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

[westwall]

Roy's model failed just like all the rest. It is truely sad to watch you attempt to defend that which has spectacularly and undeniably failed.

The more you talk, the more evident it becomes that you don't know squat.

Actually it become more evident he is a mindless, unthinking drone. He couldn't figure out 2+2 without a calculator.

 

[itfitzme]

Any level is unacceptable as it is a carcinogen, highly caustic, and poisonous. *And it got there because idiots like you mandated it to be used in gasoline, even after real scientists (of which I was one) told you how bad the crap was.

Yet another example of ignorant anti-science toads ignoring good hard science and stamping their feet to get what they wanted because it made them feel good. *You idiots are all alike. *Ready, Fire, Aim.

How much, exactly, in ppm. *A number, numbnuts. *And detail the mechanism by which it got there. *Not some vague pussified bs that you always spout because you're to chicken to be specific.

Which part of "ANY" is it that you don't understand? *You seem to have a perpetual problem with the meanings of words. *Here, have a definition....on the house.

any - adj. - in whatever quantity or number, great or small

Just want to be clear. *So 300ppm or 400ppm would be to much than...

You might want to review

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wYLmLW4k4aI]CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube[/ame]

because, according to you, it's just a little bit.

 

[itfitzme]

Roy's model failed just like all the rest. It is truely sad to watch you attempt to defend that which has spectacularly and undeniably failed.

The more you talk, the more evident it becomes that you don't know squat.

Then why are you posting bs models from Dr Roy's website?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

That is from Dr. Roy's website... It's his graph, selected balloon and selected satellite data, from Dr, Roy.

You can just keep on pretending all you want.

 

[PMZ]

You are still having difficulty with that absorbed/re-emitted and reflected/transmitted thing. This is why you can't be a Wikipedia scientist.

Sorry, but it is you who is having problems. CO2 immediately emits the IR it absorbs. It does not have the capacity to hold on to even the smallest amount of IR. Feel free to keep trying. Like I said, very intertaining.

By the way, your idiot experiment is done in a closed system. You will see a temperature rise in your container, but it is due to a phenomenon known as the heat of compression...look it up.

If you put an outlet valve on top of your container so that the pressure within doesn't increase as you add IR, you will not see a temperature rise.

You are laughably inept on the ideal gas law. Try Wikipedia.

 

[PMZ]

Provably wrong. Lead was removed years before MTBE was ever added to the gasoline. Ethanol is a ******* joke. MORE CO2 is created in its manufacture than is the result of oil cracking and fuel and other POL consumption. You are simply, catastrophically wrong.

A TDI gets better fuel mileage than a hybrid. By a lot. It is also far less damaging to the environment to manufacture. Provably so.

You're batting .000. Time to get a pinch hitter 'cause you suck.

From Wkipedia on tetra ethyl lead:

"In most industrialised countries, a phaseout of TEL from motor fuels was completed by the early 2000s because of concerns over air and soil lead levels and the accumulative neurotoxicity of lead. Leaded fuel also spoils catalytic converters, which were introduced in the 1970s to meet tightening emissions regulations. The need for TEL was lessened by several advances in automotive engineering and petroleum chemistry. Safer methods for making higher octane blending stocks such as reformate and iso-octane reduced the need to rely on TEL, as did other antiknock additives of varying toxicity including metallic compounds such as MMT; oxygenates including MTBE, TAME, and ETBE."

A TDI gets better gas mileage than a hybrid except in an actual car driven on a real road. The higher cost in the US of diesel fuel negates any advantage it has over even non-hybrids.

Keep swinging hotshot. Statistics dictate that you'll connect by accident someday.

Sure thing Tojo. I see your understanding of cars is as poor as your scientific acumen.


