Proof that AGW is bad science

[ding]

--showed levels never getting very far below 200 ppm. The reason is that a longer term at such levels would kill all plant life which would kill all of us.

Correct. At 150 PPM the plants begin to respire, and photosynthesis is stopped. At this low level the plant will no longer be able to obtain CO2 from the atmosphere and photosynthesis is restricted.

 

[Crick]

Sounds good, exactly what I suggested.

What did you suggest?

Our next step is to understand the green house process and it's possible affect on warming.

That might be your next step but John Tyndall and the rest of the world figured that out in 1859. You're running just a skosh late.

You tell me, what is warming --are you saying that "the globe" is warming?

You've reached your stupid, rhetorical question limit for the day.

Good question. Who was the "we" you were talking about when you said--

I was talking about all of us. All humans. Humanity. The human species. Versteht?

 

[expat_panama]

Correct. At 150 PPM the plants begin to respire, and photosynthesis is stopped...

There are many opinions on what every single plant says it wants:

• The majority of plants simply die if the CO₂ levels in their surroundings drop below 150 ppm.
• Atmospheric CO2 concentrations eventually reach a critical minimum of about 190 ppm,
• The minimum co2 concentration at the surface to support photosynthesis is 150-200 ppm. Goals of "Climate Scientists" to reduce co2 by half is ecological suicide.

 

[expat_panama]

What did you suggest?

We're not communicating. I requested...

Some sources say the industrial revolution ended 1840. For your statement to make sense you'd have to be able to share your records on "GHG emissions" (natural and man made) for 1840 to the present by decade. Along w/ that you'd also have to be able to demonstrate that no similar increase in GHG emissions occurred from other sources over the past 100,000 years.

It was nice when you cooperated and furnished the information that I mentioned, but your asking who is we and what I'm suggesting worries me. Seems we're working poorly w/ each other and that you appear to be finding our convo a burden. That's not my desire and we can give this a rest if it is in fact a burden to you.

 

[ding]

There are many opinions on what every single plant says it wants:

• The majority of plants simply die if the CO₂ levels in their surroundings drop below 150 ppm.
• Atmospheric CO2 concentrations eventually reach a critical minimum of about 190 ppm,
• The minimum co2 concentration at the surface to support photosynthesis is 150-200 ppm. Goals of "Climate Scientists" to reduce co2 by half is ecological suicide.

Right but none of them claim it is less than 150 ppm. Which the planet is at risk of every glacial period.

 

[ding]

That might be your next step but John Tyndall and the rest of the world figured that out in 1859. You're running just a skosh late.

Did John tell them to triple the results and blame UHI and deforestation on CO2?

 

[Crick]

It was nice when you cooperated and furnished the information that I mentioned

I wasn't trying to be nice. I assumed you were asking rhetorically thinking no one would bother, so I bothered.

but your asking who is we and what I'm suggesting worries me.

I'm really sorry to hear that.

Seems we're working poorly w/ each other and that you appear to be finding our convo a burden.

Not at all. Between the activities of a normal life, eating, drinking, walking the dog, having dinner with my wife, I look forward to getting right back to our stimulating "convo".

That's not my desire and we can give this a rest if it is in fact a burden to you.

Bail if you like. I'm not difficult to find.

 

[expat_panama]

Right but none of them claim it is less than 150 ppm. Which the planet is at risk of every glacial period.

Another major point of controversy w/ the correlation of CO2 levels and temperature is that of causality. AGW advocates claim that high CO2 levels cause the warming while there's ample evidence that it's the warming that causes the rise in CO2 levels. While I may have my preference as to which theory is correct, my main take is the fact that the issue is controversial and that the AGW's case is far from overwhelming.

 

[expat_panama]

I wasn't trying to be nice...

That's becoming increasingly obvious. Let's give this a rest.

 

[Leo123]

Climate Change is real and it’s here now

The 'climate' always changes on its own. Humans are not the cause of global climate changes but, we should monitor it because a natural ice age would kill millions.

 

[ding]

Another major point of controversy w/ the correlation of CO2 levels and temperature is that of causality. AGW advocates claim that high CO2 levels cause the warming while there's ample evidence that it's the warming that causes the rise in CO2 levels. While I may have my preference as to which theory is correct, my main take is the fact that the issue is controversial and that the AGW's case is far from overwhelming.

I think it is a bit of both. Prior to the industrial revolution atmospheric CO2 was clearly a function of temperature because of the solubility of CO2 in water versus temperature. Since the industrial revolution atmospheric CO2 is more a function of emissions than solubility in water versus temperature. With that said the prior relationship is still going on but the net gain in the atmosphere is due primarily from emissions. At least that's my belief. An interesting sidebar is that it isn't a 1 to 1 relationship between emissions and atmospheric CO2. It's not a unit slope. Only about half of the emissions end up in the atmosphere. The rest is taken up by plants and the ocean which I would assume the ocean being the dominant sink of the two.

As to the incremental warming associated with CO2, their models are over estimating its impact by 2 to 3 times. The models spit out a feedback of 2 to 3 times the radiative forcing of CO2 alone. That's where the problem lies. Their models are running too hot. And they know it too.

 

[ding]

I'm really sorry to hear that.

I doubt that.

 

[EMH]

in warming observed

Satellites and balloons correctly assessed that so called "warming" as ABSOLUTE ZERO

 

[EMH]

to the incremental warming associated with CO2, their models

are blown out of the water by the satellite and balloon data showing NO WARMING from adding Co2 to atmosphere.

