The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps

[CrusaderFrank]

Well ya see Todd --- if they published those Ocean Heat COntent graphs in TEMPERATURE -- the public would laugh their asses into oblivion.. Because the CHANGES in terms of temperature are BELOW 0.1degC (modeled of course to fill the ocean volume). But with HEAT thay can use HUGELY SCARY NUMBERS THAT NO ONE UNDERSTANDS and make it sound more Sci Fi dramatic !!!!

The energy from four Hiroshima A-bombs every second seems pretty dramatic to me. And, as I know you know, heat content and temperature are not the same thing. There's the small matter of specific pressure and temperature-dependent heat capacity to deal with.

Look at this Chart and tell me what is says about CO2, you Whack Cult Guy

 

[Crick]

No. What I see clearly demonstrated there is that your grasp of general science is somewhere at the 3rd grade level. Or lower.

You know some things they teach you about in 3rd grade science?

1. More data is better. You don't purposefully eliminate data.

Wrong. More good data is better. Adding bad data is, well, bad. And you most certainly should eliminate it when you can.

2. You don't alter the data to fit the model. You alter the model to fit the data.

The model is supposed to mimic reality. If you have some specific accusation that you want to bring against some specific modeler or in some specific model, I'd like to hear it, but I think you're just venting your ass here.

3. If your models can't predict what's happened in the past, your models suck.

Climate modelers understand this far, far better than do you. What you need to have a good look at is who it is that's telling you they don't and how they reached the conclusions they're trying to pass off on you. I don't believe them.

4. Replication. If other scientists can't reproduce your work and arrive at the same conclusions, your work is wrong.

Sure. I have to think that 97% of climate scientists wouldn't accept AGW if it hadn't survived some replication. That might also be inferred in 12,000 peer reviewed studies that all either demonstrate AGW or accept it as a premise. Do you have some examples of climate studies supporting AGW that couldn't be replicated? Do you? Cause I'd like to see them.

5. Openness: You record and share everything. You don't keep anything hidden.

Sure. When you can. The famous case of CRU data that they wouldn't release involved legal ownership. I know you think that's all a big lie. Well, that's your problem then. A failure to accept reality that refutes your preconceived notions. Prejudice they call it sometimes.

AGW "science" violates all of these principles.

No, it does not. And you didn't learn any of that in the 3rd grade.

 

[daveman]

No. What I see clearly demonstrated there is that your grasp of general science is somewhere at the 3rd grade level. Or lower.

You know some things they teach you about in 3rd grade science?

1. More data is better. You don't purposefully eliminate data.

Wrong. More good data is better. Adding bad data is, well, bad. And you most certainly should eliminate it when you can.



The model is supposed to mimic reality. If you have some specific accusation that you want to bring against some specific modeler or in some specific model, I'd like to hear it, but I think you're just venting your ass here.



Climate modelers understand this far, far better than do you. What you need to have a good look at is who it is that's telling you they don't and how they reached the conclusions they're trying to pass off on you. I don't believe them.



Sure. I have to think that 97% of climate scientists wouldn't accept AGW if it hadn't survived some replication. That might also be inferred in 12,000 peer reviewed studies that all either demonstrate AGW or accept it as a premise. Do you have some examples of climate studies supporting AGW that couldn't be replicated? Do you? Cause I'd like to see them.

5. Openness: You record and share everything. You don't keep anything hidden.

Sure. When you can. The famous case of CRU data that they wouldn't release involved legal ownership. I know you think that's all a big lie. Well, that's your problem then. A failure to accept reality that refutes your preconceived notions. Prejudice they call it sometimes.

AGW "science" violates all of these principles.

No, it does not. And you didn't learn any of that in the 3rd grade.

Lies. All lies. Everything you believe is a lie.

It's been proven over and over and over again. Yet you still bitterly cling to the lies.

But, in your defense, I have to say it's only because you're stupid and gullible.

 

[Crick]

They aren't? Are you SURE about that? Really SURE? Think real hard. Try it one more time.

They really aren't.

Data are what you plug into a model. In the case of AGW "science", you have to cherry-pick the data to support the predetermined conclusion you wrote the model to spit out.

The fact that he claims to be an engineer and actually expects that people will believe him leaves me rolling on the floor in paroxysms of laughter sometimes. The first indication that warmers are not science based is the general consensus among them that models are data.

