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

[PMZ]

There is no question that Slackerman is unable to keep up with even novice science discussions. That's all right, there are many in the same boat. The difference between him and others is that he has no idea of how far he is behind in what's required. Not even a hint.

 

[gslack]

How you coming along with your hypothesis that plants need diamomds and pencil lead to grow? *Are you including carbon nano-tubes, fibers and Bucky*balls too?

Got any suppporting evidence yet?**

Like, have you found some of it in your garden? *Here are pictures, so you can identiffy them.

You can see those with the naked eye. You'll need a magnifying glass for these.

Can you show where I made that claim socko? You keep on claiming I said it, yet you can't point to where or when... But we can point to many posts where you claimed life came from CO2..

LOL, carbon based life shit-head. Not CO2-based life. A carbon cycle numbnuts... Fake-ass wannabe scientist troll...ROFL

Yeah, like carbonite, right? Carbon, carbonite...

LOL, everytime you open your mouth you say something stupid..

Carbonite... Which one? The explosive? The inorganic anion? The online backup service? Or the fictitious alloy from Star Wars?

Which one moron? DO you even know? Of course not...

Do you have a carbon footprint or a CO2 footprint? Moron tweaker...

You're problem is you would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven. Understand what that means? It means you would rather repeat your stupid claim, than admit you were high and rambling through one of your many tweaks on here...

You are too damn ignorant or too high to know the difference between CO2 and carbon, and certainly too damn ignorant to understand CO2 is created and broken down on this planet constantly. Natural processes within the earths crust and soil, decomposition, burning of various carbon containing matter, oxidization, and many other things, too numerous to count here, all create CO2 or break it down into it's base elements. The only constants in it are the continuation of the processes,and the base elements, Carbon and Oxygen.

CO2 didn't create life on this planet shithead, here Life was created from Carbon, and that life or processes therein created CO2, just as the planet itself created CO2 and still does. Carbon is the constant here not CO2 which is a product thereof...

Now, if you want to pretend you're a scientist, knock yourself out. But at least put a little bit of time and effort into the tale... This is pathetic...

 

[gslack]

There is no question that Slackerman is unable to keep up with even novice science discussions. That's all right, there are many in the same boat. The difference between him and others is that he has no idea of how far he is behind in what's required. Not even a hint.

And which are you this time? You seem confused as to which character you are on here at any given time..

IF you had any scientific ability, you would know how ignorant your pal's claim is, and if you were any kind of man with a spine you would be on his ass for the stupidity of it not to mention the fact it wrecks your BS claim about being scientists...

So, no spine, and no knowledge... Sad...

 

[PMZ]

Predicting based on what? *Models??? * Failing models??

Exactly how much is a prediction worth if the basis for that prediction is models that have demonstrably failed??

So we have come back around to the lack of comprehension of what a model is?

"Predicting based on what? Models???" is, by far, one of the stupidest meaningless utterance that repeatedly infects this board. All it demonstrates is the ignorance of the person making it. It is slightly less general than saying "stuff" and "things".

You might just as well say, "Predictions based on what? Stuff?"

These are models;

F=Σ(mi*ai)

yi = a+ b*xi+εi

m*(d^/dx^2)(x(t))=-∇V*x(t)

Profit = (1-tax_rate)((price-unit_cost)*qty-interest)


Everytime you get in the car, to drive to the store, you use a mental model to get there.

This is a model,

This is a model;

Every time you turn on the Weather Channel, to find out if it will be hot this comimg week, you are using a model.

And this is the output of a number of complex computer models, based on finite element analysis and physics models, compared to the real world measurents.

And for a model of a system as complex as the global climate, it is exceptional in its accuracy and precision.

Writing that is specific and detailed are intelligent.

Vague, abstract, and generalized single statements are the result of a lack of intelligent thought. They are the result of a lazy mind or an intent to be misleading by not backing up one's point with proof and specific examples.

Your posts are a model, and miserably poor at that. Everything that represents something else is a model, including your own failed model of climate models. And of all models, I have experienced, your utterances are the worst, vague, inaccurate, and imprecise.



Garage At Post Office Square
CAD/CAM/CAE/PLM Services 2D, 3D, Drafting, Design, Solid Modeling, Design Analysis | Gill Incorporated - Design Solutions
Pinegrove Townhomes | Pinegrove Drive, off Hwy. 15, Myrtle Beach SC 29577
The climate models - HK Climate

Science, to folks with inadequate science education, is an enigma. They can't imagine the scientific method, so they assume that it is nothing more than politics. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Of course we are all missing vast amounts of education. Each of us knows only a tiny percentage of what all of us know. That's a fact of life.

But it's possible to be aware of areas where each of us are more or less expert in. And to figure out, for those fields we are personally not expert in, who actually knows more, and who, less.

That's the rub for deniers. They have no concept of credibility. They have no tools to distinguish between scientists and politicians. They believe that whoever claims what they want to be true, is closest to right.

That really is the best definition of pervasive ignorance. And the reason why it is incurable. Learning requires humility. The admission that others have put themselves in a position of superior knowledge, and therefore have earned the right to teach.

Ego trumps humility.

 

[itfitzme]

Can you show where I made that claim socko? You keep on claiming I said it, yet you can't point to where or when... But we can point to many posts where you claimed life came from CO2..

LOL, carbon based life shit-head. Not CO2-based life. A carbon cycle numbnuts... Fake-ass wannabe scientist troll...ROFL

Yeah, like carbonite, right? Carbon, carbonite...

LOL, everytime you open your mouth you say something stupid..

Carbonite... Which one? The explosive? The inorganic anion? The online backup service? Or the fictitious alloy from Star Wars?

Which one moron? DO you even know? Of course not...

Do you have a carbon footprint or a CO2 footprint? Moron tweaker...

You're problem is you would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven. Understand what that means? It means you would rather repeat your stupid claim, than admit you were high and rambling through one of your many tweaks on here...

You are too damn ignorant or too high to know the difference between CO2 and carbon, and certainly too damn ignorant to understand CO2 is created and broken down on this planet constantly. Natural processes within the earths crust and soil, decomposition, burning of various carbon containing matter, oxidization, and many other things, too numerous to count here, all create CO2 or break it down into it's base elements. The only constants in it are the continuation of the processes,and the base elements, Carbon and Oxygen.

CO2 didn't create life on this planet shithead, here Life was created from Carbon, and that life or processes therein created CO2, just as the planet itself created CO2 and still does. Carbon is the constant here not CO2 which is a product thereof...

Now, if you want to pretend you're a scientist, knock yourself out. But at least put a little bit of time and effort into the tale... This is pathetic...