53/46 Toyota Prius c
51/48 Toyota Prius Liftback
47/47 Ford C-Max Hybrid
44/44 Honda Civic Hybrid
43/40 Lexus CT200h
42/48 Volkswagen Jetta Hybrid
41/36 Ford Fusion Hybrid
35/40 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid




"58.82 MPG World Record set by Jetta TDI

Herndon, VA – The most fuel efficient car across North America is not a hybrid. It’s a diesel. A Volkswagen Jetta TDI Clean Diesel, to be exact. Making its way across the nation and into a world records, a Jetta TDI recently achieved 58.82 MPG during a successful 9,419 mile bid for the lowest fuel consumption across the Continental United States. Despite being officially rated at “just” 30 MPG city and 41 MPG highway by the EPA, the Jetta TDI managed a whopping 14 percent improvement over the previous record of 51.58 MPG.

Set under real world conditions with a completely stocked Jetta TDI, the record attempt began on September 5, 2008, in Washington D.C., and passed through (take a deep breath): New York, NY; Rutland, VT; Toledo, OH; Des Moines, IA; Spearfish, SD; Missoula, MT; Winnemucca, NV; Santa Monica, CA; Durango, CO; Oklahoma City, OK; Mount Vernon, IL; and Ponchatoula, LA; before finishing up 20 days later and 11.04 tanks of fuel lighter in Beckley, WV. The world record was achieved using simple driving techniques that maximized the already exceptionally efficient TDI engine. Despite the less than ideal weather conditions, varied terrain and frequent traffic congestion, the entire journey’s fuel cost came in at a paltry $653, with the Jetta TDI Clean Diesel’s average consumption costing just 6.9 cents per mile.



58.82 MPG World Record set by Jetta TDI - TDI Truth & Dare - VW.com - Think Blue - VW.com

Are you aware that this is not 2008?

 

[itfitzme]

Any level is unacceptable as it is a carcinogen, highly caustic, and poisonous. *And it got there because idiots like you mandated it to be used in gasoline, even after real scientists (of which I was one) told you how bad the crap was.

Yet another example of ignorant anti-science toads ignoring good hard science and stamping their feet to get what they wanted because it made them feel good. *You idiots are all alike. *Ready, Fire, Aim.

How much, exactly, in ppm. *A number, numbnuts. *And detail the mechanism by which it got there. *Not some vague pussified bs that you always spout because you're to chicken to be specific.

Ohhhhh, so NOW you want specific numbers eh numbskull *Well here you go and it is in parts per BILLION, not million....idjit.


5. Three-quarters of Californias surface water reservoirs have no detectable or less than 5ppb MTBE. About 10% are above 14ppb. The California State standard is 35ppb maximum but will be reduced to 5ppb.

The mechanism was it was added to fuel. *It was burned in cars. *It ate its way through underground fuel tanks, it was washed into the storm drains, it was, in other words, a full out assault by you idjits on the water supply of California...


Fuels and Society i. MTBE in Water

Yes, dipshit, a part per BILLION is LESS than a part per MILLION.

1/1,000,000,000 is less than 1/1,000,000.

So you are clear;

1/1,000,000,000=0.000000001

1/1,000,000 =0.000001

0.000000001<0.000001

See how that works?

Now, review

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wYLmLW4k4aI]CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube[/ame]

because, according to you, it's just a little bit.

It is less than a little bit. It is 1,000 times less.

This is why you need to leave the science to people that

Know how to do math

and can spell, "idjit".

 

[PMZ]

The absorption of energy puts the molecule at a higher energy state. What happens after that depends on the environment the molecule finds itself in. In a typical atmospheric environment, the energy does get re-emitted in all directions, half of it down. That's why the earth has to go to an elevated temperature to rebalance incoming solar energy. No matter how hard you try to sell the opposite, energy is conserved.

What does the Second Law of Thermodynamics say about energy moving from a higher entropy state (the atmosphere) to a lower entropy state (the surface of the earth)?

If you don't understand that question then what does the Second Law of Thermodynamics say about energy moving from a low temperature area (the atmosphere) to a higher temperature area (the surface of the earth)?