And this is just one more example that you don't seem to be able to get ANYTHING right. I've never seen such consistency. Honestly. Never.

We can add to his impressively long list of things gotten completely wrong, his belief that I should care what he thinks of me for so much as one single, solitary SECOND.

 

[mamooth]

Lies. All lies. Everything you believe is a lie.

Dave, that type of behavior is the biggest reason why most the world considers you to be a screaming lunatic.

For your sake, I hope the emotional satisfaction that your cult membership brings you is worth the lifetime of humiliation you've signed on for.

 

[Crick]

You know some things they teach you about in 3rd grade science?

1. More data is better. You don't purposefully eliminate data.

Wrong. More good data is better. Adding bad data is, well, bad. And you most certainly should eliminate it when you can.

The model is supposed to mimic reality. If you have some specific accusation that you want to bring against some specific modeler or in some specific model, I'd like to hear it, but I think you're just venting your ass here.

Climate modelers understand this far, far better than do you. What you need to have a good look at is who it is that's telling you they don't and how they reached the conclusions they're trying to pass off on you. I don't believe them.

Sure. I have to think that 97% of climate scientists wouldn't accept AGW if it hadn't survived some replication. That might also be inferred in 12,000 peer reviewed studies that all either demonstrate AGW or accept it as a premise. Do you have some examples of climate studies supporting AGW that couldn't be replicated? Do you? Cause I'd like to see them.

Sure. When you can. The famous case of CRU data that they wouldn't release involved legal ownership. I know you think that's all a big lie. Well, that's your problem then. A failure to accept reality that refutes your preconceived notions. Prejudice they call it sometimes.

AGW "science" violates all of these principles.

No, it does not. And you didn't learn any of that in the 3rd grade.

Lies. All lies. Everything you believe is a lie.

It's been proven over and over and over again. Yet you still bitterly cling to the lies.

But, in your defense, I have to say it's only because you're stupid and gullible.

Dave, I only tell you this because I care about your well being. All that gunslinger crap... it makes you look like a ten year old. Really. Show it to someone who doesn't know its you and ask them. Really. Maybe a ten year old with self-esteem problems.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

By measuring the temperature. How did you think they'd do it?

The Argo floats can adjust their depth, and regularly take dives down to 2000m. They measure temperatures at a range of depths, bob back up to the surface, and transmit results.

I asked Crick, how do you measure heat content without measuring temperature?

He said I missed the point.

So great, they measure temperature.

How much increase in temperature gives the result that was supposedly added to heat content?

Well ya see Todd --- if they published those Ocean Heat COntent graphs in TEMPERATURE -- the public would laugh their asses into oblivion.. Because the CHANGES in terms of temperature are BELOW 0.1degC (modeled of course to fill the ocean volume). But with HEAT thay can use HUGELY SCARY NUMBERS THAT NO ONE UNDERSTANDS and make it sound more Sci Fi dramatic !!!!

You think they'll ever come back with a temperature increase?
Or will they continue to ignore the question?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well ya see Todd --- if they published those Ocean Heat COntent graphs in TEMPERATURE -- the public would laugh their asses into oblivion.. Because the CHANGES in terms of temperature are BELOW 0.1degC (modeled of course to fill the ocean volume). But with HEAT thay can use HUGELY SCARY NUMBERS THAT NO ONE UNDERSTANDS and make it sound more Sci Fi dramatic !!!!

The energy from four Hiroshima A-bombs every second seems pretty dramatic to me. And, as I know you know, heat content and temperature are not the same thing. There's the small matter of specific pressure and temperature-dependent heat capacity to deal with.

The energy from four Hiroshima A-bombs every second seems pretty dramatic to me.

Me too!

And, as I know you know, heat content and temperature are not the same thing.

Okay. So how much temperature increase was needed to increase the heat content so much?

 

[daveman]

Lies. All lies. Everything you believe is a lie.

Dave, that type of behavior is the biggest reason why most the world considers you to be a screaming lunatic.

For your sake, I hope the emotional satisfaction that your cult membership brings you is worth the lifetime of humiliation you've signed on for.

And that illustrates exactly how insane you are:

You believe you speak for the whole world.

 

[daveman]

Wrong. More good data is better. Adding bad data is, well, bad. And you most certainly should eliminate it when you can.