You truly are an idiot, in every sense of the word.

So tell us, Slackerman, which form of carbon is it that plants use inthe carbon cycle? Coal, pencils, diamonds, buckyballs, carbon nanotubes? All of them? Does Miracle Grow have carbon in it to help plants grow big and strong? Do explain your new carbon cycle.

Bet ya squirm away when you can't find it on Wikipedia.

 

[gslack]

Yeah, like carbonite, right? Carbon, carbonite...

LOL, everytime you open your mouth you say something stupid..

Carbonite... Which one? The explosive? The inorganic anion? The online backup service? Or the fictitious alloy from Star Wars?

Which one moron? DO you even know? Of course not...

Do you have a carbon footprint or a CO2 footprint? Moron tweaker...

You're problem is you would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven. Understand what that means? It means you would rather repeat your stupid claim, than admit you were high and rambling through one of your many tweaks on here...

You are too damn ignorant or too high to know the difference between CO2 and carbon, and certainly too damn ignorant to understand CO2 is created and broken down on this planet constantly. Natural processes within the earths crust and soil, decomposition, burning of various carbon containing matter, oxidization, and many other things, too numerous to count here, all create CO2 or break it down into it's base elements. The only constants in it are the continuation of the processes,and the base elements, Carbon and Oxygen.

CO2 didn't create life on this planet shithead, here Life was created from Carbon, and that life or processes therein created CO2, just as the planet itself created CO2 and still does. Carbon is the constant here not CO2 which is a product thereof...

Now, if you want to pretend you're a scientist, knock yourself out. But at least put a little bit of time and effort into the tale... This is pathetic...

You truly are an idiot, in every sense of the word.

So tell us, Slackerman, which form of carbon is it that plants use inthe carbon cycle? Coal, pencils, diamonds, buckyballs, carbon nanotubes? All of them? Does Miracle Grow have carbon in it to help plants grow big and strong? Do explain your new carbon cycle.

Bet ya squirm away when you can't find it on Wikipedia.

CARBON numbnuts. There's no "new" carbon cycle, it's the same as it always was. The fact you don't know this shows how full of shit you are...heres a nice picture...Notice the part about "soil carbon" Yeah it's even in the soil silly socko...

A nice article on it...From wikkipedia no less,again shows what you know...

Carbon cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The carbon cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged among the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere of the Earth. Along with the nitrogen cycle and the water cycle, the carbon cycle comprises a sequence of events that are key to making the Earth capable of sustaining life; it describes the movement of carbon as it is recycled and reused throughout the biosphere.
The global carbon budget is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and losses) of carbon between the carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere ↔ biosphere) of the carbon cycle. An examination of the carbon budget of a pool or reservoir can provide information about whether the pool or reservoir is functioning as a source or sink for carbon dioxide. The carbon cycle was initially discovered by Joseph Priestley and Antoine Lavoisier, and popularized by Humphry Davy.[1]

Another? Sure...From the NOAA no less...

ESRL Integrating Research and Technology Theme: Carbon Cycle Science

What is the Carbon Cycle?
Carbon is exchanged, or "cycled" among Earth's oceans, atmosphere, ecosystem, and geosphere. All living organisms are built of carbon compounds. It is the fundamental building block of life and an important component of many chemical processes. It is present in the atmosphere primarily as carbon dioxide (CO2), but also as other less abundant but climatically significant gases, such as methane (CH4).

Sources and Sinks
Because life processes are fueled by carbon compounds which are oxidized to CO2, the latter is exhaled by all animals and plants. Conversely, CO2 is assimilated by plants during photosynthesis to build new carbon compounds. CO2 is produced by the burning of fossil fuels, which derive from the preserved products of ancient photosynthesis. The atmophere exchanges CO2 continuously with the oceans. Regions or processes that predominately produce CO2 are called sources of atmospheric CO2, while those that absorb CO2 are called sinks.

LOL, I can literally source and cite links on it all day dumbass...so do you want to explain your theory about CO2 that doesn't break down, or is it just your tweaker intellect at work talking in circles?

CO2 breaks down into carbon and oxygen respectively. It doesn't wait to be gobbled up by a plant, and if it's not, it doesn't just hang around as CO2 forever. It breaks down,kind of like your scientist BS does everytime you speak..

Fake scientists, seems like it's the norm here anymore... Do any "scientists" have jobs or are they all trolling web forums? LOL

 

[itfitzme]

LOL, everytime you open your mouth you say something stupid..

Carbonite... Which one? The explosive? The inorganic anion? The online backup service? Or the fictitious alloy from Star Wars?

Which one moron? DO you even know? Of course not...

Do you have a carbon footprint or a CO2 footprint? Moron tweaker...

You're problem is you would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven. Understand what that means? It means you would rather repeat your stupid claim, than admit you were high and rambling through one of your many tweaks on here...

You are too damn ignorant or too high to know the difference between CO2 and carbon, and certainly too damn ignorant to understand CO2 is created and broken down on this planet constantly. Natural processes within the earths crust and soil, decomposition, burning of various carbon containing matter, oxidization, and many other things, too numerous to count here, all create CO2 or break it down into it's base elements. The only constants in it are the continuation of the processes,and the base elements, Carbon and Oxygen.

CO2 didn't create life on this planet shithead, here Life was created from Carbon, and that life or processes therein created CO2, just as the planet itself created CO2 and still does. Carbon is the constant here not CO2 which is a product thereof...

Now, if you want to pretend you're a scientist, knock yourself out. But at least put a little bit of time and effort into the tale... This is pathetic...

You truly are an idiot, in every sense of the word.

So tell us, Slackerman, which form of carbon is it that plants use inthe carbon cycle? *Coal, pencils, diamonds, buckyballs, carbon nanotubes? All of them? *Does Miracle Grow have carbon in it to help plants grow big and strong? *Do explain your new carbon cycle.

*Bet ya squirm away when you can't find it on Wikipedia.

CARBON numbnuts. There's no "new" carbon cycle, it's the same as it always was. The fact you don't know this shows how full of shit you are...heres a nice picture...Notice the part about "soil carbon" Yeah it's even in the soil silly socko...

A nice article on it...From wikkipedia no less,again shows what you know...

Carbon cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The carbon cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged among the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere of the Earth. Along with the nitrogen cycle and the water cycle, the carbon cycle comprises a sequence of events that are key to making the Earth capable of sustaining life; it describes the movement of carbon as it is recycled and reused throughout the biosphere.
The global carbon budget is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and losses) of carbon between the carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere ↔ biosphere) of the carbon cycle. An examination of the carbon budget of a pool or reservoir can provide information about whether the pool or reservoir is functioning as a source or sink for carbon dioxide. The carbon cycle was initially discovered by Joseph Priestley and Antoine Lavoisier, and popularized by Humphry Davy.[1]

Another? Sure...From the NOAA no less...

