not a 1000 year old glacier. What's your point?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, there are some formulas for vapor pressure in liquids as the temperature increases. So that puts more water vapor in the air for a given temperature increase. As as noted so many times here by the denialists, water vapor is a strong GHG.

http://phys.org/news/2014-07-vapor-global-amplifier.html

Er, wait. Water is H2O not CO2. Are you going to link to any studies tracking water vapor the past 150 years?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Alaska glaciers sending 75 billion tons of water into sea each year

Look at this 100-year-old glacier in Alaska disappear and try not to go 'whoa.'

Melting glaciers of Alaska

Better check to see if Guam tipped over

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Just for the record -- you don't NEED an experiment for the warming power of CO2. I can give you the textbook calculations at any time.. All based on simple physics, geometry and chemistry..

What you NEED is an experiment to prove that a 2degC "trigger" (aided by man's piddling emissions) will cause MASSIVE positive feedbacks to kick in that MULTIPLY that warming over CENTURIES... By what USED TO BE -- magic multipliers of 3 or even 6.. THAT's where the whole made up crisis came from. From theories about how UNSTABLE and FRAGILE the Earth's climate system really is.. Plenty to be skeptical of in those assertions..

So what's the expected warming from 120ppm?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

calculus physics chemistry? I've taken all that at pre and post grad level

Not to brag but I did calculus in elementary school and physics and chemistry in high school.

And you haven't figured out you can change you stupid avatar before stats gives you a new one

 

[Crick]

Not to brag but I did calculus in elementary school and physics and chemistry in high school.

You could have taken physics and chemistry in high school but you did not take calculus in elementary school.

Do you understand what the terms "pre and post grad" mean?

 

[Derideo_Te]

but you did not take calculus in elementary school.

It isn't that difficult.

calculus in elementary school - Google Search

Calculus in 4th grade?

A while ago I discovered an interesting web site, Berkeley Science Books, that publishes a set of very comprehensive Ebooks called "Calculus Without Tears." Author Will Flannery has a pretty detailed explanation on the home page of his web-site of why he thinks Calculus can be taught in elementary school. His view is that Calculus in college is bogged down with lots of theory; if you change the focus of Calculus to application first and theory later, and if you teach the fundamentals of Calculus that don't require algebra, trigonometry, or geometry (except for the formula for the area of a rectangle) then you can teach Calculus to 4th graders. Flannery sees the motivation for all of mathematics, beyond basic arithmetic, to be physics, and the building basics - derivatives, integrals, and differential equations, which are fundamental to physics and to Calculus - can be taught to those with no mathematical sophistication.​

I was fortunate enough to be given the opportunity to learn calculus at an early age. Our regular teacher had taken ill and we were being taught by the deputy principle instead who was probably one of the best teachers I ever had.

He even combined geometry with art by teaching us how to make mosiacs and yes, he taught us calculus too.

Many years later I was talking to the son of friends of mine who said that he was struggling with high school math and he asked if I would tutor him. I asked him what he was having a problem with and he said that it was mostly algebra equations. I pointed out to him that he had been taught how to do the simple arithmetic of a+b and c/d in elementary school so he should ignore those simple parts of the equation and look at the larger problem instead.

A couple of months went by without him ever calling me for a lesson and then I bumped into him again and asked him if he still needed my help. He said no because I had taught him everything he needed to know in that one conversation. He had gone back and looked at those algebra equations in a different light and he was now acing math with straight A's.

In essence that was me passing on the lesson I learned in elementary school from the deputy principle. All math, even calculus, is made up of the same simple principles and it is only the methodology that you are using that is different. Geometry, algebra and calculus are not that difficult to understand and yes, even kids in elementary school can learn how.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just for the record -- you don't NEED an experiment for the warming power of CO2. I can give you the textbook calculations at any time.. All based on simple physics, geometry and chemistry..

What you NEED is an experiment to prove that a 2degC "trigger" (aided by man's piddling emissions) will cause MASSIVE positive feedbacks to kick in that MULTIPLY that warming over CENTURIES... By what USED TO BE -- magic multipliers of 3 or even 6.. THAT's where the whole made up crisis came from. From theories about how UNSTABLE and FRAGILE the Earth's climate system really is.. Plenty to be skeptical of in those assertions..

So what's the expected warming from 120ppm?

Somewhere about 0.8degC.. Straight up... You get the forcing from

which gives 1.91W/m2.. That's about 0.8degC without the feedbacks and magic multipliers.. Our empirical experience since 1800 that we've measured is almost the same. (and includes SOME the rebound from the LittleIceAge. Therefore even this calculation ends up slightly high and in competition with natural causes)

The geometry, physics part of it looks like ----

in any atmos physics book..

All the rest of the hysteria is based on GW theory that says this CO2 is only the TRIGGER for positive feedbacks and runaway thermal effects. THAT'S the part you need an experiment for......

 

[flacaltenn]

but you did not take calculus in elementary school.

It isn't that difficult.

calculus in elementary school - Google Search

Calculus in 4th grade?