Find a new fraud to parrot, this one is pathetic and completely destroyed.

 

[westwall]

Climate Change is real and it’s here now

Of course it is. Man has no affect on it though.

 

[mamooth]

.Their models are running too hot.

No, they've been right on. If someone told you otherwise, they lied to your face, so you should ask them why they did that. Reemember, we know the facts, so you can't gaslight us. That only works on your fellow cultists.

Deniers, your _feelings_ about science mean squat.

The really stupid fallacies you've all offered mean squat. Everything deniers have presented on this thread has been debunked here many times before. We're kind of too bored to do it again. After all, it's not like the debunkings have ever had any effect on the brainwashed. They're off in a different reality, and they're never coming back.

Deniers have gotten every single thing totally wrong for over 40 years running now. That's why they're considered to be dishonest political hacks.

Over the same period, mainstream science got everything right. Climate science has such credibility because it's earned it.

Deniers, if you want credibility, you have to stop faceplanting at everything. You have to earn credibility. Crying about your status as clowns is not how you earn it.

 

[ding]

No, they've been right on. If someone told you otherwise, they lied to your face, so you should ask them why they did that. Reemember, we know the facts, so you can't gaslight us. That only works on your fellow cultists.

Deniers, your _feelings_ about science mean squat.

The really stupid fallacies you've all offered mean squat. Everything deniers have presented on this thread has been debunked here many times before. We're kind of too bored to do it again. After all, it's not like the debunkings have ever had any effect on the brainwashed. They're off in a different reality, and they're never coming back.

Deniers have gotten every single thing totally wrong for over 40 years running now. That's why they're considered to be dishonest political hacks.

Over the same period, mainstream science got everything right. Climate science has such credibility because it's earned it.

Deniers, if you want credibility, you have to stop faceplanting at everything. You have to earn credibility. Crying about your status as clowns is not how you earn it.

Even they are concerned about their models running too hot too fast. Look it up.

 

[EMH]

if you want credibility,

LOL!!!


CREDIBILITY = HIGHLY CORRELATED SATELLITE AND BALLOON DATA SHOWING NO WARMING IN THE ATMOSPHERE DESPITE RISING Co2


Your side has

NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT
NO OCEAN RISE
NO BREAKOUT in CANE ACTIVITY

 

[expat_panama]

No, they've been right on. If someone told you otherwise, they lied to your face, so you should ask them why they did that. Reemember, we know the facts, so you can't gaslight us. That only works on your fellow cultists.

Deniers, your _feelings_ about science mean squat.

The really stupid fallacies you've all offered mean squat. Everything deniers have presented on this thread has been debunked here many times before. We're kind of too bored to do it again. After all, it's not like the debunkings have ever had any effect on the brainwashed. They're off in a different reality, and they're never coming back.

Deniers have gotten every single thing totally wrong for over 40 years running now. That's why they're considered to be dishonest political hacks.

Over the same period, mainstream science got everything right. Climate science has such credibility because it's earned it.

Deniers, if you want credibility, you have to stop faceplanting at everything. You have to earn credibility. Crying about your status as clowns is not how you earn it.

When the dialogue drops into name calling then the goal changes from addressing a passionate issue and changes to stirring up bad feelings. OK, so lots of folks like bad feelings but the problem there is that it means we don't live as long.

My preference is that we consult in a discourse where we join forces and together search for the truth. We can say what we want about AGW but we've got to agree that it's an issue that affects virtually everyone one way or the other. My take is that together we should be able to apply the scientific method and understand the nature of the issue. If you're willing to look into this w/ me I'd be grateful. Lot's of folks are concerned about it & its affects can't be ignored.

My thinking is that for the AGW premise to be valid we should be able to see how the temperatures have risen, and how the warming is harmful. Please let me know if you're willing to work w/ me on this.

 

[ReinyDays]

The AGW scam says that man has been the main factor in the planet getting hotter.

Today it was 100 F in Tallahassee Florida. Proof right?

Nope, not even close. The last time it was 100 F on this day was 80 years ago.

Not only that but the city of Tallahassee in a much bigger heat sink now than it was 80 years ago with a lot more construction and concrete going on nowadays.

So no warmer than 80 years ago, check

Tallahassee hits 100 degrees Friday, ties daily record high set over 80 years ago

Tallahassee ties a record-high setback in 1942.

www.wctv.tv

This puts this chart into perspective.

I suppose you want a straight answer ...

First and foremost ... Tallahassee International Airport reported a high of 99ºF on Friday ... and this value is from one degree Fahrenheit above to one degree below ... so 100 (±1) ºF is scientifically accurate ... neither pilots nor farmers need any more accuracy than this ... $1-at-Goodwill-type thermometers ...

Second ... just a few miles away, temperatures could vary as much as 5ºF ... maybe it was 105ºF midtown and only 95ºF out in the "St John's" swamp ... and going up in elevation we see drastic cooling ... the atmosphere is a three dimensional object ... did you take that into consideration? ... note the thunderstorms a few hours after the high temperature ... that means very cold aloft ...

Your meteorology is wrong ... so your climatology is completely confused ...

Florida has a "humid sub-tropical" climate ... it rains throughout the year and average temperature never drops below 32ºF ... that's NOT changing ... even while San Francisco crashes into Taipei, Florida will have a humid sub-tropical climate ... [sigh] ...

... Friday morning's dew point of 79ºF ... no wonder you people get tornadoes ...