ESRL Integrating Research and Technology Theme: Carbon Cycle Science

What is the Carbon Cycle?
Carbon is exchanged, or "cycled" among Earth's oceans, atmosphere, ecosystem, and geosphere. All living organisms are built of carbon compounds. It is the fundamental building block of life and an important component of many chemical processes. It is present in the atmosphere primarily as carbon dioxide (CO2), but also as other less abundant but climatically significant gases, such as methane (CH4).

Sources and Sinks
Because life processes are fueled by carbon compounds which are oxidized to CO2, the latter is exhaled by all animals and plants. Conversely, CO2 is assimilated by plants during photosynthesis to build new carbon compounds. CO2 is produced by the burning of fossil fuels, which derive from the preserved products of ancient photosynthesis. The atmophere exchanges CO2 continuously with the oceans. Regions or processes that predominately produce CO2 are called sources of atmospheric CO2, while those that absorb CO2 are called sinks.

LOL, I can literally source and cite links on it all day dumbass...so do you want to explain your theory about CO2 that *doesn't break down, or is it just your tweaker intellect at work talking in circles?

CO2 breaks down into carbon and oxygen respectively. It doesn't wait to be gobbled up by a plant, and if it's not, it doesn't just hang around as CO2 forever. It breaks down,kind of like your scientist BS does everytime you speak..

Fake scientists, seems like it's the norm here anymore... Do any "scientists" have jobs or are they all trolling web forums? LOL

Oh, so now you've changed you mind about it, the carbon comes from the CO2, exactly like you said it didn't.

Brilliant.

So how does the CO2 break down, by magic? It just breaks up into oxygen and coal, diamomds, and pencil lead? Is that it? Soil carbon is diamonds, coal and pencil lead?

So what is soil carbon, and how does it get there? The soil doesn't just gobble it up, diphead.

Surly you can find soil carbon on Wikipedia too.

 

[itfitzme]

So, according to gslack, the soil gobbles up CO2, magically breaks it up into oxygen and soil carbon, like coal, pencil lead, diamonds, fullerenes, and nano-tubes. *Plants then drink up the carbon through their roots. *That, the carbon cycle.

He's getting warmer.

I'l give you a hint, Slacknuts.

What is photosynthesis?

 

[SSDD]

So we have come back around to the lack of comprehension of what a model is?

You will pardon me but condesension from an idiot doesn't bother me and is actually sort of pitiful. I not only understand what a model is, but can detect whether a model works or it doesn't. There are, of course, models that work. They work because they are based on hard, empirical evidence and as such, are able to reproduce what happens in the real world. Climate models, are not and don't work for exactly that reason.

These are models;

F=Σ(mi*ai)

yi = a+ b*xi+εi

m*(d^/dx^2)(x(t))=-∇V*x(t)

Profit = (1-tax_rate)((price-unit_cost)*qty-interest)

Yep, and can you now describe the hard, empirical evidence upon which they are based?

Everytime you get in the car, to drive to the store, you use a mental model to get there.

Yes I do; and it is based on hard, real world empirical proof that the roads will lead to where I intend to go. The roads I intend to follow do in fact pass by the geographical locations I intend to go and if one. or more is experiencing a blockage due to traffic or maintenance, the alternates are also proven to go where they go based on hard, undeniable, unequivocal, emprical, real world proof that if followed, they will take me where I want to go.

Where is the hard, undeniable, unequivocal, empirical real world proof that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause global climate change?

This is a model;

In the most reudementary, and juvenile sense of the word. If you believe a drawing to be a model, then it is entirely clear why you are unable to grasp that climate models are failures.

Every time you turn on the Weather Channel, to find out if it will be hot this comimg week, you are using a model.

Yes, and have you ever followed the results of those models from day to day and week to week? Have you ever actually counted the number of successes vs failures in the projections of those models? Weather is easy compared to climate and yet, weather models fail on a routine basis. The failure rate of weather models causes me to take thier predictions with a grain of salt and never make hard plans based on their predictions more than 24 hours out and even then with the knowledge that they may well be wrong. Therefore, when you make the claim that climate models which are trying to model a far more complex system based on even less actual data, and far more assumption than weather models are accurate, I simply must laugh in your face.

And this is the output of a number of complex computer models, based on finite element analysis and physics models, compared to the real world measurents.

Tell me, if they are all based on finite element analyse and physics models, why is there such a wide variance in their output? If I model a chemical reaction for example, based on real world chemical properties I will get an output that will match what really happens...and if I write 100 models based on that same set of physics, then they will all give me the same output. If the climate models are based on real world physics, why is their output so varied? Real world physics is predictable and repeatable..why then so many answers from so many models if they are based on what happens in the real world?

And for a model of a system as complex as the global climate, it is exceptional in its accuracy and precision.

Actually they are a joke and the very fact that their output is so varied is evidence that the modellers do not have a very good grasp of what is actually happening in the global climate. That being the case, why should model output be taken with anything more than a grain of salt and a knowing smile?

Vague, abstract, and generalized single statements are the result of a lack of intelligent thought. They are the result of a lazy mind or an intent to be misleading by not backing up one's point with proof and specific examples.

Precisely your problem. You are all over the place and unable to provide the specific proof that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in a temperature increase. You have been asked specifically how much of the fraction of a degree of temperature rise in the past 100 years is due to man's CO2 output and are unable to give an answer and specific examples? You have been asked how much of the claimed global temperature increase is due to factors like the heat island effect and you are unable to give an answer and specific examples. You have been asked why so many alterations have been made to the surface temperature record and you have been unable to give an answer or specific examples.

I am not making the claim that CO2 is the control knob for the global climate and therefore am not required to give any specific examples. I am required to ask specific questions and form my position based on the answers to those questions. Your inability to give specific answers, and back up your point with actual proof suggests that your position is not well grounded in reality and till my questions can be answered specifically, and backed up with actual proof, I must remain skeptical of your position.

Your posts are a model, and miserably poor at that.

My posts are questions that you can not answer....simple as that.

Science, to folks with inadequate science education, is an enigma. They can't imagine the scientific method, so they assume that it is nothing more than politics. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Which is precisely why you are all over the board posting this and that when you could simply provide the proof to support your position if it existed. How many times have you been asked for one bit of hard data to support the claim that x amount of increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration will result in x temperature increase? Clearly you can't provide that information so you run here and there posting this and that in an obvious attempt to cover the fact that you can't provide the proof that you have been asked for.

