how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[gslack]

Gslack -

I'll ask again - do you accept that Stephen Hawking - who you cited as an example of exemplary science - confirms the idea that human activity is causing climate change?

Again, please spare us the witless abuse.

Already responded to that, you keep pretending it didn't happen and re-posting the same story... Respond to my post honestly, if you can...

 

[gslack]

My first mention of Hawking here..

Jon Bezerk -

I think what the best scientists in the world tell us is probably quite real enough.

Water is not poisonous, and is in fact essential to our survival. But drink enough of it fast enough, and we die.

We know that trace elements can influence climate, because we have seen this with the increase (and now decrease) in the ozone hole. Deniers seem to often forget that.

What is critical here is obviously not the fact that CO2 exists as a trace gas, but that the dramatic increase in its quantity alters the very fine balance of the atmopshere.

The best scientists in the world have REAL things to research. They do not seek degrees in climate science, or resource management, or any other such Fads.

Do you know who Raymond Laflamme is? No? How about Stephen Hawking? Of course you do he is the rockstar of the cosmology and theoretical physics world. Well Raymond happened to be one of Hawkings doctoral students who helped Dr.Hawking understand times arrow and corrected him. Hawking thanked him in his book, "A Brief History of Time".

He's not famous, in fact outside of Quantum Computing Academic circles few know who he is.. But he was brilliant enough to correct Hawking as a Doctoral student.

The point is, the greatest scientific minds are not necessarily in any one field. And certainly not exclusively in climate science. Stop making bold and immature claims already...

First the ACTUAL GLOBAL CO2 PPM IS 395 PPM. The 399 measurement was exclusive tothe Mauna Loa observatory, when they take it into the global mean it is 395. That was a misrepresentation by HUFFPO oldsocks put up..

And who is to say it's a dangerous level? It's not getting hotter yet so stop the panic attack.

Further prove that CO2 warms the surface above its already warmer temperature. Simple just prove it...

PS.. As you see my post did not canonize, praise or berate Hawking at all. It made an example of how he can be wrong and he was wrong and corrected by a doctoral student. He is a brilliant man, they both are, yet one is famous the other is not. Which shows the point I was making...

Saigon has been trying to post responses based on a lie he made up.. More to come..

 

[gslack]

Continued, to show Saigons further dishonesty...

Gslack -

As cosmologist Stephen Hawking celebrates his 70th birthday he warns that climate change is one of a greatest threats posed to the future of human-kind and the world.

He said: “It is possible that the human race could become extinct but it is not inevitable. I think it is almost certain that a disaster, such as nuclear war or global warming will befall the earth within a thousand years.”

Stephen Hawking: Climate change greatest threat posed to human-kind | RTCC - Climate change news

It's not getting hotter yet

Actually it is - average temperatures have risen during the past 100 years. By all means go and check.

LOL,that was a pretty general statement he made. You notice he also mentioned a natural disaster and nuclear war as well... Funny how you don't notice that.. ALsoI wasn't aware he was researching climate change? When did he start doing that? LOL..

It rose and now its not.. And? It rose before, even before us, it fell too.. Now prove that CO2 warms the planets surface like I asked you to do..

Your attempt to misrepresent my claim is noted...

My words to you...

"Further prove that CO2 warms the surface above its already warmer temperature. Simple just prove it..."

You responded to an edited single line from the post, and tried to misrepresent my post.. If you continue this course good luck trying to win back respect after your fake finnish journalist nonsense..

PS. As you see I pointed out his misrepresentation and cherry-picking, and DID respond to his claim about hawking's views on climate change.. Which the dishonest Saigon continues to deny happened...

 

[Saigon]

Gslack -

I am sure no one would have expected you to have the balls to admit that even Stephen Hawking has confirmed that human activity causes climate change.

I'll let you go back to spamming the thread with gibberish and excuses now.

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

I am sure no one would have expected you to have the balls to admit that even Stephen Hawking has confirmed that human activity causes climate change.

I'll let you go back to spamming the thread with gibberish and excuses now.

I responded with the truth shithead... And no one expected you to have the balls to respond to a post honestly anyway...