The model is supposed to mimic reality. If you have some specific accusation that you want to bring against some specific modeler or in some specific model, I'd like to hear it, but I think you're just venting your ass here.

Climate modelers understand this far, far better than do you. What you need to have a good look at is who it is that's telling you they don't and how they reached the conclusions they're trying to pass off on you. I don't believe them.

Sure. I have to think that 97% of climate scientists wouldn't accept AGW if it hadn't survived some replication. That might also be inferred in 12,000 peer reviewed studies that all either demonstrate AGW or accept it as a premise. Do you have some examples of climate studies supporting AGW that couldn't be replicated? Do you? Cause I'd like to see them.

Sure. When you can. The famous case of CRU data that they wouldn't release involved legal ownership. I know you think that's all a big lie. Well, that's your problem then. A failure to accept reality that refutes your preconceived notions. Prejudice they call it sometimes.



No, it does not. And you didn't learn any of that in the 3rd grade.

Lies. All lies. Everything you believe is a lie.

It's been proven over and over and over again. Yet you still bitterly cling to the lies.

But, in your defense, I have to say it's only because you're stupid and gullible.

Dave, I only tell you this because I care about your well being. All that gunslinger crap... it makes you look like a ten year old. Really. Show it to someone who doesn't know its you and ask them. Really. Maybe a ten year old with self-esteem problems.

And the REALLY funny part is, you think I'll change my behavior because you don't like it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well ya see Todd --- if they published those Ocean Heat COntent graphs in TEMPERATURE -- the public would laugh their asses into oblivion.. Because the CHANGES in terms of temperature are BELOW 0.1degC (modeled of course to fill the ocean volume). But with HEAT thay can use HUGELY SCARY NUMBERS THAT NO ONE UNDERSTANDS and make it sound more Sci Fi dramatic !!!!

The energy from four Hiroshima A-bombs every second seems pretty dramatic to me. And, as I know you know, heat content and temperature are not the same thing. There's the small matter of specific pressure and temperature-dependent heat capacity to deal with.

Just when I thought the drama was unbearable -- Crick raises the stakes. How is that atom bomb counter on every page of the skeptyscience site doing BTW ??? You know the Nat Endow Arts fund is only about $0.60 per person in the USA per year -- but THAT is an amazing load of change too..

I'm scared.. Somebody hold me... .

 

[orogenicman]

Lies. All lies. Everything you believe is a lie.

It's been proven over and over and over again. Yet you still bitterly cling to the lies.

But, in your defense, I have to say it's only because you're stupid and gullible.

Dave, I only tell you this because I care about your well being. All that gunslinger crap... it makes you look like a ten year old. Really. Show it to someone who doesn't know its you and ask them. Really. Maybe a ten year old with self-esteem problems.

And the REALLY funny part is, you think I'll change my behavior because you don't like it.

No doubt, you told your mother the same thing.

 

[SSDD]

The energy from four Hiroshima A-bombs every second seems pretty dramatic to me. And, as I know you know, heat content and temperature are not the same thing. There's the small matter of specific pressure and temperature-dependent heat capacity to deal with.

It would since you people thrive on alarmist rhetoric. 4 Hiroshima bombs every second spread across the surface of the earth amounts to almost as much energy per square meter as a 60 watt refrigerator light bulb. You people lie, you distort, you fabricate, you wave your hands hysterically, and did I say that you lie...well that one bears saying again. You lie about yourself, you lie about what you do, and you lie about climate change.

Tell us how dramatic the light from a 60 watt refrigerator bulb really is to you.

Take a look at this graph: See the text off the coast of Australia? Surface imbalance of .06 watts per square meter plus or minus 17 watts per square meter. So the energy from a 60 watt refrigerator light is dramatic to you? How dramatic is that figure when it is stated with an uncertainty of plus or minus 113 Hiroshima bombs.

I think the fact that you are a liar and an alarmist can't be stated often enough.

 

[jc456]

Lies. All lies. Everything you believe is a lie.

Dave, that type of behavior is the biggest reason why most the world considers you to be a screaming lunatic.

For your sake, I hope the emotional satisfaction that your cult membership brings you is worth the lifetime of humiliation you've signed on for.

And that illustrates exactly how insane you are:

You believe you speak for the whole world.