I am asking questions that you can not answer and in your frustration at being unable to answer, and your embarassment at being caught out as a fraud, you project your inadequacy on me. Yes, you have an inadequate science education. If you had an adequate education, you would be asking the same questions as I am. You would be asking the very questions that you know your opposition can not answer and wondering why they hold their position when they can't answer those very questions.

But it's possible to be aware of areas where each of us are more or less expert in. And to figure out, for those fields we are personally not expert in, who actually knows more, and who, less.

And it is possible, by asking questions to know which areas others are NOT expert in. You have provided a great deal of information regarding what you don't know in the questions you have not been able to answer and the gyrations you have engaged in in an attempt to deflect attention from your inabilty to answer those very questions.

That's the rub for deniers. They have no concept of credibility. They have no tools to distinguish between scientists and politicians. They believe that whoever claims what they want to be true, is closest to right.

The rub is that you start talking crediblity when you can't answer the specific questions, and requests for proof that have been put to you. Since you can't answer, your credibility is in question and again, you project your issues onto me.

Ego trumps humility.

So why not practice what you preach and admit that you can not answer the specific questions or provide the requested proof?

 

[PMZ]

So we have come back around to the lack of comprehension of what a model is?

You will pardon me but condesension from an idiot doesn't bother me and is actually sort of pitiful. I not only understand what a model is, but can detect whether a model works or it doesn't. There are, of course, models that work. They work because they are based on hard, empirical evidence and as such, are able to reproduce what happens in the real world. Climate models, are not and don't work for exactly that reason.

These are models;

F=Σ(mi*ai)

yi = a+ b*xi+εi

m*(d^/dx^2)(x(t))=-∇V*x(t)

Profit = (1-tax_rate)((price-unit_cost)*qty-interest)

Yep, and can you now describe the hard, empirical evidence upon which they are based?



Yes I do; and it is based on hard, real world empirical proof that the roads will lead to where I intend to go. The roads I intend to follow do in fact pass by the geographical locations I intend to go and if one. or more is experiencing a blockage due to traffic or maintenance, the alternates are also proven to go where they go based on hard, undeniable, unequivocal, emprical, real world proof that if followed, they will take me where I want to go.

Where is the hard, undeniable, unequivocal, empirical real world proof that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause global climate change?



In the most reudementary, and juvenile sense of the word. If you believe a drawing to be a model, then it is entirely clear why you are unable to grasp that climate models are failures.



Yes, and have you ever followed the results of those models from day to day and week to week? Have you ever actually counted the number of successes vs failures in the projections of those models? Weather is easy compared to climate and yet, weather models fail on a routine basis. The failure rate of weather models causes me to take thier predictions with a grain of salt and never make hard plans based on their predictions more than 24 hours out and even then with the knowledge that they may well be wrong. Therefore, when you make the claim that climate models which are trying to model a far more complex system based on even less actual data, and far more assumption than weather models are accurate, I simply must laugh in your face.



Tell me, if they are all based on finite element analyse and physics models, why is there such a wide variance in their output? If I model a chemical reaction for example, based on real world chemical properties I will get an output that will match what really happens...and if I write 100 models based on that same set of physics, then they will all give me the same output. If the climate models are based on real world physics, why is their output so varied? Real world physics is predictable and repeatable..why then so many answers from so many models if they are based on what happens in the real world?



Actually they are a joke and the very fact that their output is so varied is evidence that the modellers do not have a very good grasp of what is actually happening in the global climate. That being the case, why should model output be taken with anything more than a grain of salt and a knowing smile?



Precisely your problem. You are all over the place and unable to provide the specific proof that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in a temperature increase. You have been asked specifically how much of the fraction of a degree of temperature rise in the past 100 years is due to man's CO2 output and are unable to give an answer and specific examples? You have been asked how much of the claimed global temperature increase is due to factors like the heat island effect and you are unable to give an answer and specific examples. You have been asked why so many alterations have been made to the surface temperature record and you have been unable to give an answer or specific examples.

I am not making the claim that CO2 is the control knob for the global climate and therefore am not required to give any specific examples. I am required to ask specific questions and form my position based on the answers to those questions. Your inability to give specific answers, and back up your point with actual proof suggests that your position is not well grounded in reality and till my questions can be answered specifically, and backed up with actual proof, I must remain skeptical of your position.



My posts are questions that you can not answer....simple as that.



Which is precisely why you are all over the board posting this and that when you could simply provide the proof to support your position if it existed. How many times have you been asked for one bit of hard data to support the claim that x amount of increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration will result in x temperature increase? Clearly you can't provide that information so you run here and there posting this and that in an obvious attempt to cover the fact that you can't provide the proof that you have been asked for.

I am asking questions that you can not answer and in your frustration at being unable to answer, and your embarassment at being caught out as a fraud, you project your inadequacy on me. Yes, you have an inadequate science education. If you had an adequate education, you would be asking the same questions as I am. You would be asking the very questions that you know your opposition can not answer and wondering why they hold their position when they can't answer those very questions.




And it is possible, by asking questions to know which areas others are NOT expert in. You have provided a great deal of information regarding what you don't know in the questions you have not been able to answer and the gyrations you have engaged in in an attempt to deflect attention from your inabilty to answer those very questions.

That's the rub for deniers. They have no concept of credibility. They have no tools to distinguish between scientists and politicians. They believe that whoever claims what they want to be true, is closest to right.

The rub is that you start talking crediblity when you can't answer the specific questions, and requests for proof that have been put to you. Since you can't answer, your credibility is in question and again, you project your issues onto me.

Ego trumps humility.

So why not practice what you preach and admit that you can not answer the specific questions or provide the requested proof?

First I have no trouble standing behind any of my words but some of those that you attribute to me aren't mine.

Second, SS, on many DDs you show up here asking questions that are the scientific equivalent of "how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood"?

We'll never know the degree to which that stems from limited education vs über loyalty to Rush's Cult of Science Deniers, and it really doesn't matter.

On many of those DDs, others, but especially Itfitzme, takes the time to lay out decades of research and data and theory that clearly shows the evidence supporting the conclusion that it is unaffordable to ignore AGW and the least expensive path to the future is to get away from changing the world's climate rather than pay for the consequences of the present path.

Doers are betting billions on the research, data and theories that Itfitzme has revealed to you and others. Yet you only continue your efforts on behalf of Rush and the other woodchucks of the world.

