The worse case---Earth 2100

[flacaltenn]

The rate of infrared absorption is a function of CO2 concentration, not the percentage increase over some arbitrary value.

OMG.. You just fling math aside like it doesn't matter. The function is logarithmic. So a 100 ppm increase at one point in the curve is gonna give different results than at another. BUT PERCENTAGES (or the C/Co ratios) will give consistent results ANYWHERE on the curve.

That's why your assertion that I was using percentages just to be ornery is so dad-gum funny.

Only thing I get out of Abraham convos is the humor... Reevaluating my investment constantly. Waiting for that giant nugget to pop out and pay off..

Ahem:

Heat Stored by Greenhouse Gases

Figures that Bullwinkle would Thank-You for that Ahem (throat choked?)

That particular guy has a long and glorious history of mangling physics and being spectacularly wrong. AND NOTE --- this is NOT just a leftist source filtering bias.. I'll prove it to ya quickly -- so listen up..

Farther down on that pages after the ejaculation of maybe repeating some atmos physics badly we find....

Planet Earth would not be warming if the Sun's energy output (Solar Irradiance) was not increasing. Favorably, our Sun is emitting more radiation now than it was 200 years ago, and so we should have no fear of a natural cycle that has occurred many times over in the lifetime of our Solar System.


Heat always moves from places of higher density of heat to places of lower density of heat, thus states the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Van Ness. 1969. Page 54). In daylight (P. S. obviously under, Sunlight), air is always colder than soil (P. S. obviously, the surface of soil); consequently, heat is transferred from the soil to the air, not vice versa. By the same physical law, the heat emitted by the Sun -a source of heat- is transferred to the Earth, which is a colder system.

{{{ BASIC DENIAL OF BACK RADIATION IN THE GREENHOUSE THEORY }}}



The capacity of carbon dioxide to absorb-emit heat is much more limited than that of oceans and soil; thus, carbon dioxide cannot have been the cause of the warming of the Earth in 1998.

How did I know this?? This loose cannon is the most often quoted "expert" of the Skeptic blunderheads that were beating up Dr. Roy Spencer for his defense of Back Radiation..
I Read thru his crap on that and decided to embargo anything else from him in the future..

LMFUCKINGAO.... Ahem !!!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

This thread is really quite funny. You guys tried to make some arguments, but you failed because your logic was bad. You tried again, but then you failed because your facts were bad. So now you've spend the past several pages trying to make personal attacks. But you've failed at that even worse than your original failures. So now you reach your final hope to save face. Hatred, ignorance, and the outright disregard for hard math.

I like your attitude. And I admire your proper use of logic and reason.. Want to see you happy here.. So I'm offering 2 pieces of advice.. Do with them as you will..

1) You screwed up in handling the mixed messages and parental mental abuse.. I went thru similiar phases with school and parents, but my parents were slackers compared to yours. The way I handled it when my Dad abused me for bringing home a high school report with a B+ and Five A's was to grow my hair out long, pick up a rock band and do a lot a weed.. So by the time it escalated to a psychiatric exam -- the analyst had MUCH MORE to deal with than just my "revolt" against academic performance. The moral of this story is --- Give them something BIGGER to worry about.. I turned out fine.. Only wasted a couple of IQ points and part of my hearing.. Got some cool photos and momentos to impress the other nerds thru college tho..

((PS --- the B+ was in phys ed because I didn't wash my gym suit for a week))

2) Don't ever abandon the high ground on a public science forum.. Stick to your intuition and knowledge of the facts. The slackers and attackers are only here because they couldn't survive a week on the Political side of the forum.. They are not that good at personal insults and attacks. So not much damage compared to your trials and tribulations that you've already survived..

 

[orogenicman]

Oh my the mann Hockey stick has a hold on this one.

Geologic temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not surprisingly, your graph doesn't answer my question. Do you have any evidence that it has done so in the past at the rate in which it is doing so today?

Actually the graph answers your question, just that you still want to peddle your AGW propaganda.

Actually, it doesn't because it cannot show the resolution needed to show that the rate of change that is going on today is not unique in the past 1 million or so years. Obviously you have problems reading graphs.

 

[Unkotare]

Translation: It's not about climate change. It's all about SwimExpert.

And this is why I'm no longer ashamed to be gifted. Because being ^^THIS^^ stupid is far worse.

"Gifted"

You're 'special' alright...

 

[Abraham3]

 

[Abraham3]

There isn't the slightest thing ridiculous about it considering the fact that the Earth has warmed numerous times in the recent past.

Do you have any evidence that it has done so in the past at the rate in which it is doing so today?

Oh my the mann Hockey stick has a hold on this one.

Geologic temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I attempted without success to determine what was the absolute value of the arbitrary zero on that graph. Wikipedia only identifies it as the Vostok equivalent dT. IF it is the same as the zero on Michael Mann's graph in the Global Warming article, then the current temperature anomaly is more than a degree above the mean of the Little Ice Age, the last notable feature on the above graph. That puts current temperatures equal or above anything on that graph for nearly 10 million years.

Hard research, however, has only made thorough comparisons back to the last Holocene glaciation, 22,000 years back.

 

[Kosh]

Not surprisingly, your graph doesn't answer my question. Do you have any evidence that it has done so in the past at the rate in which it is doing so today?

Actually the graph answers your question, just that you still want to peddle your AGW propaganda.

Actually, it doesn't because it cannot show the resolution needed to show that the rate of change that is going on today is not unique in the past 1 million or so years. Obviously you have problems reading graphs.

No it defeats the AGW religion and thus will not be accepted into the AGW cultists programming.

It proves that the Earth's climate changes with or without humans on it.

 

[Kosh]

Do you have any evidence that it has done so in the past at the rate in which it is doing so today?

Oh my the mann Hockey stick has a hold on this one.

Geologic temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I attempted without success to determine what was the absolute value of the arbitrary zero on that graph. Wikipedia only identifies it as the Vostok equivalent dT. IF it is the same as the zero on Michael Mann's graph in the Global Warming article, then the current temperature anomaly is more than a degree above the mean of the Little Ice Age, the last notable feature on the above graph. That puts current temperatures equal or above anything on that graph for nearly 10 million years.

Hard research, however, has only made thorough comparisons back to the last Holocene glaciation, 22,000 years back.

More proof that the AGW cultists will believe the AGW scribes over the facts.