Over 4.5 Billion to die by 2012

[mamooth]

Water vapor is quite abundant in the atmosphere, especially down in our Troposphere.

CO2 is (as a component part of the air around us) is NOT even REMOTELY as "abundant."

But they don't cover the same spectral frequency window, so the CO2 matters. Earth's atmosphere is pretty opaque over most of the longwave IR band. There aren't that many spectral windows in it to let the heat out, so squeezing down any of the open windows has an effect.

That is, if my house has 20 windows and 18 are closed (the water vapor), it still makes a significant difference in temp if I close the 19th window (CO2).

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Water vapor is quite abundant in the atmosphere, especially down in our Troposphere.

CO2 is (as a component part of the air around us) is NOT even REMOTELY as "abundant."

But they don't cover the same spectral frequency window, so the CO2 matters. Earth's atmosphere is pretty opaque over most of the longwave IR band. There aren't that many spectral windows in it to let the heat out, so squeezing down any of the open windows has an effect.

That is, if my house has 20 windows and 18 are closed (the water vapor), it still makes a significant difference in temp if I close the 19th window (CO2).

There are numerous flaws in your thinking and in your would-be analogies. But, let's pretend that you aren't all bollixed up:

If you had 20 windows and 19 were closed (the atmospheric water vapor) (i.e., 95%), you STILL wouldn't close the last window (the CO2) all the way, if we work with the actual numbers.

And that means you are simply not going to get the kind of temperature differences you are claiming.

 

[mamooth]

So you're claiming that closing a window partway won't affect temperature in your house?

The analogy is quite good. Your logic is not.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So you're claiming that closing a window partway won't affect temperature in your house?

The analogy is quite good. Your logic is not.

I am saying, you hack, that if my house is too warm (because I already have 19 of 20 windows shut), then closing the final window PART way will not impact the overall temperature in my already too warm house AS MUCH as YOU pretend.

Try to keep up.

Your logic is lacking -- pretty much entirely.

 

[mamooth]

That's right, the whole world has got the numbers wrong, because your political cult's dogma says it has to be wrong. And you don't need no stinkin' evidence. Just declare "It's obvious!" and wave your hands around a lot.

You parroted a common denialist fallacy. You didn't understand why a small amount of CO2 was significant. Educate yourself on the basics, which means getting info from outside your cult. If you stick only with denialist sources, you're guaranteed to always get fed bad info. Like I said to SSDD, that's my advantage, not depending on cranks and liars for my information.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

That's right, the whole world has got the numbers wrong, because your political cult's dogma says it has to be wrong. And you don't need no stinkin' evidence. Just declare "It's obvious!" and wave your hands around a lot.

You parroted a common denialist fallacy. You didn't understand why a small amount of CO2 was significant. Educate yourself on the basics, which means getting info from outside your cult. If you stick only with denialist sources, you're guaranteed to always get fed bad info. Like I said to SSDD, that's my advantage, not depending on cranks and liars for my information.

Nope.

YOU pretend that the small amount of CO2 is a LOT more "significant" than you or any of your AGW Faith based cultists have EVER been able to show or logically establish.

 

[Saigon]

Ilar -

And the fact that the entirescientific community disagrees with you, and that there are multiple studies establishing very clearly that CO2 concentrations have risen massively during the past century, do not influence your thinking at all, do they?

How long can you guys keep avoiding reading any of this science?

 

[dblack]

I wonder if it wasn't a typo and they meant 2112.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Ilar -

And the fact that the entirescientific community disagrees with you, and that there are multiple studies establishing very clearly that CO2 concentrations have risen massively during the past century, do not influence your thinking at all, do they?

How long can you guys keep avoiding reading any of this science?

See? You have a major problem.

You cannot even accurately identify a "fact."

For example, it is most assuredly NOT a "fact" that "the entire scientific community disagrees with me." Indeed, your claim is facially absurd.

Your fail is consistent. Funny as hell to keep watching.

Never stop.

Please.

 

[mamooth]

On one side, there's the whole world, the correct science, and decades of correct predictions to prove they got it right.

On the other side, there's an extremist fringe right political cult, one that now defines even Reagan's policies as socialist, and which has been doing faceplants into cowpatties for years on this topic.

Each group gets the respect it deserves.

 

[Saigon]

Ilar -

Name the scientific organisations who agree with you.

Actually, I can list them for you:

-

 

[SSDD]

They have such a small understanding of scince

and of course you see no irony at all in the fact that there is scarely a scientist in the world who agrees with you.

I know you like to believe that bit of bullshit...bullshit is, after all, your esp-ecia-lity but sadly the facts, and the research say that you are wrong.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

Contrast the findings of this study with the statements of the political heads who claim to represent all these scientists.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Firstly, why does your survey include engineers?

Secondly, since when is 24% a majority?

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

 

[SSDD]

The Greenhouse Effect | Nuffield Foundation

I didn't see any control in that experiment on the concentration of CO2. What was the concentration in the beaker? 100%? One million parts per million? Just curious. When do you expect the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to one million parts per million?

Let me know when you find one that isn't about as honest as a side show at a backwater county fair.

 

[SSDD]

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-ROSS-Experiment.pdf

Hey, what do you know? An honest experiment and what does it show? Amazingly enough exactly what the second law of thermodynamics predicts.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Amazingly enough exactly what the second law of thermodynamics predicts.

Remember I commented last week that you tend to post nonsense, wait 3 months and then post it again?

It has not been 3 months since even your own little tribe here were explaining to you that your interpretation of the Second Law is about as smart as your claim that Conservatism is not right wing.

 

[SSDD]

That's right, the photons (or some other pseudo-intelligent process guiding them) look at the detector and decide to vanish and not hit the detector if the detector is warm.

An idiotic argument from an idiot...how surprising. Tell me einstein, do you think some sort of pseudo-intelligent process is at work telling a rock to fall to the ground when it is dropped or do you think a natural force is at work that simply causes the rock to fall? Do you think some pseudo-intelligent force is at work telling air to escape from a hole in a baloon or do you think some natural force is at work causing the air to escape? Do you think some pseudo-intelligent force is at work telling water to run down hill, or do you think some natural force is at work that causes the water to run downhill? Do you think some pseudo-intelligent force is at work telling free electrons which way to move down an electrical wire, or do you think some natural force is at work that sends them downstream?

If natural forces are at work in every thing we see, why would some idiot think that in one particular natural phenomenon (i.e. neither heat nor energy move from cool to warm) that some pseudo-intelligent force must be at work for the phenomenon to behave exactly as the law of nature predicts? Answer? Because she/he is an idiot of course.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Amazingly enough exactly what the second law of thermodynamics predicts.

Remember I commented last week that you tend to post nonsense, wait 3 months and then post it again?

It has not been 3 months since even your own little tribe here were explaining to you that your interpretation of the Second Law is about as smart as your claim that Conservatism is not right wing.

Care to post an, observable, mesurable, repeatable experiment proving that backradiation exists and can happen? I am sure that there is a nobel in it for you if you can.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Yes, and have posted an observable, measureable and repeatable experiment for you at least three times.

You ignored it.

 

[daveman]

The Greenhouse Effect | Nuffield Foundation

I didn't see any control in that experiment on the concentration of CO2. What was the concentration in the beaker? 100%? One million parts per million? Just curious. When do you expect the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to one million parts per million?

Let me know when you find one that isn't about as honest as a side show at a backwater county fair.

Interesting, isn't it? A small container of CO2 in an experiment with maybe three variables is supposed to accurately represent the atmosphere and oceans of an entire planet, a system with millions of variables.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen: This is the basis of the "science" of climatology.