His patience with your education greatly exceeds mine. I am pragmatic rather than a dedicated teacher. In my estimation you and the rest of the cult have rendered yourself irrelevent to any further discussion, and there are, therefore, infinitely more useful things to do than pull your string that starts the woodchuck rhyme.

I personally doubt that you'll ever catch up, but that's merely one opinion. I don't plan on any involvement either way.

 

[SSDD]

First I have no trouble standing behind any of my words but some of those that you attribute to me aren't mine.

Of course you don't. Clearly you actually believe them. You can't however provide any proof to support them.

Second, SS, on many DDs you show up here asking questions that are the scientific equivalent of "how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood"?

If you are making the claim that woodchucks can chuck wood and their chucking is going to cause a global catastrophe, and you want me to believe it, then you had damned well better be able to prove it...not just give me a bunch of correlational data and claim that it is proof when it is not.

We'll never know the degree to which that stems from limited education vs über loyalty to Rush's Cult of Science Deniers, and it really doesn't matter.

I don't listen to rush or any other radio personalities. In fact, the only radio show I listen to regularly is The Prairie Home Companion. I am asking questions that neither you, nor any of the other warmists seem to be able to answer. Questions that would seem very basic if the claimed state of climate science is to be believed.

On many of those DDs, others, but especially Itfitzme, takes the time to lay out decades of research and data and theory that clearly shows the evidence supporting the conclusion that it is unaffordable to ignore AGW and the least expensive path to the future is to get away from changing the world's climate rather than pay for the consequences of the present path.

Decades of assumptions, fabrications, parallells, guesses, hunches, postulations, inferences, suspicions, suppositions, model output, etc., but not the proof that I have been asking for. If your claim is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming, then you should be able to actually show some proof that it is happening and state how much warming will result from some specific amount of CO2.

Doers are betting billions on the research, data and theories that Itfitzme has revealed to you and others. Yet you only continue your efforts on behalf of Rush and the other woodchucks of the world.

No, dupes are putting billions into failing climate models and claiming that the output of those models is actual data. It isn't.

His patience with your education greatly exceeds mine. I am pragmatic rather than a dedicated teacher. In my estimation you and the rest of the cult have rendered yourself irrelevent to any further discussion, and there are, therefore, infinitely more useful things to do than pull your string that starts the woodchuck rhyme.

Again, the condesention of iditots doesn't bother me so forgive me if I don't break up over yours. Since you can't actually offer up any proof that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming, or even state how much warming should be expected for X amount of CO2, you have essentially two choices. You can be a grown up and admit that you can't provide any actual proof to support your position, or you can project your frustration, and inability to actually prove your claims onto me. As we can see, you have chosen the disfunctional alternative. Hardly a surprise.

I personally doubt that you'll ever catch up, but that's merely one opinion. I don't plan on any involvement either way.

I am wondering how far down the toilet climate science must go before people like you realise how far behind the curve you have been for all this time. It is you, I am afraid, who is in the position of having to catch up.

 

[itfitzme]

Clearly, your inability to distinguish between myself and PMZ makes my point. Your head is a failed model.

You will pardon me but condesension from an idiot doesn't bother me and is actually sort of pitiful. *I not only understand what a model is, but can detect whether a model works or it doesn't. *There are, of course, models that work. *They work because they are based on hard,i empirical evidence and as such, are able to reproduce what happens in the real world. *Climate models, are not and don't work for exactly that reason.

Your the one with the vague, generalized, and unqualified point of*

Predicting based on what? Models??? Failing models??

Exactly how much is a prediction worth if the basis for that prediction is models that have demonstrably failed??"

You say nothing about what model, the precision and accuracy of the models.**You simply assume some unstated context. *And as there are no failed models, then there is no way for anyone to guess what you are talking about.

So, if you are going to make*vague, generalized, and unqualified statement, then you should hardly be surprised when the specific, detailed, and qualified reply isn't to your liking. *

And it isn't particularly surprising, given your propensity for*vague, generalized, and unqualified statements, that you should confuse my reply with PMZ. *Obviously, overgeneralization is one of your characteristics, including being unable to distinguish between individuals. *While you rail against failed precision, you fail to live up to your own expectation. *Unable to perform, yourself, you have to bolster your own damaged ego by desperately tearing others down.

In the typical fashion, you begin your post with another vague and unqualified statememt.

You will pardon me but condesension from an idiot doesn't bother me and is actually sort of pitiful.

Clearly your style. *You would do as well to stand in front of the mirror and repeat, "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, gosh darned it, people like me." *First, you have to stroke your own ego rather than just get to the point.

Clearly you have no real experience with models. *

There are, of course, models that work. *They work because they are based on hard, empirical evidence and as such, are able to reproduce what happens in the real world. *Climate models, are not and don't work for exactly that reason.

Because anyone that has spent time doing balistic tests, designing a sensitive circuit, or making temperature measurement knows that;

F=ma,*

which includes such wonders as*

x=x0+v0*x+a0*x^2,*
E=m/(2^v^2), and*
p=mv

as well as

V=Σ(Ri*Ii)

always miss the mark of absolute precision because of friction and thermal noise. *The history of physics is a history of finding a simpified model, that accurately represents the physical process, then further refining the theory to explain the noise. *

And if you don't know this, do some ballistic calculations for your favorite rifle. Take it to the firing range, mount it, and fire 30 rounds into a target set at the rifle's maximum range. *I guarantee that the target will show a random spread as distance. And that error increases as the distance to the target increases and muzzle velocity decreases. I guarantee you won't be able to predicted the precise location of every round.*By your accounting, not only will the ballistics models be a complete failure, so will every gun you own.

If you were paying attention, this model

yi = a+ b*xi+εi

includes the error term, εi.

The map doesn't include the traffic light timing, the hundreds of other automobiles along the way, or predict that child chasing a ball out into the street. * And if you believe that the map precisely predicts your entire trip, allowing you to precisely determine how long it will take to drive to your destination, then you are to busy talking on your cell phone and not paying attention to your surroundings.

Every model has it's level of precision. *And that level is dependent on numerous factors, including random noise, the trade off between calculation effort and expediency, the compexity of the system under investigation, and the level of precision neccesary to achieve the desired goal. No carpentry uses a precision of*0.001", though the tools are certainly available.

And while the weekly weather forcast is provided as a 70% chance of rain, everyone with half a brain, takes an umbrella even though it has a 30% chance of not raining. *And that it didn't rain isn't a failure of predicting weather. *The precision of the prediction is in the statistical level of confidence, a value not presented, because no one cares. Everyone, except wedding planners, are happy with the confidence level that Accuweather has achieved in their models.

