Staggering climate contradiction - data that can be fudged says "warming," data that cannot be fudged says "no warming"

[Stryder50]

You are really too stupid to know how to ask a question about AGW. No wonder you voted for Trump.

You are too stupid to see and understand a question on AGW/ACC when it stares you in the face like Frank's did.
No wonder you voted for poopy pants molester and groper Biden.

 

[Stryder50]

Because you can’t tell anyone where you got those numbers. Your obviously ARE science illiterate. The temperature change is dependent on the CO2 increase, but lots of other factors too. What are they ? List them if you can or give your source, come on expert, tell us. You know more than NASA….maybe you didn’t know that….wtf knows. Youre so stupid in asking it’s really hard to tell.

Those numbers come from NASA, NOAA, and many other sources.

BTW, the above post of yours I quote was #317 of this thread and your next post #319 answered your question.
But you aren't bright enough to realize that it seems.

 

[Stryder50]

Why can’t the “science” guys provide a non-imaginary number in response to: how much does temperature increase when we control all variables and vary CO2 from 280 to 420PPM?

This and #310 of yours prior offer a segue into a couple of basic points to visit on this issue.
First let's look at the math, which BTW is basic K-12 arithmetic, no calculus needed.
To make that even more simple math, I'll use 400 ppm.

"ppm" means "parts per million" so another way to express that would be:
400 / 1,000,000
that can reduce to:
4/10,000
which can further reduce to:
1/2,500

So what the science deniers who are proponents of ACC/AGW are claiming is that the small amount of heat retained by one part of CO2 will transfer to and equally heat up the other 2,499 parts of the dry atmosphere, the Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, etc.

Sounds a bit impossible to most intelligent and sane people when presented that way, doesn't it ?
After all, we aren't talking about radioactive substances and fission or fusion which is what would usually be needed to produce such levels energy transference. We are talking basic physics, thermodynamics.

Another way to think about 400ppm of CO2 compared to the rest of the DRY* atmosphere, would be reduce it to percentage.
In that case the CO2 amounts to 0.0004% of the dry atmosphere total content.

Barely measurable it could seem.
Yet, that is barely enough to sustain 99% of life on this planet, the flora/plants and they in turn help to make that oxygen, 21%, that we 1% animals, humans included, need to live.

Considering that 400ppm is barely above the 300ppm minimum most plants need to not starve, sane and rational persons might think we could use a little more CO2, not less!

* Note also that there is water vapor, H2O in the atmosphere (thank Creator), clouds and the rain they produce, and this usually averages to an additional 10% around the planet with the dry parts. H2O ~ water vapor is also a greenhouse gas (GHG) but with it at 10.00%+ versus the CO2 of 0.0004% it should be clear which is the greater source of atmosphere and planet warming when it comes to the air around us as a factor.

 

[Stryder50]

Your side claims that increasing CO2 from 280 to 420 PPM “raises temperatures” all we’re asking is “how much”?

There is an interesting way to test this, or show it via an "at home" "in the kitchen" experiment. Sort of like what Bill Nye the Science Guy would do on his TV show.

We're going to work with that expression/ratio of CO2 to the rest of the dry atmosphere shown in the above post, that ratio of 1 / 2,500.

We take an empty plastic two liter soda bottle, clear is best. Now two liters is 2,000 milliliters, so some quick math shows that 2,000 is 80% of 2,500. So the 2,000 milliliters of distilled water that we place inside the two liter, clear soda bottle will have to be warmed to 70 degrees F. first. This represents all the dry atmosphere without the CO2.

Now the one milliliter that will represent our CO2 should actually be 0.8 milliliter, but that might be hard for many to measure with home kitchen devices, so let's settle for a 1/8th teaspoon to equal it. Heat a small dish or glass of distilled water to 75 degrees F., in the microwave perhaps. Then quickly dip that 1/8 teaspoon measure spoon in and dump that 75F water into the 2 liter bottle of water.

Now take a thermometer* and measure how much that 1/8 of simulated CO2 raised the temperature of our simulated atmosphere.

* you could use a cooking thermometer if the sensor probe is long enough or better yet get one of those infrared digital types the doctor uses to point at and read the temp of your forehead.

Did you see how much warmer the water in the soda bottle became when you added the slightly warmer water of the 1/8 teaspoon ???

Yeah, right. No measurable difference/effect.

Which is one easy way to disprove the main thesis of the ACC/AGW scammers who want to reduce CO2 emissions.
There goal is to hustle and con the gullible public and taxpayers of more money, reduce standards of living, and have another tool to control the masses. The three card Monty path to more tyranny.

 

[abu afak]

There is an interesting way to test this, or show it via an "at home" "in the kitchen" experiment. Sort of like what Bill Nye the Science Guy would do on his TV show.
We're going to work with that expression/ratio of CO2 to the rest of the dry atmosphere shown in the above post, that ratio of 1 / 2,500.
We take an empty Plastic two liter soda Bottle, clear is best. Now two liters is 2,000 milliliters, so some quick math shows that 2,000 is 80% of 2,500. So the 2,000 milliliters of distilled water that we place inside the two liter, clear soda bottle will have to be warmed to 70 degrees F. first. This represents all the dry atmosphere without the CO2.