Whether Hawking agrees with global warming theory or not isn't the issue here, the issue was he can be wrong despite being famous and brilliant, and that many other equally brilliant minds are around the world and they are not necessarily in climate science...

You keep trying to alter my position or claims, by deceptive cherry-picking sentences, and responding to my posts without a proper quote and making up my position for me..

Last time I let it go.. Lie about my posts this way again and I will start re-posting until you run off crying again..Now please go and whine to a mod about it..

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I think the real climate system acts to dampen the effect of extra CO2 as it does with many other things. obviously other disagree with me. but we shall see.

Oh very very few people would disagree with you on that point! The disagreement is over whether or not that "damping" will ultimately include a severe reduction in the human population. Before you reply you should also consider that we are hard at work destroying much of the natural damping of excess Co2. In fact - we're working the opposite way, by destroying more vegetation that we produce every year. The oceans can only hold so much Co2, my friend! Once that sink is topped off, our only option will be to seriously alter how we use land - meaning less land used for agriculture - meaning ultimately less food for us to eat and less of us.

 

[Saigon]

Oohpooh -

I totally agree that the loss of both forests and arable farm land in the developing world is a huge issue. The worst aspect of this is that it will be the poor who pay the highest price, as the lack of food and drinking water will hit them worst of all.

But elsewhere there is good news. Western countries have protected old forests and have planted news ones, have improved biodiversity and are learning to protect the oceans and lakes. New farming techniques mean farmland can be more productive than ever.

So I imagine that Europe and the US will adapt fairly well to changing climate conditions - the problem is that Africa and Asia will not.

 

[jon_berzerk]

LMAO......still ice fishing in Minnesota..........and a moving glacier!!!!

LAUGH......MY.........BALLS.........OFF


Still waiting for spring in Minnesota | Watts Up With That?



You stupid mofu's..........

that is one awesome video

 

[jon_berzerk]

LMAO......still ice fishing in Minnesota..........and a moving glacier!!!!

LAUGH......MY.........BALLS.........OFF


Still waiting for spring in Minnesota | Watts Up With That?



You stupid mofu's..........

Coldest "Mother's Day" in history in much of the mid-west. Still snow in some places. Freeze warnings in the southern mid-Atlantic. Tell me again how corrupt America is in causing global warming?

yeah

and glaciers on Mille Lacs

--LOL

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0EyfEDKWscg#at=369]Glaciers Visit Izatys Resort - Mille Lacs Lake, MN - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SSDD]

Gslack -

"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. [\quote]

Is there any evidence, any evidence at all that such a thing happened in the past, even when CO2 was in the multiple thousands of parts per million? If not, describe a change in the fundamental laws of physics that would cause such a thing at less than four or five thousand ppm now.

Well, SSDD, you would know a lot more abouit physics than that silly Stephen Hawking. What was he thinking?

We know that atmospheric CO2 has been in the thousands of ppm in the past and we know that warming didn't become self sustaining. We know these things because they have happened over and over in the history of the earth. Why do you suppose Stephen Hawking neglected to mention that...he is, after all a genius.

Now, again, what sort of change in the fundamental laws of physics do you suppose has happened that would allow self sustaing warming with atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at less than 1000ppm when we know that it didn't become self sustaining at as much as 7000ppm.

If one knows that 7000ppm didn't cause a climate much different than that of today, then one should know, if one doesn't have some sort of agenda to push that anything less than 7000ppm is not cause for concern.

An ancient Earth like ours

 

[SSDD]

In the area of physics, by 2003, consensus was growing that Hawking was wrong about the loss of information in a black hole.[261] In a 2004 lecture in Dublin, the physicist conceded his 1997 bet with Preskill, but described his own, somewhat controversial solution, to the information paradox problem, involving the possibility of black holes have more than one topology.[262][197] In the 2005 paper he published on the subject, he argued that the information paradox was explained by examining the all the alternative histories of universes, with the information loss in those with black holes being cancelled out by those without.[196][263] As part of another longstanding scientific dispute, Hawking had emphatically argued, and bet, that the Higgs Boson would never be found.[264] The particle, proposed to exist as part of the Higgs Field theory by Peter Higgs in 1964, became discoverable with the advent of the Fermilab near Chicago and the Large Electron Positron and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.[265] Hawking and Higgs engaged in a heated and public debate over the matter in 2002 and again in 2008, with Higgs criticising Hawking's work and complaining that Hawking's "celebrity status gives him instant credibility that others do not have."[265] The particle was discovered at CERN in July 2012: Hawking quickly conceded that he had lost his bet[266][267] and said that Higgs should win the Nobel Prize for Physics.[268]