The IPCC published results of prediction for future climate change based on the set of models is remarkable given the complexity of the Earth climate.*

And you're just pissed off because you expect summary agreement with your mindlessly vague statements, and you don't get them.

-----

(gslack is fixated on socks, westwall is apparently one of his socks, and he constantly confuses me with PMZ. So SSDD's similar confusion, seems highly suspicious. Either that or they are all similarly stupid. So, perhaps they should all be referred to you as SSDD/gslack/westwall now. *Funny thing about generalization, you really don't know for sure.)

 

[itfitzme]

Precisely your problem. You are all over the place and unable to provide the specific proof that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in a temperature increase. You have been asked specifically how much of the fraction of a degree of temperature rise in the past 100 years is due to man's CO2 output and are unable to give an answer and specific examples? You have been asked how much of the claimed global temperature increase is due to factors like the heat island effect and you are unable to give an answer and specific examples. You have been asked why so many alterations have been made to the surface temperature record and you have been unable to give an answer or specific examples.

I am not making the claim that CO2 is the control knob for the global climate and therefore am not required to give any specific examples. I am required to ask specific questions and form my position based on the answers to those questions. Your inability to give specific answers, and back up your point with actual proof suggests that your position is not well grounded in reality and till my questions can be answered specifically, and backed up with actual proof, I must remain skeptical of your position.

You are not required to do anything. *You seem to have appointed yourself some wierd role.

Nor am I required to do anything, another perception of some wierd role you imagine you have.

I posted the contact number and email address for the IPCC. *If you have some issue with the quality of their work, you can take it up with them. *The contact info for your congressman and for the Whitehouse is also readily available online as well. *

And if you find your failure to achieve the authority figure status that you so desperately desire, you can find the number for a qualified mental health professional, in your area, online.

In the mean time, your lack of ability to accept the obvious fact that temp anomoly correlates to CO2;*the fact that CO2 is demonstated to absorb IR radiation; and that, combined these stand as sufficient evidence to predict that further CO2 increase will result in further temp increase within the boundaries of statistical confidence levels, is your own problem. *No one appointed you as designer of the scientific process. *That is something *you learn from science, or go on your merry way, banging your head against doors.

Especially given the bs level of "*You have been asked specifically how much of the fraction of a degree of temperature rise in the past 100 years is due to man's CO2 output and are unable to give an answer and specific examples? ", which is entirely contrary to facts.

And I've learned that anything you post serves as a negatively correlated predictor of the accuracy and precision of climate science.

 

[SSDD]

Clearly, your inability to distinguish between myself and PMZ makes my point. Your head is a failed model.

You are one in the same as evidenced by the unique (in the history of this board) way in which you describe the absorption and emission properties of CO2. There are other obvious giveaways, but the very unusual, in fact unique wording that you two use is evidence that you are one in the same.

You say nothing about what model, the precision and accuracy of the models.**You simply assume some unstated context. *And as there are no failed models, then there is no way for anyone to guess what you are talking about.

One would think that on this particular thread, when one says "model" one would simply know that one is talking about climate models. Guess I was wrong. That makes you either very obtuse, or very stupid. My vote is for stupid. And since there are no successful models, it doesn't matter which climate model I reference..it has failed..

The fact that you are apparently unaware of the abject failure of climate models tells me that you are getting your information from your cult leaders rather than from the peer reviewed, published literature.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper: Models lead to overly confident climate predictions

A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that ensembles of climate models used by the IPCC to predict future climate change "may lead to overly confident climate predictions." The authors find that many models share the same computer code, have the same limitations, and "tend to be fairly similar," resulting in confirmation bias.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The 76 trillion dollar computer game

A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research in essence reveals climate models are not capable of reproducing the observed climate of the past century, much less the future. According to the paper, "few models reproduce the strong observed warming trend from 1918 to 1940," there are "large differences" in the forcings and feedbacks used in various models and that some of these are "unrealistic." In other words, the key inputs and assumptions of the models are not known with reasonable certainty - ergo GIGO. The paper also finds that predicting the range of "future climate change by weighting these models based on their 20th century [performance] is not possible." Translation: climate models are little more than very expensive computer fantasy games that cannot predict the future nor even replicate the past.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Settled science: New paper finds climate models have a 50% consensus on Arctic sea ice

A paper published today in Climate of Past finds a 50% consensus by climate models on the response of Arctic sea ice to changes in solar radiation during the mid-Holocene. According to the authors, "Approximately one half of the models simulate a decrease in winter sea-ice extent and one half simulates an increase."

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds more evidence of the 'poor performance' of climate models

A new paper published in the Journal of Climate finds there has been "little to no improvement" in simulating clouds by state-of-the-art climate models. The authors note the "poor performance of current global climate models in simulating realistic [clouds]," and that the models show "quite large biases...as well as a remarkable degree of variation" with the differences between models remaining "large."

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper shows climate models underestimate cooling effect from clouds by a factor of 4

A paper published in the technical newsletter of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment finds that climate models suppress the negative feedback from low clouds, which serve to cool the Earth by reflection of incoming sunlight. The paper notes that cloud feedbacks in computer models are not only uncertain in magnitude, but even in sign (positive or negative). As climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer has pointed out, a mere 1 to 2% natural variation in cloud cover can alone account for whether there is global warming or global cooling, despite any alleged effects of CO2.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds IPCC models fail to simulate the most important natural weather patterns

A new paper published in Global and Planetary Change finds that IPCC climate models are unable to reproduce either the El Nino Southern Oscillation [ENSO] or the Indian summer monsoon, the two most influential natural weather patterns on Earth, both of which have large effects upon global climate. The authors therefore caution that, given these large uncertainties of natural variation, current models cannot be relied upon to project future global warming from greenhouse gases.

And the list could go on and on. Practically every shred of "proof" you provide as evidence to support your position is the result of a computer model and the peer reviewed literature is saying that the models are no good.

Clearly you have no real experience with models. *

As in everyhing else, you assume wrong.

Because anyone that has spent time doing balistic tests, designing a sensitive circuit, or making temperature measurement knows that;

F=ma,*

which includes such wonders as*

x=x0+v0*x+a0*x^2,*
E=m/(2^v^2), and*
p=mv

as well as

V=Σ(Ri*Ii)

always miss the mark of absolute precision because of friction and thermal noise. *The history of physics is a history of finding a simpified model, that accurately represents the physical process, then further refining the theory to explain the noise. *

And if you don't know this, do some ballistic calculations for your favorite rifle. Take it to the firing range, mount it, and fire 30 rounds into a target set at the rifle's maximum range. *I guarantee that the target will show a random spread as distance. And that error increases as the distance to the target increases and muzzle velocity decreases. I guarantee you won't be able to predicted the precise location of every round.*By your accounting, not only will the ballistics models be a complete failure, so will every gun you own.

