Is the world "better off" at 580 ppm or 300 ppm of CO2?

[alang1216]

Silly me, here I thought geo-scientists would have taken that into account when they did their analysis. If only they had asked for your help.

Amazingly enough when money and power became the motive all of that earlier science was ignored. Funny that. And that is the problem that the science of climatology has, they are all forced to appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy when those whose opinions are used have a monetary entanglement. And guess what. They ALL do.

Well that explains it, not only are scientists stupid but they are also corrupt and involved in a global conspiracy to make you look like you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks for opening my eyes.

 

[ding]

For the second time...

No one is denying the GHG effect of gases in the atmosphere. We are arguing against their models containing unrealistic feedback responses and unrealistic forecasts of GHG emissions.

O'Reilly? Better remind westwall. He's been calling obvious GHG effects "weather."

See that large, blue spike all the way to the right? Yeah, much higher than anything seen in the past 400,000 years or so. The hardcore deniers these days, just as here, never cease pointing out that the CO2 rise trails the rise in temperature. But note how no such rise in temperature leads that huge CO2 rise all the way on the right. Odd? Huh. Notice also how the largest temperature spikes tend to mark the beginning of each long cooling cycle. Except all the way to the right. Gee, perhaps experiencing this continued quick warming trend instead of the indicated cooling is what has been "alarming" climatologists.. Ya think!??

The feedback of sequestration of the ocean is well established. Please don't tell me that you are going to argue against that now too.

This is getting to be comical. CO2 lags temperature by ~800 years.

 

[ding]

Silly me, here I thought geo-scientists would have taken that into account when they did their analysis. If only they had asked for your help.

Amazingly enough when money and power became the motive all of that earlier science was ignored. Funny that. And that is the problem that the science of climatology has, they are all forced to appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy when those whose opinions are used have a monetary entanglement. And guess what. They ALL do.

Well that explains it, not only are scientists stupid but they are also corrupt and involved in a global conspiracy to make you look like you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks for opening my eyes.

Here's the beauty. Atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase for the foreseeable future. So you will get to see for yourself that CO2 doesn't drive climate change. At least, not to the extreme that you think it will.

 

[ding]

So simple even a caveman can understand?

 

[ding]

For the second time...

No one is denying the GHG effect of gases in the atmosphere. We are arguing against their models containing unrealistic feedback responses and unrealistic forecasts of GHG emissions.

O'Reilly? Better remind westwall. He's been calling obvious GHG effects "weather."

See that large, blue spike all the way to the right? Yeah, much higher than anything seen in the past 400,000 years or so. The hardcore deniers these days, just as here, never cease pointing out that the CO2 rise trails the rise in temperature. But note how no such rise in temperature leads that huge CO2 rise all the way on the right. Odd? Huh. Notice also how the largest temperature spikes tend to mark the beginning of each long cooling cycle. Except all the way to the right. Gee, perhaps experiencing this continued quick warming trend instead of the indicated cooling is what has been "alarming" climatologists.. Ya think!??

If you take away nothing else from this graph takeaway that since CO2 has led temperature (post industrial revolution), temperature did not follow.

And there are several examples like this in the earths history.

 

[ReinyDays]

Yes, I know exactly what you are talking about. What I was pointing out was the CFD models the climatologists use are so poor that they ALWAYS result in a warming bias no matter what numbers are plugged in.

That's why I referenced the models used in F1 which are the most complex in the world and even they have a less than 1% success rate.

The models used by climatologists are inherently biased which means their success rate is in the negative.

They can NEVER be successful.


As far as the computer used the F1 teams use computers far more powerful than the Cray. I was using Crays 20 years ago. They are now outclassed.

No ... obviously you have no idea what I'm talking about ... you do not know what NS is ... so you just ignored what I posted and went into some dribble about F1 airflow models ... wind tunnel simulations, right? ... God, that is so lame ...

The bias is in your own heart ... and I'm assuming you mean political bias, and not amplification bias ... those are two different things and in this context you really should make the distinction ... we have emperical data that shows a warming tread, professional meteorologists taking temperature readings every hour on the hour for a 100 years ... a vast majority of stations show increasing average temperatures ... that climate models show the same thing continuing over the next 100 years isn't an indication they're wrong ... very very strange you should think that ... political bias? ... tell me, with the establish 1ºC rise over the past 100 years, why do you think a 1ºC temperature rise over the next 100 years is so outrageous? ...

[holds up hand] ... I'm as skeptical of these climate model results as you are ... don't get me wrong ... the difference is I can clearly articulate why I'm skeptical and you're just spewing FoxsNew copy ... where we get such zingers as negative probabilities ... statistics ain't my strong suit but I do believe odds aren't ever negative, by definition ...