Stephen Hawking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Which just go's to show that even the best can be WRONG! And do always remember in the 1950's 97% of the scientific community thought it preposterous the idea of continents moving...look how wrong they were....

What gets me is the way that they can completely ignore things that we know have already happened without the dire results they predict and continue to preach doom and gloom. We know that 7000ppm didn't produce catastrophic results...we know that 5000ppm didn't create catastrophic results...we know that 2000ppm didn't cause catastrophe and neither did 1000ppm.

How can people ignore that hard, uncontestable fact and claim that we are all going to die over a small fraction of the atmospheric CO2 concentrations that we know have existed with no catastrophic results?

 

[SSDD]

I think the real climate system acts to dampen the effect of extra CO2 as it does with many other things. obviously other disagree with me. but we shall see.

Oh very very few people would disagree with you on that point! The disagreement is over whether or not that "damping" will ultimately include a severe reduction in the human population. Before you reply you should also consider that we are hard at work destroying much of the natural damping of excess Co2. In fact - we're working the opposite way, by destroying more vegetation that we produce every year. The oceans can only hold so much Co2, my friend! Once that sink is topped off, our only option will be to seriously alter how we use land - meaning less land used for agriculture - meaning ultimately less food for us to eat and less of us.

Did any of the horrors you fear so much happen when atmospheric CO2 was at 1000ppm? How about at 2000ppm? 3000ppm? 4000ppm? 5000ppm? 6000ppm? 7000ppm?

At what concentration do you believe ecological catastrophe will happen? Certainly not less than 7000ppm because the earth has already seen that level without catastrophic results.

Seriously, looking back over history and knowing the concntrations that have existed in the past, at what level do you believe ecological disaster happens?

An ancient Earth like ours

 

[gslack]

I'm still waiting on Ian's response to the "wordplay" Roy Spencer tried to use in his latest greenhouse theory explanation...

Spencer used the concept of an insulator to explain the mechanism of the atmosphere regarding climate, and then inaccurately claimed that "insulator" can effect more warming on the planets surface. Not more efficient warming, not more uniform warming, which is what happens. But rather warming the surface of the planet MORE than it already is by it's presence...

Imagine, A perfect insulator.. Another amazing discovery by climate science.. Truly astounding how they can bend physics to suit their will anytime they want..

 

[jon_berzerk]

I'm still waiting on Ian's response to the "wordplay" Roy Spencer tried to use in his latest greenhouse theory explanation...

Spencer used the concept of an insulator to explain the mechanism of the atmosphere regarding climate, and then inaccurately claimed that "insulator" can effect more warming on the planets surface. Not more efficient warming, not more uniform warming, which is what happens. But rather warming the surface of the planet MORE than it already is by it's presence...

Imagine, A perfect insulator.. Another amazing discovery by climate science.. Truly astounding how they can bend physics to suit their will anytime they want..

fascinating

simply fascinating

--LOL

 

[gslack]

I'm still waiting on Ian's response to the "wordplay" Roy Spencer tried to use in his latest greenhouse theory explanation...

Spencer used the concept of an insulator to explain the mechanism of the atmosphere regarding climate, and then inaccurately claimed that "insulator" can effect more warming on the planets surface. Not more efficient warming, not more uniform warming, which is what happens. But rather warming the surface of the planet MORE than it already is by it's presence...

Imagine, A perfect insulator.. Another amazing discovery by climate science.. Truly astounding how they can bend physics to suit their will anytime they want..

fascinating

simply fascinating

--LOL

Yes, Roy Spencer, Ian's hero and obvious Super-genius. You should check out his site. He has some silly attempts to explain GHG theory. They are usually debunked within a few comments, but when that happens he closes the responses and makes another one.

