Q for the AGWCult

[westwall]

Dumb, really dumb. First, we know how much CO2 we have put into the atmosphere. We have records of how much coal, petroleum, and natural gas we have burned. Second, the Milankovic cycles would barely change the temperature without the forcing of CO2. Third, we are seeing a rapid warming, exactly as the scientists have predicted.

And here is the first of the poo flingers! Now, olfraud, who claims to be going to university again at age 70+ answer the question that was posed. C'mon, you can do it!

 

[westwall]

I once explained this whole controversy very simply so my kid could understand it.

And misled him badly, being you fail so hard at understanding even the basics.

First I showed him the Chart that the whole theory is based on so he could understand the debate.

First failure, the theory is not in any way based on such a chart. Wow, you suck at this. Total failure, right off the bat.

Second, your chart is just wrong. Back in the real world, CO2 and temp track together within the margins of uncertainty. Your need to understand that anything from jonova is probably fudged. That should bother you, that your leaders lie to your face like that. It probably won't. You probably actually like it.

Third, even if CO2 did lead temperature in the past ... get this ... try to grasp it ... the present is not required to act like the past, given that conditions in the present are much different than conditions in the past. Your astoundingly awful logic is the equivalent of saying "forest fires were caused by lightning in the past, therefore lightning must cause all forest fires now."

After breakfast we did a simple experiment. We took a 2-liter of Coke, poured it into three glasses. One glass we put on the counter, one we put into the refrigerator, and the other we put on a plate in the stove on warm.

Then we went away and did some other things until dinner. Then we came back and check our CO2 content, and how temperature affects dissolved CO2 in our simulated oceans.

Just as we predicted. The ocean in the oven was the most flat.

Your educational techniques must certainly seem impressive to a 10-year-old. The grownups, however, are roaring with laughter over how damn stupid they are.

The oceans are _absorbing_ CO2. We _know_ this, absolutely, because the pH is going down, and because we can use isotope rations to measure the human fraction of CO2 in the air. Hence, your bizarre theory crashes hard and burns brightly.

We, of course, do support your right to indoctrinate your children with whatever religious beliefs you may hold, no matter how scientifically incorrect or bizarre they may be.

No, CO2 tracks 400 to 800 years after the warming trend. That's the error bar, 400 to 800 years. It happens AFTER without question.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Dumb, really dumb. First, we know how much CO2 we have put into the atmosphere. We have records of how much coal, petroleum, and natural gas we have burned. Second, the Milankovic cycles would barely change the temperature without the forcing of CO2. Third, we are seeing a rapid warming, exactly as the scientists have predicted.

^ No experiments, only insults

That would be the monkeys flinging pooh?

 

[mamooth]

No, CO2 tracks 400 to 800 years after the warming trend. That's the error bar, 400 to 800 years. It happens AFTER without question.

You so badly need to catch up on the basic science, given how many years behind the curve you are.

Of course, your problem is understandable. Your denier blogs won't mention the science that contradicts your religion -- that is to say, almost all the science -- and if it didn't show up on one of your denier blogs, you have no way of knowing it exists.

Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming

Parrenin et al (2013)

---
Abstract
Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.
---

 

[Billy_Bob]

No, CO2 tracks 400 to 800 years after the warming trend. That's the error bar, 400 to 800 years. It happens AFTER without question.

You so badly need to catch up on the basic science, given how many years behind the curve you are.

Of course, your problem is understandable. Your denier blogs won't mention the science that contradicts your religion -- that is to say, almost all the science -- and if it didn't show up on one of your denier blogs, you have no way of knowing it exists.

Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming

Parrenin et al (2013)

---
Abstract
Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.
---

Changes in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and surface air temperature are closely related. However, temperature can influence atmospheric CO2 as well as be influenced by it. Studies of polar ice cores have concluded that temperature increases during periods of rapid warming have preceded increases in CO2 by hundreds of years. Parrenin et al. (p. 1060; see the Perspective by Brook) present a revised age scale for the atmospheric component of Antarctic ice cores, based on the isotopic composition of the N2 that they contain, and suggest that temperature and CO2 changed synchronously over four intervals of rapid warming during the last deglaciation.