Cray is still in business ... still making computers ... the new Frontier model they're building at Oakridge is exascale and when operational next year should be the fastest in the world rated (unclassified) at 1.5 exaflops ... price tag "over $600 million" ... what make and model of exascale computers do all these many F1 teams use that so greatly outperform the US DoD computers modeling nuclear explosions, if you know off hand ... the other computer I was going to bring up doesn't exist, there's No Such Agency in the US Government ... I swear ...

While I was fact checking my posts, came across the computer I cut my teeth on ... PDP/11 is going for $270 new, solder not included ... I cried ... just need a 24 inch Winny ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Care to guess how many variables there are in figuring out a hindcast for the weather we had yesterday?

I count 20 ... what do you get? ...

 

[ding]

Yes, I know exactly what you are talking about. What I was pointing out was the CFD models the climatologists use are so poor that they ALWAYS result in a warming bias no matter what numbers are plugged in.

That's why I referenced the models used in F1 which are the most complex in the world and even they have a less than 1% success rate.

The models used by climatologists are inherently biased which means their success rate is in the negative.

They can NEVER be successful.


As far as the computer used the F1 teams use computers far more powerful than the Cray. I was using Crays 20 years ago. They are now outclassed.

No ... obviously you have no idea what I'm talking about ... you do not know what NS is ... so you just ignored what I posted and went into some dribble about F1 airflow models ... wind tunnel simulations, right? ... God, that is so lame ...

The bias is in your own heart ... and I'm assuming you mean political bias, and not amplification bias ... those are two different things and in this context you really should make the distinction ... we have emperical data that shows a warming tread, professional meteorologists taking temperature readings every hour on the hour for a 100 years ... a vast majority of stations show increasing average temperatures ... that climate models show the same thing continuing over the next 100 years isn't an indication they're wrong ... very very strange you should think that ... political bias? ... tell me, with the establish 1ºC rise over the past 100 years, why do you think a 1ºC temperature rise over the next 100 years is so outrageous? ...

[holds up hand] ... I'm as skeptical of these climate model results as you are ... don't get me wrong ... the difference is I can clearly articulate why I'm skeptical and you're just spewing FoxsNew copy ... where we get such zingers as negative probabilities ... statistics ain't my strong suit but I do believe odds aren't ever negative, by definition ...

Cray is still in business ... still making computers ... the new Frontier model they're building at Oakridge is exascale and when operational next year should be the fastest in the world rated (unclassified) at 1.5 exaflops ... price tag "over $600 million" ... what make and model of exascale computers do all these many F1 teams use that so greatly outperform the US DoD computers modeling nuclear explosions, if you know off hand ... the other computer I was going to bring up doesn't exist, there's No Such Agency in the US Government ... I swear ...

While I was fact checking my posts, came across the computer I cut my teeth on ... PDP/11 is going for $270 new, solder not included ... I cried ... just need a 24 inch Winny ...

So.... can I put you down as a yes for 580 ppm

 

[abu afak]

Yes, during the PETM which was at least 7 degrees warmer than the present day, pretty much all of the mammals that we live with today evolved.

372070[/ATTACH]

 

[westwall]

Silly me, here I thought geo-scientists would have taken that into account when they did their analysis. If only they had asked for your help.

Amazingly enough when money and power became the motive all of that earlier science was ignored. Funny that. And that is the problem that the science of climatology has, they are all forced to appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy when those whose opinions are used have a monetary entanglement. And guess what. They ALL do.

Well that explains it, not only are scientists stupid but they are also corrupt and involved in a global conspiracy to make you look like you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks for opening my eyes.

Yes, that certainly describes the climatologists. The ones pushing this fraud are incredibly corrupt.

You have to ask yourself why climatologists are the only scientists who refuse to follow the scientific method.

 

[ReinyDays]

So.... can I put you down as a yes for 580 ppm

Put me down for 800 ppm Cs-135 ... [giggle] ... attend please:

We're at least twenty years behind designing new nuclear power plants ... and it will be another twenty before we start ... just as the fossil fuels are getting really expensive ... we'll go "Manhattan Project" on it and throw these things up as fast as humanly possible ... safety be damned ... 100 years from now we've got Fukushima Events every month ...

We'll survive but our breeding rate will be cut ...

 

[westwall]

So.... can I put you down as a yes for 580 ppm

Put me down for 800 ppm Cs-135 ... [giggle] ... attend please:

We're at least twenty years behind designing new nuclear power plants ... and it will be another twenty before we start ... just as the fossil fuels are getting really expensive ... we'll go "Manhattan Project" on it and throw these things up as fast as humanly possible ... safety be damned ... 100 years from now we've got Fukushima Events every month ...