I don't know Professor Woods, but he doesn't sound any smarter than you do.

Of course you don't. They don't give out such information over at skeptical science. Wouldn't want to be tempting the faithful.

Molecules separated by space, as in a gas, don't know their neighbors so they radiate energy depending on their energy level as measured by the absolute temperature. Where that energy goes after it has left, the molecule has no say in.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals in net heat flow.

You've potentially learned a lot today. We'll see how much of it is still there tomorrow.

 

[PMZ]

There is none. Look up what MTBE did to the water wells in California. MTBE that was mandated to be used by you environmentalists. You're not very good at this are you...

So what is the unacceptable level of MTBEs in ground water and how did it get there?

Any level is unacceptable as it is a carcinogen, highly caustic, and poisonous. And it got there because idiots like you mandated it to be used in gasoline, even after real scientists (of which I was one) told you how bad the crap was.

Yet another example of ignorant anti-science toads ignoring good hard science and stamping their feet to get what they wanted because it made them feel good. You idiots are all alike. Ready, Fire, Aim.

it's a carcinogen only in large quantities.

From Wikipedia.

"As of 2007, researchers have limited data about the health effects of ingestion of MTBE. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that available data are inadequate to quantify health risks of MTBE at low exposure levels in drinking water, but that the data support the conclusion that MTBE is a potential human carcinogen at high doses.[13]"

 

[PMZ]

How much, exactly, in ppm. *A number, numbnuts. *And detail the mechanism by which it got there. *Not some vague pussified bs that you always spout because you're to chicken to be specific.

Ohhhhh, so NOW you want specific numbers eh numbskull *Well here you go and it is in parts per BILLION, not million....idjit.


5. Three-quarters of Californias surface water reservoirs have no detectable or less than 5ppb MTBE. About 10% are above 14ppb. The California State standard is 35ppb maximum but will be reduced to 5ppb.

The mechanism was it was added to fuel. *It was burned in cars. *It ate its way through underground fuel tanks, it was washed into the storm drains, it was, in other words, a full out assault by you idjits on the water supply of California...


Fuels and Society i. MTBE in Water

Yes, dipshit, a part per BILLION is LESS than a part per MILLION.

1/1,000,000,000 is less than 1/1,000,000.

So you are clear;

1/1,000,000,000=0.000000001

1/1,000,000 =0.000001

0.000000001<0.000001

See how that works?

Now, review

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wYLmLW4k4aI]CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube[/ame]

because, according to you, it's just a little bit.

It is less than a little bit. It is 1,000 times less.

This is why you need to leave the science to people that

Know how to do math

Next, please teach him his letters.

 

[westwall]

From Wkipedia on tetra ethyl lead:

"In most industrialised countries, a phaseout of TEL from motor fuels was completed by the early 2000s because of concerns over air and soil lead levels and the accumulative neurotoxicity of lead. Leaded fuel also spoils catalytic converters, which were introduced in the 1970s to meet tightening emissions regulations. The need for TEL was lessened by several advances in automotive engineering and petroleum chemistry. Safer methods for making higher octane blending stocks such as reformate and iso-octane reduced the need to rely on TEL, as did other antiknock additives of varying toxicity including metallic compounds such as MMT; oxygenates including MTBE, TAME, and ETBE."

A TDI gets better gas mileage than a hybrid except in an actual car driven on a real road. The higher cost in the US of diesel fuel negates any advantage it has over even non-hybrids.

Keep swinging hotshot. Statistics dictate that you'll connect by accident someday.

Sure thing Tojo. I see your understanding of cars is as poor as your scientific acumen.