Let me see.. Ice holds and absorbs CO2, which is then released rapidly as the warming makes the ice melt.

The synchronous rise is due to CO2 release as the ice melts FOLLOWING the rise in temperatures. It appears synchronous because of the natural release from water and land mass. Ice core data shows this clearly, but its cause is misrepresented/interpreted in this paper, which has been critically debunked as flawed to the point of uselessness. The paper uses the term SUGGESTS... The author doesn't even know what caused the rise, simple physics tells the story however.

I have to laugh at the works being published as 'peer reviewed' with the obvious mistakes that were made in this paper. It should have never been published.

Those reviewers for Science have lost their critical thinking skills.. (or they are being paid well from the green agenda grants)..

 

[mamooth]

Unlike you, I do scientific work and part of this is required for a masters in atmospheric physics..

So you no idea of the meaning of what you just posted, and you're trying to bluff your way out of it. So noted. Sadly for you, I don't have to cooperate. I'll just keep pointing out that you can't even explain your own post, which means it didn't originate with you.

That's what happens when you crib some nonsense and then declare victory. Someone will ask you to explain it, and you'll be left flailing and humiliated, like you are now.

Your Mythbusters is 100% myth... at 7% of tube volume, which Mythbusters showed,

That big lie doesn't get better with repetion.

We do understand why you all have to lie about it, of course, as it destroys your kook physics so completely.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Unlike you, I do scientific work and part of this is required for a masters in atmospheric physics..

So you no idea of the meaning of what you just posted, and you're trying to bluff your way out of it. So noted. Sadly for you, I don't have to cooperate. I'll just keep pointing out that you can't even explain your own post, which means it didn't originate with you.

That's what happens when you crib some nonsense and then declare victory. Someone will ask you to explain it, and you'll be left flailing and humiliated, like you are now.

Your Mythbusters is 100% myth... at 7% of tube volume, which Mythbusters showed,

That big lie doesn't get better with repetion.

We do understand why you all have to lie about it, of course, as it destroys your kook physics so completely.

You couldn't figure the amount of gas represented in their myth because you do not know how to extrapolate the volume of the cylinder and then determine what 7% of that represents. Show me your math and I will show you mine...

Another fine point of why CAGW is a myth is the time it takes to warm the cylinder and the amount of warmth retained. They are both LOG function derived. As the level of CO2 increases the rate of warming should decrease (take longer). The previous rise is no longer rising, suggesting equilibrium and the current decline of 0.3 deg C since 2002 indicates a positional/output change of the sun relative to the earth and a cooling cycle.

 

[mamooth]

You understand that you're just jabbering nonsense now, right?

Don't worry. Everyone else does understand that.

People who know what they're talking about can clearly explain what they're talking about. You can't. Ever.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You understand that you're just jabbering nonsense now, right?

Don't worry. Everyone else does understand that.

People who know what they're talking about can clearly explain what they're talking about. You can't. Ever.

The only one being a clueless **** wit is you...

Let me help you with the first step...
Volume of a cylinder - Math Open Reference

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oh Come on now hairball... post some facts....

Its not that hard...

 

[Billy_Bob]

The volume of the Mythbusters cylinder is easy to find. The cylinder is 12 inches in diameter by 36 inches tall..

This means the Radius is 6 inches.. (3.142*6^2)36 = 4071.50 Cubic Inches.

Now what is 7% of the total volume. 4071.5*7%=285.005 cubic inches

From here we can show the Mythbusters lie by two different methods.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Method #1

We can simply look at percentage of atmosphere. If we determine the atmosphere within the tube is equal to 1, then the appropriate level to match today's level would to meet the same percentage of 1 as earths atmosphere contains.

So our atmosphere contains 0.04% of the whole atmosphere or the factor 1. 7% is 17,500 times greater than 0.04% OR 70,000ppm!

I have decided I will not venture into the gas molecule numbers as this shows how deceptive the Mythbusters crap was.. They used an amount of gas, in order to obtain warming, which would render the earth uninhabitable by humans. If you use molecular weight of the atoms this number increases to over 20,000 times where we are today...

