Tales from the post Apocalyptic 400PPM CO2 planet Earth

[Crick]

Q. What is the associated temperature increase or decrease for every 10ppm change in CO2?

1. that's a science question, we don't do science, we do consensus

2. take a look at the chart with no temperarure axis posted by Crick, your answer is there, denier

3. we redistribute wealth by climate policy, this question is irrelevant

1) Who do you believe decides whether or not a new theory is valid? You? What are your qualifications to make such a judgement?

2) If I show you an article about a new car. It is available with two engines. One produces 200 hp, the other produces 300 hp. Otherwise, the two versions are identical. Now I ask which version do you think accelerates more quickly. Are you going to tell me that I have failed to give you acceleration data?

3) We have looked at the actual conversation repeatedly now. Edenhofer was talking about how nations reduce carbon emissions. He was NOT talking about any effort of the IPCC. That is a demonstrable fact. It has been demonstrated to you, repeatedly. Thus your inclusion of this comment is a willful lie Frank.

 

[Yarddog]

7PM headed home.

Looking to the west, there's a feeling I get when I look to the west, and wonder is that the sun setting or has the 400PPM CO2 set the sky on fire?

Did you just plagiarize Robert Plant??

 

[Yarddog]

Global Warming responsible for Cubs victory?

I dont think thats possible but........ I did notice our wild poppies have started climbing out of their planter boxes and have begun eating the bugonias. You know how those plants get when they spend too much time at the CO2 bar

 

[SAYIT]

I notice the ideologues lack a sense of humor. This thread was a boatload of laughs but they got none of 'em.

Too bad.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

7PM headed home.

Looking to the west, there's a feeling I get when I look to the west, and wonder is that the sun setting or has the 400PPM CO2 set the sky on fire?

Did you just plagiarize Robert Plant??

I did, proud of it too

 

[Crick]

Q. What is the associated temperature increase or decrease for every 10ppm change in CO2?

1. that's a science question, we don't do science, we do consensus

2. take a look at the chart with no temperarure axis posted by Crick, your answer is there, denier

3. we redistribute wealth by climate policy, this question is irrelevant

1) Who do you believe decides whether or not a new theory is valid? You? What are your qualifications to make such a judgement?

2) If I show you an article about a new car. It is available with two engines. One produces 200 hp, the other produces 300 hp. Otherwise, the two versions are identical. Now I ask which version do you think accelerates more quickly. Are you going to tell me that I have failed to give you acceleration data?

3) We have looked at the actual conversation repeatedly now. Edenhofer was talking about how nations reduce carbon emissions. He was NOT talking about any effort of the IPCC. That is a demonstrable fact. It has been demonstrated to you, repeatedly. Thus your inclusion of this comment is a willful lie Frank.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Asking a warmer to provide repeatable experiments linking CO2 to temperature is like asking Dracula to pick garlic at sunrise.

Why is there is not a single experiment controlling for the sole variable of CO2 in the hundreds of ppm? We allocate billions of dollars towards "research" but all we get is pseudoscience and cult talking points.

If it's science , where's the lab work?

 

[Crick]

The question should be where is your science knowledge. The Earth is a little large to fit into a lab. If you want to know the characteristics of CO2, you could simply look at the hundreds of posts that have spelled it out for you. CO2 absorbs and emits IR radiation that would normally escape to space because it is not absorbed by anything else in the atmosphere. That slows the rate at which thermal energy leaves the planet and raises the equilibrium temperature.

Whenever you bring this up, what comes to my mind is "one trick pony".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The question should be where is your science knowledge. The Earth is a little large to fit into a lab. If you want to know the characteristics of CO2, you could simply look at the hundreds of posts that have spelled it out for you. CO2 absorbs and emits IR radiation that would normally escape to space because it is not absorbed by anything else in the atmosphere. That slows the rate at which thermal energy leaves the planet and raises the equilibrium temperature.

Whenever you bring this up, what comes to my mind is "one trick pony".

So what you're saying is that you really haven't eliminated all the variables except for a few hundred ppm of CO2.

 

[Crick]

Not me, but thousands of climate scientists over several decades of work. As for CO2 being the dominant cause, yes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not me, but thousands of climate scientists over several decades of work. As for CO2 being the dominant cause, yes.

Why? How do you know? You have no lab work controlling for CO2

 

[Crick]

They know because they are simply not as stupid as you are. Not even close.

Did you come up with an answer for the 200 and 300 hp cars?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They know because they are simply not as stupid as you are. Not even close.

Did you come up with an answer for the 200 and 300 hp cars?

So they don't need to do science, they just "know". That sounds like a Cult

 

[Crick]

They're smart enough to do the science and to understand what it means. You, apparently, are not.

 

[mamooth]

I notice the ideologues lack a sense of humor. This thread was a boatload of laughs but they got none of 'em.

I notice that, again, a weepy denier cult fanatic is butthurt because the normal people are rolling their eyes how lame their attempts at "humor" are.

We understand denier cultist humor in exactly the same way that we understand the humor of a 4-year-old boy telling toilet jokes. What we don't understand is why any grownup would admit to thinking it was funny. We suspect it's because those people consumed a lot of lead paint chips as a child. Can you confirm that?

Because I live to serve, I'll give the humor-challenged some help. In order for satire to be funny, it has to be close to the real world. Being that deniers live in a reality completely detached from the real world, their satire flops hard. Deniers think it's funny, but other people see it and think "WTF are those morons babbling about?". And deniers can't understand that, because they can't see out of their special stupid dimension into the real world.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They're smart enough to do the science and to understand what it means. You, apparently, are not.

They're smart enough to NOT do any real science and just join in the circle jerk they call "consensus", which is a Cult word.

The Druids had a strong consensus that their gods were all powerful

 

[Crick]

The thousands of climate studies published in peer reviewed journals are the result of real science. What have you got Frank? The opinion of a TV weatherman, a mining industry investor and a retired gentleman who believes his god prevents humans from harming the planet?

Per your sigs, you seem to share that latter opinion. Do you believe the devil is a real, supernatural individual who battles your god for our souls?

 

[jc456]

They're smart enough to do the science and to understand what it means. You, apparently, are not.

so where is all their work from the lab experiments then? Because you know to do science means lab work was necessary? right?

 

[jc456]

The thousands of climate studies published in peer reviewed journals are the result of real science. What have you got Frank? The opinion of a TV weatherman, a mining industry investor and a retired gentleman who believes his god prevents humans from harming the planet?

Per your sigs, you seem to share that latter opinion. Do you believe the devil is a real, supernatural individual who battles your god for our souls?

so Crick, again, you know to do science, one must do lab work . you know this right? And if you do know this, then please submit the lab work here in the thread. Otherwise, Frank has checkmate.

 

[SSDD]

The thousands of climate studies published in peer reviewed journals are the result of real science. What have you got Frank? The opinion of a TV weatherman, a mining industry investor and a retired gentleman who believes his god prevents humans from harming the planet?

No they aren't..they are the result of piss poor climate modeling...climate science has precious little actual science because actual science, if performed, would put the hypothesis to rest at long last.