53/46 Toyota Prius c
51/48 Toyota Prius Liftback
47/47 Ford C-Max Hybrid
44/44 Honda Civic Hybrid
43/40 Lexus CT200h
42/48 Volkswagen Jetta Hybrid
41/36 Ford Fusion Hybrid
35/40 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid




"58.82 MPG World Record set by Jetta TDI

Herndon, VA – The most fuel efficient car across North America is not a hybrid. It’s a diesel. A Volkswagen Jetta TDI Clean Diesel, to be exact. Making its way across the nation and into a world records, a Jetta TDI recently achieved 58.82 MPG during a successful 9,419 mile bid for the lowest fuel consumption across the Continental United States. Despite being officially rated at “just” 30 MPG city and 41 MPG highway by the EPA, the Jetta TDI managed a whopping 14 percent improvement over the previous record of 51.58 MPG.

Set under real world conditions with a completely stocked Jetta TDI, the record attempt began on September 5, 2008, in Washington D.C., and passed through (take a deep breath): New York, NY; Rutland, VT; Toledo, OH; Des Moines, IA; Spearfish, SD; Missoula, MT; Winnemucca, NV; Santa Monica, CA; Durango, CO; Oklahoma City, OK; Mount Vernon, IL; and Ponchatoula, LA; before finishing up 20 days later and 11.04 tanks of fuel lighter in Beckley, WV. The world record was achieved using simple driving techniques that maximized the already exceptionally efficient TDI engine. Despite the less than ideal weather conditions, varied terrain and frequent traffic congestion, the entire journey’s fuel cost came in at a paltry $653, with the Jetta TDI Clean Diesel’s average consumption costing just 6.9 cents per mile.



58.82 MPG World Record set by Jetta TDI - TDI Truth & Dare - VW.com - Think Blue - VW.com

Are you aware that this is not 2008?

Yes, I am. Hybrids have stayed stagnant and now VW has a TDI with an 80 mpg rating.

I suggest you get a copy of Top Gear magazine and take a look at the vehicle stats they publish at the back of every issue!

 

[westwall]

How much, exactly, in ppm. *A number, numbnuts. *And detail the mechanism by which it got there. *Not some vague pussified bs that you always spout because you're to chicken to be specific.

Ohhhhh, so NOW you want specific numbers eh numbskull *Well here you go and it is in parts per BILLION, not million....idjit.


5. Three-quarters of Californias surface water reservoirs have no detectable or less than 5ppb MTBE. About 10% are above 14ppb. The California State standard is 35ppb maximum but will be reduced to 5ppb.

The mechanism was it was added to fuel. *It was burned in cars. *It ate its way through underground fuel tanks, it was washed into the storm drains, it was, in other words, a full out assault by you idjits on the water supply of California...


Fuels and Society i. MTBE in Water

Yes, dipshit, a part per BILLION is LESS than a part per MILLION.

1/1,000,000,000 is less than 1/1,000,000.

So you are clear;

1/1,000,000,000=0.000000001

1/1,000,000 =0.000001

0.000000001<0.000001

See how that works?

Now, review

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wYLmLW4k4aI]CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube[/ame]

because, according to you, it's just a little bit.

It is less than a little bit. It is 1,000 times less.

This is why you need to leave the science to people that

Know how to do math

and can spell, "idjit".

Ohhhh, did da poor wittle troll get it feewings hurt? I said ANY amount of MTBE was too much nimrod. What part of ANY can't you understand? You and PMZ are absolute hoots! A better pair of idjits for us to humiliate would be hard to imagine...and for that we THANK YOU!

 

[westwall]

So what is the unacceptable level of MTBEs in ground water and how did it get there?

Any level is unacceptable as it is a carcinogen, highly caustic, and poisonous. And it got there because idiots like you mandated it to be used in gasoline, even after real scientists (of which I was one) told you how bad the crap was.

Yet another example of ignorant anti-science toads ignoring good hard science and stamping their feet to get what they wanted because it made them feel good. You idiots are all alike. Ready, Fire, Aim.

it's a carcinogen only in large quantities.

From Wikipedia.

"As of 2007, researchers have limited data about the health effects of ingestion of MTBE. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that available data are inadequate to quantify health risks of MTBE at low exposure levels in drinking water, but that the data support the conclusion that MTBE is a potential human carcinogen at high doses.[13]"

They havn't tested it enough to know.