Once again, your example indicates that you don't know what you are talking about. None of the formulas you present above can in any way predict the impact point downrange of a bullet. Oddly enough, you use ballistics as an example and I, myself am a shooter of some renown.

A model is preciely as good as the physics it is based upon and the data which it is given. I can load 50 rounds of 168 grain Nosler Ballistic Tip .308 win cartriges and be confident that the muzzle velosity of each round will be within 8 feet per second at the muzzle and within 6 feet per second at 100 yards as mesured by a chronograph.

If you are getting a random spread at the target, then you are either a very bad shot, don't know the first thing about reloading, or are unable to calculate for an impact point...or more likely all three.

With handloaded ammunition I can manage sub MOA accuracy out to 500 yards with my favorite rifle (Weatherby Vanguard) if I want to take the time to calculate for wind, altitude, humidity and the coriolis effect. Sub MOA at 500 yards is not, I repeat, NOT a random spread by anyone's definition.

(gslack is fixated on socks, westwall is apparently one of his socks, and he constantly confuses me with PMZ. So SSDD's similar confusion, seems highly suspicious. Either that or they are all similarly stupid. So, perhaps they should all be referred to you as SSDD/gslack/westwall now. *Funny thing about generalization, you really don't know for sure.)

Nah, we just both know that you are one in the same. You must be very clever to pretend to be two people and not get caught out by using unique terms, like spelling and grammitical, and punctuation errors. You aren't that clever.

Now again, can you or can't you provide any sort of proof that X amount of increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in X amount of warming? And can you state how much warming shoud be expected from X amount of atmospheric CO2 increase?

 

[SSDD]

In the mean time, your lack of ability to accept the obvious fact that temp anomoly correlates to CO2;*the fact that CO2 is demonstated to absorb IR radiation; and that, combined these stand as sufficient evidence to predict that further CO2 increase will result in further temp increase within the boundaries of statistical confidence levels, is your own problem. *No one appointed you as designer of the scientific process. *That is something *you learn from science, or go on your merry way, banging your head against doors.

The fact that the temp anomoly corelates to CO2 is answered by the fact that warming oceans outgas CO2. The fact that CO2 absorbs IR and then immediately emits it at a slightly lower wavelength in no way suggests that it can cause the atmosphere to warm. In fact, it suggests a cooling effect since the non "greenhouse" gasses are unable to transport IR which would leave convection and conduction to carry the entire load, it stands to reason that an atmosphere with no "greenhouse" gasses would be warmer.

And I've learned that anything you post serves as a negatively correlated predictor of the accuracy and precision of climate science.

There is no accuracy or prescion in climate science as evidenced by the fact that you can not state how much warming should occur if atmospheric CO2 raises from x to y. I could certainly tell you how much warming should occur if a given volume of a given gas were compressed from x psi to y psi...that is because the ideal gas laws are actual physics and predict what will happen in the real world.

There are no answers for the questions I ask because if climate science actually answered them based on thier assumptions regarding atmospheric physics, they would have to finally admit the hoax when their predictions failed. They have a great deal of money on the line and it requires an unfalsifable hypothesis.

Tell me, what woud falsify the AGW hypothesis for you?

 

[PMZ]

Precisely your problem. You are all over the place and unable to provide the specific proof that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in a temperature increase. You have been asked specifically how much of the fraction of a degree of temperature rise in the past 100 years is due to man's CO2 output and are unable to give an answer and specific examples? You have been asked how much of the claimed global temperature increase is due to factors like the heat island effect and you are unable to give an answer and specific examples. You have been asked why so many alterations have been made to the surface temperature record and you have been unable to give an answer or specific examples.

I am not making the claim that CO2 is the control knob for the global climate and therefore am not required to give any specific examples. I am required to ask specific questions and form my position based on the answers to those questions. Your inability to give specific answers, and back up your point with actual proof suggests that your position is not well grounded in reality and till my questions can be answered specifically, and backed up with actual proof, I must remain skeptical of your position.

You are not required to do anything. *You seem to have appointed yourself some wierd role.

Nor am I required to do anything, another perception of some wierd role you imagine you have.

I posted the contact number and email address for the IPCC. *If you have some issue with the quality of their work, you can take it up with them. *The contact info for your congressman and for the Whitehouse is also readily available online as well. *

And if you find your failure to achieve the authority figure status that you so desperately desire, you can find the number for a qualified mental health professional, in your area, online.

In the mean time, your lack of ability to accept the obvious fact that temp anomoly correlates to CO2;*the fact that CO2 is demonstated to absorb IR radiation; and that, combined these stand as sufficient evidence to predict that further CO2 increase will result in further temp increase within the boundaries of statistical confidence levels, is your own problem. *No one appointed you as designer of the scientific process. *That is something *you learn from science, or go on your merry way, banging your head against doors.

Especially given the bs level of "*You have been asked specifically how much of the fraction of a degree of temperature rise in the past 100 years is due to man's CO2 output and are unable to give an answer and specific examples? ", which is entirely contrary to facts.

And I've learned that anything you post serves as a negatively correlated predictor of the accuracy and precision of climate science.

The goal of the science denial cult was to slow action towards solutions by keeping the climate science discussion going as long as possible. They were successful for around a decade, and that lost decade will cost the world a fortune, but now it's over. They were successful in saving the current generation some tax money, but the cost to future generations will be much higher than that.

What we have to do now is the largest project, by far, ever taken on by mankind. It will be pervasive. Nearly everything in our energy infrastructure needs to change

I believe that key to progress will be the change from a relatively few mega utility scale power plants to a very diverse network of sources designed for very local conditions. Commercial real estate like malls and factories and office buildings will, more and more, include their own sources tailored to the timing of their peak needs, thus reducing distribution capacity. Gas stations will slowly become obsolete, replaced by ubiquitous charging stations. City cars will replace the behemoths that we're used to. Hybrids will be the basis of long distance cars which will more and more become rentals as people move away from owning all purpose vehicles. The last transportation sector to move from fossil fuels will be aircraft. Heavy ground transportation will become CNG powered. Rail will become the favored mode for long distance heavy transport.

We will learn from Europe and Asia about mass transportation.

More fossil fuels will be used for feed stock rather than being burned for energy.