We'll survive but our breeding rate will be cut ...

They already have designed small nukes that can power a city. You bury them, they need no maintenance, they work for 20 years, you dig them up and replace them.

 

[ReinyDays]

They already have designed small nukes that can power a city. You bury them, they need no maintenance, they work for 20 years, you dig them up and replace them.

"they need no maintenance"

Now that's funny ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

While I was fact checking my posts, came across the computer I cut my teeth on ... PDP/11 is going for $270 new, solder not included ... I cried ... just need a 24 inch Winny ...

Lol. My first thoughts upon reading PDP/11 were VAX and Oh, how sad! Long story.. Anyways, my teeth cutter:



Only pretty sure mine had toggle switches instead of those red buttons along the bottom. Among the first ever made. Ah, the good old days.. That thing was a blast.

 

[Grumblenuts]

So you will get to see for yourself that CO2 doesn't drive climate change.

Ah, I see.. So then you don't really believe it causes glaciers to magically appear either and your OP was just some sad attempt to be funny. Okay, figures and thanks! Btw, thanks for following me around the board to compliment my posts. What a sweetie pie! My Ding-A-Ling, my Ding-A-Ling,..

 

[james bond]

Given that you believe the earth is ~6,000 years old this might not be the thread for you.


Just sayin'

What about water vapor? That was created very early. It is the greatest greenhouse gas. You change ppm on that and really upset the chemistry and atmosphere of the world. That will kill the entire planet if someone could do it. That's demonstrable with a greenhouse.

Earth’s atmosphere has a finely calibrated ratio of oxygen to nitrogen -- just enough CO2 and adequate water vapor levels to promote advanced life, allow photosynthesis (without an excessive greenhouse effect), and to allow for sufficient rainfall.

Thus, what do you think you are believing with this CO2 and ppm on it? The science of atheism.

The science of atheism found these fine tuning parameters. They found how gravity affects our greenhouse gases and atmosphere. This was from 2007 - 2011. Today, you won't be able to find the discussion of these parameters on the internet. The science of atheism has disavowed all of it due to it helping people like myself, the creationists. Stephen Hawking knew it because he either led that group or was part of the group of scientists who found them while studying the big bang.

Basically, nothing lasts 65 million years. Our common sense should tell us that rocks and fossils would not be around that long. Our planet would not be around that long. Our universe is churning into destruction.

Anyway, let's wait for the James Webb telescope to see what really is happening around us. We should learn more about our atmospheric conditions compared to other solar systems and galaxies. The science of atheism which you believe does not want to admit that we have the perfect location for life.

 

[james bond]

Cray is still in business ... still making computers ... the new Frontier model they're building at Oakridge is exascale and when operational next year should be the fastest in the world rated (unclassified) at 1.5 exaflops ... price tag "over $600 million" ... what make and model of exascale computers do all these many F1 teams use that so greatly outperform the US DoD computers modeling nuclear explosions, if you know off hand ... the other computer I was going to bring up doesn't exist, there's No Such Agency in the US Government ... I swear ...

Compare your Cray back then to the iPhone. iPhone wins hands down. Just give me the money you paid for a Cray back then and put it in my pocket. I'll put an iPhone 12 in yours.

 

[westwall]

They already have designed small nukes that can power a city. You bury them, they need no maintenance, they work for 20 years, you dig them up and replace them.

"they need no maintenance"

Now that's funny ...

Look up Small Nuclear Reactors. L I'll keep I said, science advances. You folks should try and stay current.

 

[ding]

So.... can I put you down as a yes for 580 ppm

Put me down for 800 ppm Cs-135 ... [giggle] ... attend please:

We're at least twenty years behind designing new nuclear power plants ... and it will be another twenty before we start ... just as the fossil fuels are getting really expensive ... we'll go "Manhattan Project" on it and throw these things up as fast as humanly possible ... safety be damned ... 100 years from now we've got Fukushima Events every month ...

We'll survive but our breeding rate will be cut ...

You had me until fossil fuels get really expensive.

 

[ding]

So you will get to see for yourself that CO2 doesn't drive climate change.

Ah, I see.. So then you don't really believe it causes glaciers to magically appear either and your OP was just some sad attempt to be funny. Okay, figures and thanks! Btw, thanks for following me around the board to compliment my posts. What a sweetie pie! My Ding-A-Ling, my Ding-A-Ling,..

Not in the way you think.