"CONTACT: Bill Walker, (510) 444-0973 x301; EWG Public Affairs, (202) 667-6982
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 11, 2005
WASHINGTON, July 11 — A EPA draft risk assessment says MTBE, the gasoline additive that has contaminated drinking water in at least 29 states, is a "likely" human carcinogen, according to agency sources.

An EPA official who reviewed an earlier version of the document told Environmental Working Group (EWG) that the risk assessment's most notable finding for the first time links MTBE to cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma, with toxicological endpoints similar to known carcinogens such as benzene and butadiene. Previously, EPA had classified MTBE as a "possible" cause of cancer, and concerns about contamination centered on the fact that in small doses its foul stench renders water undrinkable.

The EPA official said the document's authors completed their draft more than a year ago. It has been circulating within the agency for review and has already been approved by the Office of Research and Development's National Center for Environmental Assessment. Once all EPA divisions have signed off on it, it must still go through external review."

 

[itfitzme]

Ohhhhh, so NOW you want specific numbers eh numbskull *Well here you go and it is in parts per BILLION, not million....idjit.


5. Three-quarters of Californias surface water reservoirs have no detectable or less than 5ppb MTBE. About 10% are above 14ppb. The California State standard is 35ppb maximum but will be reduced to 5ppb.

The mechanism was it was added to fuel. *It was burned in cars. *It ate its way through underground fuel tanks, it was washed into the storm drains, it was, in other words, a full out assault by you idjits on the water supply of California...


Fuels and Society i. MTBE in Water

Yes, dipshit, a part per BILLION is LESS than a part per MILLION.

1/1,000,000,000 is less than 1/1,000,000.

So you are clear;

1/1,000,000,000=0.000000001

1/1,000,000 =0.000001

0.000000001<0.000001

See how that works?

Now, review

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wYLmLW4k4aI]CO2 Contributed by Human Activity: 12 to 15ppmv / version 1 - YouTube[/ame]

because, according to you, it's just a little bit.

It is less than a little bit. It is 1,000 times less.

This is why you need to leave the science to people that

Know how to do math

and can spell, "idjit".

Ohhhh, did da poor wittle troll get it feewings hurt? *I said ANY amount of MTBE was too much nimrod. *What part of ANY can't you understand? *You and PMZ are absolute hoots! *A better pair of idjits for us to humiliate would be hard to imagine...and for that we THANK YOU!

I TYPED LOUD SO YOU COULD HEAR IT OVER THE NOISE IN YOUR HEAD.

Give it up dude, we all know you are an idiot that thinks ppb is more than ppm.

 

[PMZ]

Sure thing Tojo. I see your understanding of cars is as poor as your scientific acumen.


53/46 Toyota Prius c
51/48 Toyota Prius Liftback
47/47 Ford C-Max Hybrid
44/44 Honda Civic Hybrid
43/40 Lexus CT200h
42/48 Volkswagen Jetta Hybrid
41/36 Ford Fusion Hybrid
35/40 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid




"58.82 MPG World Record set by Jetta TDI

Herndon, VA – The most fuel efficient car across North America is not a hybrid. It’s a diesel. A Volkswagen Jetta TDI Clean Diesel, to be exact. Making its way across the nation and into a world records, a Jetta TDI recently achieved 58.82 MPG during a successful 9,419 mile bid for the lowest fuel consumption across the Continental United States. Despite being officially rated at “just” 30 MPG city and 41 MPG highway by the EPA, the Jetta TDI managed a whopping 14 percent improvement over the previous record of 51.58 MPG.