They truly funny part is, most of them are simple matters of word-play and misrepresentation and many smart people on their try and argue ever more complex ideas on it, when the answer is really much simpler than that..

Like when he said this in Ian's last link..

"Infrared absorbing gases reduce the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space."-Roy Spencer

That is true.. But then he claims this..

"When you add insulation to your house, you reduce the rate of energy loss in the winter, which will raise the temperature inside the house (all other things being the same), while at the same time reducing the temperature of the exterior of the house. Similarly, greenhouse gases provide “radiative insulation” to the climate system, raising the temperature of the surface and lower atmosphere, while lowering the temperature of the middle and upper atmosphere."-Roy Spencer

See how he went from the position of it being an insulator to a second energy source? Yeah he did that... Now he claims insulation will raise the temperature inside the house. It won't of course, it will just allow it to reach a given temperature more efficiently. Not warmer than the heater or thermostat will allow, just be able to maintain that temperature easier and with less energy input to make it happen.

He's a fraud and a charlatan, he is and has been lying to people about this.. But no worry, look for him to be joining the "Global Cooling" camp soon.. His latest book...

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Blunder-Scientists/dp/1594033730/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271759263&sr=1-4]Amazon.com: The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists (9781594033735): Roy W Spencer: Books[/ame]

Book Description
Publication Date: April 13, 2010
The Great Global Warming Blunder unveils new evidence from major scientific findings that explode the conventional wisdom on climate change and reshape the global warming debate as we know it. Roy W. Spencer, a former senior NASA climatologist, reveals how climate researchers have mistaken cause and effect when analyzing cloud behavior and have been duped by Mother Nature into believing the Earth’s climate system is far more sensitive to human activities and carbon dioxide than it really is.

In fact, Spencer presents astonishing new evidence that recent warming is not the fault of humans, but the result of chaotic, internal natural cycles that have been causing periods of warming and cooling for millennia. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily to be feared; The Great Global Warming Blunder explains that burning of fossil fuels may actually be beneficial for life on Earth.

As group-think behavior and misguided global warming policy proposals threaten the lives of millions of the world’s poorest, most vulnerable citizens, The Great Global Warming Blunder is a scintillating exposé and much-needed call for debate.

Yep, he IS that transparent... Pretty pathetic...Now he is going to sell out his chums because the teets run dry... What a piece of work...

 

[jon_berzerk]

I'm still waiting on Ian's response to the "wordplay" Roy Spencer tried to use in his latest greenhouse theory explanation...

Spencer used the concept of an insulator to explain the mechanism of the atmosphere regarding climate, and then inaccurately claimed that "insulator" can effect more warming on the planets surface. Not more efficient warming, not more uniform warming, which is what happens. But rather warming the surface of the planet MORE than it already is by it's presence...

Imagine, A perfect insulator.. Another amazing discovery by climate science.. Truly astounding how they can bend physics to suit their will anytime they want..

fascinating

simply fascinating

--LOL

Yes, Roy Spencer, Ian's hero and obvious Super-genius. You should check out his site. He has some silly attempts to explain GHG theory. They are usually debunked within a few comments, but when that happens he closes the responses and makes another one.

They truly funny part is, most of them are simple matters of word-play and misrepresentation and many smart people on their try and argue ever more complex ideas on it, when the answer is really much simpler than that..

Like when he said this in Ian's last link..

"Infrared absorbing gases reduce the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space."-Roy Spencer

That is true.. But then he claims this..

"When you add insulation to your house, you reduce the rate of energy loss in the winter, which will raise the temperature inside the house (all other things being the same), while at the same time reducing the temperature of the exterior of the house. Similarly, greenhouse gases provide “radiative insulation” to the climate system, raising the temperature of the surface and lower atmosphere, while lowering the temperature of the middle and upper atmosphere."-Roy Spencer

See how he went from the position of it being an insulator to a second energy source? Yeah he did that... Now he claims insulation will raise the temperature inside the house. It won't of course, it will just allow it to reach a given temperature more efficiently. Not warmer than the heater or thermostat will allow, just be able to maintain that temperature easier and with less energy input to make it happen.