Now the one milliliter that will represent our CO2 should actually be 0.8 milliliter, but that might be hard for many to measure with home kitchen devices, so let's settle for a 1/8th teaspoon to equal it. Heat a small dish or glass of distilled water to 75 degrees F., in the microwave perhaps. Then quickly dip that 1/8 teaspoon measure spoon in and dump that 75F water into the 2 liter bottle of water.

Now take a thermometer* and measure how much that 1/8 of simulated CO2 raised the temperature of our simulated atmosphere.

* you could use a cooking thermometer if the sensor probe is long enough or better yet get one of those infrared digital types the doctor uses to point at and read the temp of your forehead.

Did you see how much warmer the water in the soda bottle became when you added the slightly warmer water of the 1/8 teaspoon ???

Yeah, right. No measurable difference/effect.

Which is one easy way to disprove the main thesis of the ACC/AGW scammers who want to reduce CO2 emissions.
There goal is to hustle and con the gullible public and taxpayers of more money, reduce standards of living, and have another tool to control the masses. The three card Monty path to more tyranny.

That's really funny and so Dishonest.
In fact, you can find the 'Bottle' experiment done Hundreds/thousands of time on the net... and anyone can do it at home with the simplest of instruction.
It's done Daily in classrooms to teach CO2 is a GHG.
(and it was first experimented with/Confirmed THAT very way more than 100 years ago!)

EIGHTEEN STRYDER posts in a ROW busted (SICK Spastard trying shout/Bury not debate), including his weekly/monthly !rrelevant 600 million year chart to f!gure out !f man caused the last 150 years.

home co2 experiment bottle warmer - Google Search

www.google.com

`

 

[Stryder50]

That's really funny and so Dishonest.
In fact, you can find the 'Bottle' experiment done Hundreds/thousands of time on the net... and anyone can do it at home with the simplest of instruction.
(and it was first experimented with/confirmed THAT very way more than 100 years ago!)

EIGHTEEN STRYDER posts in a Row busted, including his weekly/monthly !rrelevant 600 million year chart to f!gure out !f man caused the last 150 years.

home co2 experiment bottle warmer - Google Search

www.google.com

`

That's not the same Dipshit!
In your experiment the bottles are filled ONLY with CO2.
My example we use water to replicate the full atmosphere, not just CO2.
The ideal experiment would be to have a sealed chamber with actual gases in exact ratios as the atmosphere and then introduce the 0.0004% of CO2 at a few degrees warmer state.

Once again you are a liar, and dis-inform.
Or just plain stupid and can't read and understand English.

 

[Stryder50]

That's really funny and so Dishonest.
In fact, you can find the 'Bottle' experiment done Hundreds/thousands of time on the net... and anyone can do it at home with the simplest of instruction.
It's done Daily in classrooms to teach CO2 is a GHG.
(and it was first experimented with/Confirmed THAT very way more than 100 years ago!)

EIGHTEEN STRYDER posts in a ROW busted (SICK Spastard trying shout/Bury not debate), including his weekly/monthly !rrelevant 600 million year chart to f!gure out !f man caused the last 150 years.

home co2 experiment bottle warmer - Google Search

www.google.com

`

Well sick bastard "I be a fuck", those eighteen posts are to document truth and science and counter the whine and rhetoric, but fact and science shy disinformation of other sick liars like yourself.

You CO2 experiment link only establishes that CO2 will absorb/retain slight heat from some of the Infra red part of the EM spectrum.

It DOES NOT PROVE how the 0.0004% of CO2 in the atmosphere will transfer that slight retained heat in equal measure and effect to the other 99.9996% of the atmosphere made up of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, and other gases. (Not to mention the additional 10% of H2o-water vapor).

 

[Dagosa]

Now take a thermometer* and measure how much that 1/8 of simulated CO2 raised the temperature of our simulated atmosphere.

Seriously ?

Actually I'm an atheist/agnostic and with the varied racial and ethnic mix in my family, hardly a "white nationalist".
Like so many things, this another you get wrong and fail totally at.
As for the CO2 Coalition, the following page of members shows over 170 with degrees in sciences and engineering, many M.D. and Ph. D.; any one of which knows more than you ever have or will.

You are just a shill spewing rhetoric and propaganda and don't understand most of what you are saying or supporting.

About - CO2 Coalition

co2coalition.org

a bullshit right wing stooge of made up shit. None of them do any studies what so ever

 

[Dagosa]

You are too stupid to see and understand a question on AGW/ACC when it stares you in the face like Frank's did.
No wonder you voted for poopy pants molester and groper Biden.