Set under real world conditions with a completely stocked Jetta TDI, the record attempt began on September 5, 2008, in Washington D.C., and passed through (take a deep breath): New York, NY; Rutland, VT; Toledo, OH; Des Moines, IA; Spearfish, SD; Missoula, MT; Winnemucca, NV; Santa Monica, CA; Durango, CO; Oklahoma City, OK; Mount Vernon, IL; and Ponchatoula, LA; before finishing up 20 days later and 11.04 tanks of fuel lighter in Beckley, WV. The world record was achieved using simple driving techniques that maximized the already exceptionally efficient TDI engine. Despite the less than ideal weather conditions, varied terrain and frequent traffic congestion, the entire journey’s fuel cost came in at a paltry $653, with the Jetta TDI Clean Diesel’s average consumption costing just 6.9 cents per mile.



58.82 MPG World Record set by Jetta TDI - TDI Truth & Dare - VW.com - Think Blue - VW.com

Are you aware that this is not 2008?

Yes, I am. Hybrids have stayed stagnant and now VW has a TDI with an 80 mpg rating.

I suggest you get a copy of Top Gear magazine and take a look at the vehicle stats they publish at the back of every issue!

First of all hybrids haven't stayed stagnant and second of all the VW TDI that you bring up is one that they plan to make some day.

Volkswagen prepares to build the world's most fuel efficient production car

 

[itfitzme]

Walleyed thinks ppb is more than ppm.
Slacksack thinks plants need coal in the soil to grow.
SSaDhD uses Dr. Roy balloon graphs and plays them off as IPCC models.
Oddballsack was all for Dr. Roy till I pointed out that Dr. Roy uses models. The best he's got is repeating "It's stupid."
And Flatulance is busy cherrypicking data because he is clueless how stats works.

They are just a desperate bunch without a coherent idea between them.

And they can't tell the weather outside their sldoor

 

[westwall]

Are you aware that this is not 2008?

Yes, I am. Hybrids have stayed stagnant and now VW has a TDI with an 80 mpg rating.

I suggest you get a copy of Top Gear magazine and take a look at the vehicle stats they publish at the back of every issue!

First of all hybrids haven't stayed stagnant and second of all the VW TDI that you bring up is one that they plan to make some day.

Volkswagen prepares to build the world's most fuel efficient production car

Sure thing Bozo....Not too current are ya!


"84 mpg?! Couple Break Mileage Record With Passat TDI

John and Helen Taylor really know how to stretch a tank of gas. The couple squeezed 1,626 miles out of one tank of diesel fuel in a Volkswagen Passat TDI, breaking previous records.

During a three-day trip, the couple set out to beat the previous record for the most miles covered on a single tank of diesel: 1,526.6 by a VW Passat diesel in Europe.

The Taylors left Houston on May 3 in a 2012 Passat TDI with a manual transmission and ran out of fuel three days and nine states later in Sterling, Va.

Before the drive, the speedometer and odometer were calibrated by a state-certified testing facility. The Houston Police Department oversaw the initial fuel fill-up and sealed the gas tank at the beginning of the drive. At the end, a Loudoun County, Va., sheriff's deputy verified the ending mileage and removed the fuel-tank seal. The result was a whopping 84.1 mpg; the Passat TDI is EPA-rated at 31/43 mpg city/highway.

According to Volkswagen, the couple aimed to simulate real-world driving conditions and loaded the car with 120 pounds of luggage, drove in daytime traffic, took turns at the wheel and didn’t spend more than 14 hours on the road each day.

But the Taylors aren't strangers to mileage challenges: They've made a career out of driving efficiently and conducting workshops on fuel-efficient driving techniques. They hold more than 90 world fuel-economy and vehicle-related records."



84 mpg?! Couple Break Mileage Record With Passat TDI - KickingTires

 

[westwall]

Walleyed thinks ppb is more than ppm.
Slacksack thinks plants need coal in the soil to grow.
SSaDhD uses Dr. Roy balloon graphs and plays them off as IPCC models.
Oddballsack was all for Dr. Roy till I pointed out that Dr. Roy uses models. The best he's got is repeating "It's stupid."
And Flatulance is busy cherrypicking data because he is clueless how stats works.

They are just a desperate bunch without a coherent idea between them.