This is why the CAGW fools loose... they failed at simple math.. There is no need to venture into method two...

 

[mamooth]

Billy, understand that:

1. Nobody knows what you're babbling about.

2. Nobody cares.

We could spend time figuring out what you're babbling about, but that doesn't make sense from an cost-benefit standpoint. The achievement of figuring out specifically what crank science you're trying to push does not justify the effort that would need to be expended in decoding your gibberish.

 

[jc456]

Billy, now explain what that meant in your own words.

Also tell us where you cribbed it from. Otherwise, it's just assumed you made it up.

And jc, you and Frank are lying about the mythbusters experiment using 7% CO2.

you can see the screen on the test gear right? What does it say?

 

[jc456]

Billy, understand that:

1. Nobody knows what you're babbling about.

2. Nobody cares.

We could spend time figuring out what you're babbling about, but that doesn't make sense from an cost-benefit standpoint. The achievement of figuring out specifically what crank science you're trying to push does not justify the effort that would need to be expended in decoding your gibberish.

so you admit not knowing math or science. hmmmm, figured all along.

 

[mamooth]

you can see the screen on the test gear right? What does it say?

The calibration test said 7%, What's that got to to with the experiment chamber concentration? They stated that matched atmospheric conditions.

Oh, if you think Billy is so brilliant, then explain for everyone, in your own words, exactly what his point was in post #17, and how he's proving it, step by step.

Yes, this is where you flail and rage some more, given that you have no freakin' idea either. Nobody does. Billy just tosses out stuff that resembles StarTrek technobabble. Lots of fancy words and stuff, but the sum of it doesn't mean anything. Fools the rubes like you, of course.

 

[jc456]

you can see the screen on the test gear right? What does it say?

The calibration test said 7%, What's that got to to with the experiment chamber concentration? They stated that matched atmospheric conditions.

Oh, if you think Billy is so brilliant, then explain for everyone, in your own words, exactly what his point was in post #17, and how he's proving it, step by step.

Yes, this is where you flail and rage some more, given that you have no freakin' idea either. Nobody does. Billy just tosses out stuff that resembles StarTrek technobabble. Lots of fancy words and stuff, but the sum of it doesn't mean anything. Fools the rubes like you, of course.

do you know what the word rage means? Holy silliness friend. I think perhaps you should go look up in the dictionary the word rage and come back and discuss a little more civil. 7% the amount of CO2 being added. That's what that screen shot said.

 

[mamooth]

You have no idea what that 7% screenshot referred to. At least you'd admit that if your were honest. So you don't admit it.

They did say the two control chambers had no greenhouse gases, and the one had 350 ppm CO2. And that the 350 ppm CO2 was one degree hotter. Case closed.

I notice you didn't try to explain what Billy was babbling about. It's obvious you have no idea either. You're mindlessly defending him because he's a fellow religious cultist.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Billy, now explain what that meant in your own words.

Also tell us where you cribbed it from. Otherwise, it's just assumed you made it up.

And jc, you and Frank are lying about the mythbusters experiment using 7% CO2.

I'm only reporting what was on the flawed mythbuster experiment. They never actually said how much co2 was in the container but at 137 in the video it showed over 7%

 

[mamooth]

No, the video shows a 7% reading for a mystery something at an unspecified time. An honest person would not instantly declare that 7% meant the container during the experiment. A dishonest person would. Thus, you and jc do.

Meanwhile, they do say they addressed the problem of reproducing atmospheric levels of 350 ppm CO2 and 1800 ppb methane. Since that's what they say they use, an honest person would assume they did indeed use those levels.

So they set out the cases, purged them all with a non-greenhouse gas, added 350 ppm CO2 to one, 1800 ppb methane to another, and left the other two as controls with no greenhouse gases. Though there would have been water vapor inside all of them, due to the ice sculptures. I suggest you retreat to a "I asked for 120 ppm, not 350 ppm!" defense, being your previous objections are so dumb.