He's a fraud and a charlatan, he is and has been lying to people about this.. But no worry, look for him to be joining the "Global Cooling" camp soon.. His latest book...

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Blunder-Scientists/dp/1594033730/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271759263&sr=1-4]Amazon.com: The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists (9781594033735): Roy W Spencer: Books[/ame]

Book Description
Publication Date: April 13, 2010
The Great Global Warming Blunder unveils new evidence from major scientific findings that explode the conventional wisdom on climate change and reshape the global warming debate as we know it. Roy W. Spencer, a former senior NASA climatologist, reveals how climate researchers have mistaken cause and effect when analyzing cloud behavior and have been duped by Mother Nature into believing the Earth’s climate system is far more sensitive to human activities and carbon dioxide than it really is.

In fact, Spencer presents astonishing new evidence that recent warming is not the fault of humans, but the result of chaotic, internal natural cycles that have been causing periods of warming and cooling for millennia. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily to be feared; The Great Global Warming Blunder explains that burning of fossil fuels may actually be beneficial for life on Earth.

As group-think behavior and misguided global warming policy proposals threaten the lives of millions of the world’s poorest, most vulnerable citizens, The Great Global Warming Blunder is a scintillating exposé and much-needed call for debate.

Yep, he IS that transparent... Pretty pathetic...Now he is going to sell out his chums because the teets run dry... What a piece of work...

thanks

i will check it out

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Did any of the horrors you fear so much happen when atmospheric CO2 was at 1000ppm? How about at 2000ppm? 3000ppm? 4000ppm? 5000ppm? 6000ppm? 7000ppm?

The only "horror" I listed in my post that you are replying to was that humans would be severely reduced in number. Humans weren't even around the last time Co2 was at 1000 pm. So your question doesn't really make sense.

At what concentration do you believe ecological catastrophe will happen? Certainly not less than 7000ppm because the earth has already seen that level without catastrophic results.

The last time the Earth was at 7000 ppm the trilobite was the dominant form of life. Would you like to be replaced by a trilobite? Do you honestly think the Earth would have been hospitable to human life in the Cambrian era?

 

[gslack]

Hush Ian sock!

 

[westwall]

I think the real climate system acts to dampen the effect of extra CO2 as it does with many other things. obviously other disagree with me. but we shall see.

Oh very very few people would disagree with you on that point! The disagreement is over whether or not that "damping" will ultimately include a severe reduction in the human population. Before you reply you should also consider that we are hard at work destroying much of the natural damping of excess Co2. In fact - we're working the opposite way, by destroying more vegetation that we produce every year. The oceans can only hold so much Co2, my friend! Once that sink is topped off, our only option will be to seriously alter how we use land - meaning less land used for agriculture - meaning ultimately less food for us to eat and less of us.

When the ocean becomes saturated to a certain point the excess is used to create limestone.

 

[westwall]

Did any of the horrors you fear so much happen when atmospheric CO2 was at 1000ppm? How about at 2000ppm? 3000ppm? 4000ppm? 5000ppm? 6000ppm? 7000ppm?

The only "horror" I listed in my post that you are replying to was that humans would be severely reduced in number. Humans weren't even around the last time Co2 was at 1000 pm. So your question doesn't really make sense.

At what concentration do you believe ecological catastrophe will happen? Certainly not less than 7000ppm because the earth has already seen that level without catastrophic results.

The last time the Earth was at 7000 ppm the trilobite was the dominant form of life. Would you like to be replaced by a trilobite? Do you honestly think the Earth would have been hospitable to human life in the Cambrian era?

Your comments are untrue. The last major period of glaciation saw CO2 levels of 4000ppm. Funny how massive cooling occurred when CO2 levels were extremely high, funny how you idiots ignore simple facts like that.

We just broke the "magic" 400ppm barrier and the Earth is still cooling... and according to the Russians will continue to do so for the next 200 years or more....thanks to the solar activity...NOT CO2 which is after all, a trace gas in our atmosphere...