And they can't tell the weather outside their sldoor

Poor poor trollingblunderfraud. I know it hurts when you make such a complete ass of yourself. Buck up boy. We need you to entertain us some more!

 

[IanC]

If by "useful tool" you mean a means of determining exactly how much we don't know about the mechanisms that control the climate, then I agree with you 100%. Because climate change is about politics and not science, climate models can provide the forecasts that political hacks need in order to fuel their doom and gloom senarios. They have put models in a position where they are, indeed, either right or wrong and as we can all see, they are wrong.



It is good that you don't think the magic is as powerful as warmist goofs such as found on this boar, but it is unfortunate that you believe in the magic at all. When the physics used in the present climate models are put to the test on other planets, the output isn't even close which is a pretty good indication that the physics in use in the climate models aren't even close.

Im still waiting for you to start that thread on the Slayer's theories. it is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate.

LOL, what's stupid is worshiping a half-ass "scientist" like you do. Spencer the scientist you worship, wastes so much effort trying to defend something that is as scientifically unsound as believing in the tooth fairy, I don't see how he is respected at all any more..

He wants to peddle his own books and his website, and his career has been made on GH theory, so he plays the safe route and condemns the extreme claims yet defends the pseudo-science behind it. He's an opportunistic save-ass..

Whenever you are tested on the theory, you run away or play dumb in that childish way we have all come to know too well on here. The "what do you mean" act, or the sarcastic asshole shtick.. You're a coward on it Ian, and that's been shown time and again. You are literally one-step away from being a warmer. Why not just take the plunge and get it over with? You spend more time defending the warmer position anyway..

Why bother? You are a warmer.. You just lack the balls to say so and come out with it. You don't want to risk anything, can't afford to be wrong so you take the middle ground... Where the cowards live...

Man up Ian, quit *****-footing around and pick a damn side already.

thanks for proving my point in #1780

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.

I already did 'man up'. I choose the truth, to the best I can determine it by the available evidence, not by affiliation to any group or mindset.

Feynman is the only scientist that I 'worship'. Spencer has been handing the Slayers their asses for years. equilibrium temperature is a function of (input) minus (output). change either side and you change the temp, it's as simple as that.

unfortunately there are too many boneheads like you around that shit the bed for the real skeptics. CO2 affects the radiative properties of the atmosphere. to paraphrase Lindzen, "trivially true but highly exaggerated". most, but not all, of the IR radiation choked off by the extra CO2 in the lower atmosphere finds other pathways to escape. some goes into raising surface temperature, otherwise that energy would already have been taking alternate paths, equilibriums change flow rates and not necessarily in a linear fashion.

deniers like you are not as dangerous as the exaggerators who want to wreck the world economy by making foolish and expensive decisions that have no hope of working, but you certainly make the honest skeptic's job harder by being such an easy target for scorn. that is why I spend as much time criticizing idiot extremists on your fringe as the idiot extremists on the warmer fringe. real skeptics point out the weakness in CO2 theory, they dont concoct their own bizarre theories that taint the believability and reputation of others on their side.

 

[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.

"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."

Their only useful function is predicting the future with adequate certainty so that we can change the costly path that we've put ourselves on.

The science isn't really the point. The future is. The science is merely the way to test the weather effects of various sustainable energy strategies and technologies to see which gives the most bang for the buck.

The science has demonstrated, adequately to the vast majority of doers, that doing nothing is unaffordable. Given that, what sequence and strategy of technological solutions gets us out of the Dodge City that we've inadvertently put ourselves in, and on to a sustainable future.

While the newly created science of climatology will now forever be a key field of study, it's done what is needed for now, and handed over the adequate models to energy engineering.

I am all for supporting new advancements in technology but that means putting money into the hand of people who are capable of using it for developement. the govt seems to invariably find charlatans who are more than happy to take their slice and let the project go bankcrupt.

a lot of warmer policies are akin to buying a thousand dollars worth of insurance for two thousand dollars. expensive and futile.