A while ago I discovered an interesting web site, Berkeley Science Books, that publishes a set of very comprehensive Ebooks called "Calculus Without Tears." Author Will Flannery has a pretty detailed explanation on the home page of his web-site of why he thinks Calculus can be taught in elementary school. His view is that Calculus in college is bogged down with lots of theory; if you change the focus of Calculus to application first and theory later, and if you teach the fundamentals of Calculus that don't require algebra, trigonometry, or geometry (except for the formula for the area of a rectangle) then you can teach Calculus to 4th graders. Flannery sees the motivation for all of mathematics, beyond basic arithmetic, to be physics, and the building basics - derivatives, integrals, and differential equations, which are fundamental to physics and to Calculus - can be taught to those with no mathematical sophistication.​

I was fortunate enough to be given the opportunity to learn calculus at an early age. Our regular teacher had taken ill and we were being taught by the deputy principle instead who was probably one of the best teachers I ever had.

He even combined geometry with art by teaching us how to make mosiacs and yes, he taught us calculus too.

Many years later I was talking to the son of friends of mine who said that he was struggling with high school math and he asked if I would tutor him. I asked him what he was having a problem with and he said that it was mostly algebra equations. I pointed out to him that he had been taught how to do the simple arithmetic of a+b and c/d in elementary school so he should ignore those simple parts of the equation and look at the larger problem instead.

A couple of months went by without him ever calling me for a lesson and then I bumped into him again and asked him if he still needed my help. He said no because I had taught him everything he needed to know in that one conversation. He had gone back and looked at those algebra equations in a different light and he was now acing math with straight A's.

In essence that was me passing on the lesson I learned in elementary school from the deputy principle. All math, even calculus, is made up of the same simple principles and it is only the methodology that you are using that is different. Geometry, algebra and calculus are not that difficult to understand and yes, even kids in elementary school can learn how.

I can CLAIM I taught some little dust bunny calculus by giving him some tools to calculate the volume of his juicebox.. But it ain't gonna do any good if he doesn't get another 5 or 6 years of trig and algebra and physics and science. Or doesn't actually recognize an Integral sign. Those trains and stations math word problems are actually differential equations. Could claim that 4th graders are skilled in differential calculus also..

It's great. It should be demystified. But there's too much ground to cover before you can USE any of those tools on a real problem..

 

[Old Rocks]

Just for the record -- you don't NEED an experiment for the warming power of CO2. I can give you the textbook calculations at any time.. All based on simple physics, geometry and chemistry..

What you NEED is an experiment to prove that a 2degC "trigger" (aided by man's piddling emissions) will cause MASSIVE positive feedbacks to kick in that MULTIPLY that warming over CENTURIES... By what USED TO BE -- magic multipliers of 3 or even 6.. THAT's where the whole made up crisis came from. From theories about how UNSTABLE and FRAGILE the Earth's climate system really is.. Plenty to be skeptical of in those assertions..

So what's the expected warming from 120ppm?

Somewhere about 0.8degC.. Straight up... You get the forcing from

which gives 1.91W/m2.. That's about 0.8degC without the feedbacks and magic multipliers.. Our empirical experience since 1800 that we've measured is almost the same.

The geometry, physics part of it looks like ----

in any atmos physics book..

All the rest of the hysteria is based on GW theory that says this CO2 is only the TRIGGER for positive feedbacks and runaway thermal effects. THAT'S the part you need an experiment for......

Well, we are making that experiment right now. Let's hope the outcome is a good one, because our descendants will have to live with it for many generations.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just for the record -- you don't NEED an experiment for the warming power of CO2. I can give you the textbook calculations at any time.. All based on simple physics, geometry and chemistry..

What you NEED is an experiment to prove that a 2degC "trigger" (aided by man's piddling emissions) will cause MASSIVE positive feedbacks to kick in that MULTIPLY that warming over CENTURIES... By what USED TO BE -- magic multipliers of 3 or even 6.. THAT's where the whole made up crisis came from. From theories about how UNSTABLE and FRAGILE the Earth's climate system really is.. Plenty to be skeptical of in those assertions..

So what's the expected warming from 120ppm?

Somewhere about 0.8degC.. Straight up... You get the forcing from

which gives 1.91W/m2.. That's about 0.8degC without the feedbacks and magic multipliers.. Our empirical experience since 1800 that we've measured is almost the same.

The geometry, physics part of it looks like ----

in any atmos physics book..

All the rest of the hysteria is based on GW theory that says this CO2 is only the TRIGGER for positive feedbacks and runaway thermal effects. THAT'S the part you need an experiment for......

Well, we are making that experiment right now. Let's hope the outcome is a good one, because our descendants will have to live with it for many generations.

Well only until the next 12 or 18degC Ice Age plunge hits...

 

[Old Rocks]

Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Variations in temperature, CO2, and dust from theVostok ice core over the last 400,000 years
An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensiveice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of thePleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.[2]


Note that the steepness of the temperature increase leading to an interglacial period is much steeper than that of the descent into an ice age.