Wrong, bubba Frank never had a clue where the ppm CO2 levels were measured. Then to actually think a specific amount matches a particular temperature is asinine and foolish.
The temps are averages of readings at the earth’s surface.
And you actually think a CO2 reading matches a particular temp ? How hilariously is that. They correspond to the earths average temperatures, all if which can vary by location , season and time of day. The most important is the rate of change of the temps over time compared to the rate of change if the co2 measures. Get clue…
co2 coalition ….hilarious bunch of frauds..

 

[Stryder50]

Wrong, bubba Frank never had a clue where the ppm CO2 levels were measured. Then to actually think a specific amount matches a particular temperature is asinine and foolish.
The temps are averages of readings at the earth’s surface.
And you actually think a CO2 reading matches a particular temp ? How hilariously is that. They correspond to the earths average temperatures, all if which can vary by location , season and time of day. The most important is the rate of change of the temps over time compared to the rate of change if the co2 measures. Get clue…
co2 coalition ….hilarious bunch of frauds..

You actually covered that back in post #319 on this thread, which you posted, but appear to not understand at all.
You also fail to grasp the the key issue is lack of proof that CO2 levels have any significant effect on average temperatures, or how minuscule those levels (ppm) are.
Rate of change is meaningless when it's total amount of change that would determine an effect or not.

More important is the ranges of temperature, not CO2 PPM, and need for better effort to define causes.

As we see you either didn't bother to see and check the credentials of the members of CO2 Coalition. More likely wouldn't understand what was they to begin with.

Meanwhile, I and others have presented several sources of valid scientific data and information while all you have is prattle and nonsense.

 

[Sunsettommy]

This is how stupid these warmist/alarmists really are,

From this LINK:

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation."

"The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …"


=====================

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahhhhaaaahhh.........

Most of the warm forcing was set around a BILLION years ago there has been negligible additional warming left since then as it has rarely been below 250-ppm ever since.

The AGW conjecture is stupid and a SCAM!

 

[Dagosa]

As we see you either didn't bother to see and check the credentials of the members of CO2 Coalition. More likely wouldn't understand what was they to begin with.

That’s hilarious…..all the so called credentials are worthless IN YOUR OWN ARGUMENT. If they have an accredited degree, I guarantee it’s from an institute of higher learning that SUPPORTS AGW. This coalition is fraudulent. It’s addressed to a conservative think tank with no research facility involved. Fraud.

I ‘ll check one, now you.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Climate Change: Global Sea Level

Global average sea level has risen 8-9 inches since 1880, and the rate is accelerating thanks to glacier and ice sheet melt.

www.climate.gov

 

[Dagosa]

That's really funny and so Dishonest.
In fact, you can find the 'Bottle' experiment done Hundreds/thousands of time on the net... and anyone can do it at home with the simplest of instruction.
It's done Daily in classrooms to teach CO2 is a GHG.
(and it was first experimented with/Confirmed THAT very way more than 100 years ago!)

EIGHTEEN STRYDER posts in a ROW busted (SICK Spastard trying shout/Bury not debate), including his weekly/monthly !rrelevant 600 million year chart to f!gure out !f man caused the last 150 years.

home co2 experiment bottle warmer - Google Search

www.google.com

`

Exactly. These guys are frauds. Ppm of CO2 doesn’t even correspond to a particular temp. That temp is near sea level while the ppm are in the most stable part of the atmosphere. Co2 levels correspond to the average rate of change in the earths temperatures. If they had a brain, we have no idea what they are babbling about.

 

[Dagosa]

View attachment 940453

You have no one in your side but frauds.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You have no one in your side but frauds.

 

[Dagosa]

You actually covered that back in post #319 on this thread, which you posted, but appear to not understand at all.
You also fail to grasp the the key issue is lack of proof that CO2 levels have any significant effect on average temperatures, or how minuscule those levels (ppm) are.
Rate of change is meaningless when it's total amount of change that would determine an effect or not.

More important is the ranges of temperature, not CO2 PPM, and need for better effort to define causes.

As we see you either didn't bother to see and check the credentials of the members of CO2 Coalition. More likely wouldn't understand what was they to begin with.

Meanwhile, I and others have presented several sources of valid scientific data and information while all you have is prattle and nonsense.

Founder of CO2 coalition
Roger Cohen. Conveniently DEAD. MIT, RUTGERS and HARVARD are all AGW PROPONENTS.
After receiving his B.S. in Physics from MIT, Roger Cohen obtained MS and PhD in Physics from Rutgers and completed the Executive Program at the Harvard Business Scho

 

[Dagosa]

This is how stupid these warmist/alarmists really are,

From this LINK:

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation."

View attachment 940393

"The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …"


=====================

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahhhhaaaahhh.........

Most of the warm forcing was set around a BILLION years ago there has been negligible additional warming left since then as it has rarely been below 250-ppm ever since.

The AGW conjecture is stupid and a SCAM!

You are the scam. There is no one who backs you that has anything but fraud credentials .
CO 2 coalition ? That’s your reference !

 

[Dagosa]

View attachment 940456

World views, not a science institute. You parrot BS

 

[Weatherman2020]

World views, not a science institute. You parrot BS

So the Noble Prize is handed out for opinions?