 

[gslack]

Im still waiting for you to start that thread on the Slayer's theories. it is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate.

LOL, what's stupid is worshiping a half-ass "scientist" like you do. Spencer the scientist you worship, wastes so much effort trying to defend something that is as scientifically unsound as believing in the tooth fairy, I don't see how he is respected at all any more..

He wants to peddle his own books and his website, and his career has been made on GH theory, so he plays the safe route and condemns the extreme claims yet defends the pseudo-science behind it. He's an opportunistic save-ass..

Whenever you are tested on the theory, you run away or play dumb in that childish way we have all come to know too well on here. The "what do you mean" act, or the sarcastic asshole shtick.. You're a coward on it Ian, and that's been shown time and again. You are literally one-step away from being a warmer. Why not just take the plunge and get it over with? You spend more time defending the warmer position anyway..

Why bother? You are a warmer.. You just lack the balls to say so and come out with it. You don't want to risk anything, can't afford to be wrong so you take the middle ground... Where the cowards live...

Man up Ian, quit *****-footing around and pick a damn side already.

thanks for proving my point in #1780

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.

I already did 'man up'. I choose the truth, to the best I can determine it by the available evidence, not by affiliation to any group or mindset.

Feynman is the only scientist that I 'worship'. Spencer has been handing the Slayers their asses for years. equilibrium temperature is a function of (input) minus (output). change either side and you change the temp, it's as simple as that.

unfortunately there are too many boneheads like you around that shit the bed for the real skeptics. CO2 affects the radiative properties of the atmosphere. to paraphrase Lindzen, "trivially true but highly exaggerated". most, but not all, of the IR radiation choked off by the extra CO2 in the lower atmosphere finds other pathways to escape. some goes into raising surface temperature, otherwise that energy would already have been taking alternate paths, equilibriums change flow rates and not necessarily in a linear fashion.

deniers like you are not as dangerous as the exaggerators who want to wreck the world economy by making foolish and expensive decisions that have no hope of working, but you certainly make the honest skeptic's job harder by being such an easy target for scorn. that is why I spend as much time criticizing idiot extremists on your fringe as the idiot extremists on the warmer fringe. real skeptics point out the weakness in CO2 theory, they dont concoct their own bizarre theories that taint the believability and reputation of others on their side.

No Ian you have never manned-up. You fear being wrong. Like spencer and any number of other "scientists" who would rather spread a scientific mystery as explained fact, rather than appear lacking or unknowing.

The truth is they don't really know what happens at the sub-atomic and atomic levels. They are guessing based on what they can figure out using theoretical mathematics. That's it. They think that some of the energy must flow back to it's source because mathematically it shows it must. They can't prove it, they can't observe the phenomenon well enough to be sure, all they know is according to their current level of understanding and math, it's should be correct.

The theory has not been quantified, yet these idiots push it has fact anyway because their careers depend on it.

If you accept that EM radiation shows properties of BOTH a wave and a particle, the theory falls flat. A wave as shown in many experiments, cannot flow back to it's greater source. It can interfere with it, but cannot fully oppose or flow back against it. A particle on the other hand allows for some lee way in that. And when you add in frequency variance, or phases, you can even make the argument for very limited two-way energy flow. BUT you have to negate the wave-like properties to make the case.

Even the argument the sock brigade made about "net heat" flow, will not change the issue. Whether you call it "net heat flow" and assume some flows back to it's source, or not the greater heat is still going out, meaning at best the net heat is diffused and not warming the source.

We have been over this time and again, and every time you have to come to the point that you cannot logically argue the theory well enough, so you play dumb and become a sarcastic ass or run away.. Why do you think that is? Why is it when you take the argument as far as you can, you always end up at the same stalemates?

Simple, your theory has holes in it and it's incomplete at best, if not completely false.. Too many unknowns, too many unproven and unverified processes, to even consider it a fact yet..