Some people believe that there are viable CO2 sequestration technologies coming for the remaining utility scale fossil fuel plants that will be required. Maybe.

Ships may return to wind assisted, using rigid airfoil "sails".

In the end, the productivity of the world will be focused on re-energizing civilization rather than more and more stuff. Lots of jobs. Lots of new technology.

In addition to all of that work, will be the job of adapting civilization to the weather patterns that the new climate that we are creating and will unavoidably keep changing. Sea walls for cities and substantially different agricultural technology and high wind proofing large segments of current population centers.

The future will not be for the unimaginative nor the faint hearted. Not for those who long for the simple past. Not for the Lone Rangers and loose cannons and mavericks. Their day is done.

The future is for the dreamers and doers, the renascence of the Industrial Revolution but this time the Energy Revolution.

 

[itfitzme]

The early 1900's saw an explosion in agricultural efficiency. *The combination of both advancements in mechanization, fuels, and biotechnology has allowed agricultural output and population to increase substantially. *

Year * *%agUSemp * *US pop * * * World pop
1900 * * 36% * * * * *76 million * *1.6 billion
2000 * * *3% * * * * 281 million * *6.1 billion

EPA GHG BY SECTOR

Does the planet and climate have a negative feedback that limits temperature? *You bet.*The big negative feedback mechanism is the effect of fossil fuel dependency affecting the very climate that agriculture is dependent upon.

Like a person with a fever, the Earth's rising temperature will kill the organism that has infected it.

"Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern... a virus."- Agent Smith - The Matrix

The only question is if the human race is a virus, as Agent Smith suggest. *Personnally, I believe, most people are symbiotic, a smaller percentage are viruses.

The question, you must ask, is; "Which are you?"

Global Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA

 

[gslack]

You truly are an idiot, in every sense of the word.

So tell us, Slackerman, which form of carbon is it that plants use inthe carbon cycle? *Coal, pencils, diamonds, buckyballs, carbon nanotubes? All of them? *Does Miracle Grow have carbon in it to help plants grow big and strong? *Do explain your new carbon cycle.

*Bet ya squirm away when you can't find it on Wikipedia.

CARBON numbnuts. There's no "new" carbon cycle, it's the same as it always was. The fact you don't know this shows how full of shit you are...heres a nice picture...Notice the part about "soil carbon" Yeah it's even in the soil silly socko...

A nice article on it...From wikkipedia no less,again shows what you know...

Carbon cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Another? Sure...From the NOAA no less...

ESRL Integrating Research and Technology Theme: Carbon Cycle Science

What is the Carbon Cycle?
Carbon is exchanged, or "cycled" among Earth's oceans, atmosphere, ecosystem, and geosphere. All living organisms are built of carbon compounds. It is the fundamental building block of life and an important component of many chemical processes. It is present in the atmosphere primarily as carbon dioxide (CO2), but also as other less abundant but climatically significant gases, such as methane (CH4).

Sources and Sinks
Because life processes are fueled by carbon compounds which are oxidized to CO2, the latter is exhaled by all animals and plants. Conversely, CO2 is assimilated by plants during photosynthesis to build new carbon compounds. CO2 is produced by the burning of fossil fuels, which derive from the preserved products of ancient photosynthesis. The atmophere exchanges CO2 continuously with the oceans. Regions or processes that predominately produce CO2 are called sources of atmospheric CO2, while those that absorb CO2 are called sinks.

LOL, I can literally source and cite links on it all day dumbass...so do you want to explain your theory about CO2 that *doesn't break down, or is it just your tweaker intellect at work talking in circles?

CO2 breaks down into carbon and oxygen respectively. It doesn't wait to be gobbled up by a plant, and if it's not, it doesn't just hang around as CO2 forever. It breaks down,kind of like your scientist BS does everytime you speak..

Fake scientists, seems like it's the norm here anymore... Do any "scientists" have jobs or are they all trolling web forums? LOL

Oh, so now you've changed you mind about it, the carbon comes from the CO2, exactly like you said it didn't.

Brilliant.

So how does the CO2 break down, by magic? It just breaks up into oxygen and coal, diamomds, and pencil lead? Is that it? Soil carbon is diamonds, coal and pencil lead?

So what is soil carbon, and how does it get there? The soil doesn't just gobble it up, diphead.

Surly you can find soil carbon on Wikipedia too.

No change scumbag, you are lying is all.... Not a shock it's your MO after all...

Notice the carbon in the soil? Of course not you're a liar and a troll..

Thanks for wasting peoples time.. You're a liar, a troll, and a sock, with no intention of anything but trolling...

The fact you dismiss articles from wikki as well as the NOAA as if they don't mean anything, shows not only how dishonest you are, but how you are nothing but a useless troll..

 

[gslack]

So, according to gslack, the soil gobbles up CO2, magically breaks it up into oxygen and soil carbon, like coal, pencil lead, diamonds, fullerenes, and nano-tubes. *Plants then drink up the carbon through their roots. *That, the carbon cycle.

He's getting warmer.

I'l give you a hint, Slacknuts.

What is photosynthesis?

It's not helping you attacking people as two seperate names on here when both are this stupid and this bad at lying socko..

You're trolling for effect and socking you will get busted eventually..

 

[IanC]

it really is a shame that concern about the earth and 'climate' has devolved into a political struggle with both sides taking stance of "you're either with me, or against me". unfortunately that type of position makes it easy to dismiss valid points from both sides before they are even examined.

climate models are a useful tool to test our improving knowledge of the factors that run climate but are not meant to be able to predict the future with any certainty. hell, most of them cannot replicate the past without arbitrary fine tuning of inputs that seriously impact how the models run. (check out J Curry's latest post). it is not that climate models are 'wrong', it is that the media and the public demanded that they be used for a purpose which they are not well suited.

CO2, and the theory of CO2 warming, is another example of focusing on one area that is a legitimately worthy case for interest, and perhaps for concern, but to the exclusion of the heavy hitters in climate like water in its many forms. most of the energy comes into the earth at tropical locations and is pumped out by hydrological means, either convection and clouds, or ocean currents. CO2 is a pittance compared to these functions which have kept the tropical oceans at a very stable temp no matter what conditions prevailed. CO2 may theoretically be able to impede the loss of some IR radiation but that does not mean that that same IR can directly heat the surface. mostly all it does is add energy to the heat pump mechanisms that are controlled and governed by water/evaporation/clouds. the clouds get rid of energy whether it is a lot, or a little. open water seldom exceeds 29C, and never exceeds 31C. available energy simply turns on the heat pump. until we have a much better understanding of hydrological mechanisms, focusing on CO2 is just a joke.