They all do, it is their religion. They believe deep, deep in their hearts they are purely better because they think they speak for the whole world. It's a hoot dude!!!! They've simply supplied zero data that validates any of their whole world religion. It's folks like us that must maintain the objective of questioning to the void!!!!! never let them have that moment where they say a lie and no one responds. It must be answered every time. Thanks!

 

[jc456]

No. What I see clearly demonstrated there is that your grasp of general science is somewhere at the 3rd grade level. Or lower.

You know some things they teach you about in 3rd grade science?

1. More data is better. You don't purposefully eliminate data.

Wrong. More good data is better. Adding bad data is, well, bad. And you most certainly should eliminate it when you can.

So who determines what is bad data? We know that answer already the frauds who eliminate the pieces that don't fit the model. It is what we've been saying for a very long time here. Thanks for finally validating that.

2. You don't alter the data to fit the model. You alter the model to fit the data.

The model is supposed to mimic reality. If you have some specific accusation that you want to bring against some specific modeler or in some specific model, I'd like to hear it, but I think you're just venting your ass here.

Sure I will, the IPCC AR5 report stated that 98% of the models didn't match the data and instead of taking the models to the scientists who made them, they decided to ignore the results and claim that eventually the observed data would match. I can't make that stuff up dude!!!!

3. If your models can't predict what's happened in the past, your models suck.

Climate modelers understand this far, far better than do you. What you need to have a good look at is who it is that's telling you they don't and how they reached the conclusions they're trying to pass off on you. I don't believe them.

Well if that were the case, then why aren't they going back to the drawing boards, 98% are wrong. Seems some who know far, far better, really don't know far, far better. LOL......

4. Replication. If other scientists can't reproduce your work and arrive at the same conclusions, your work is wrong.

Sure. I have to think that 97% of climate scientists wouldn't accept AGW if it hadn't survived some replication. That might also be inferred in 12,000 peer reviewed studies that all either demonstrate AGW or accept it as a premise. Do you have some examples of climate studies supporting AGW that couldn't be replicated? Do you? Cause I'd like to see them.

Dude, no they don't, they may all agree to the questions they answered, but the questions did not state AGW, so you are a liar.

5. Openness: You record and share everything. You don't keep anything hidden.

Sure. When you can. The famous case of CRU data that they wouldn't release involved legal ownership. I know you think that's all a big lie. Well, that's your problem then. A failure to accept reality that refutes your preconceived notions. Prejudice they call it sometimes.

Let's say this is true, why would they need legal ownership? Why wouldn't they wish to demonstrate how the data was compiled, unless they were concerned about the authenticity of what they produced. Hmmm.. seems suspicous to me and others here. Just understand, this and this alone helps separate the likes of you from the likes of me.

AGW "science" violates all of these principles.

No, it does not. And you didn't learn any of that in the 3rd grade.

Well Iknow one thing, what you pass off as learning in the eigth grade you should really go back to school. Let alone any college courses you claim you had.

You're a hoot dude!

 

[Crick]

The energy from four Hiroshima A-bombs every second seems pretty dramatic to me. And, as I know you know, heat content and temperature are not the same thing. There's the small matter of specific pressure and temperature-dependent heat capacity to deal with.

It would since you people thrive on alarmist rhetoric. 4 Hiroshima bombs every second spread across the surface of the earth amounts to almost as much energy per square meter as a 60 watt refrigerator light bulb. You people lie, you distort, you fabricate, you wave your hands hysterically, and did I say that you lie...well that one bears saying again. You lie about yourself, you lie about what you do, and you lie about climate change.

Tell us how dramatic the light from a 60 watt refrigerator bulb really is to you.

Take a look at this graph: See the text off the coast of Australia? Surface imbalance of .06 watts per square meter plus or minus 17 watts per square meter. So the energy from a 60 watt refrigerator light is dramatic to you? How dramatic is that figure when it is stated with an uncertainty of plus or minus 113 Hiroshima bombs.

I think the fact that you are a liar and an alarmist can't be stated often enough.

Sounds like a fixation to me. BTW, you erred by a factor of ten. The diagram says 0.6, not 0.06. You failed to refute or even cast doubt on anything I said. So where is the lie that would make me a liar? At least when I call you an incomparable idiot WRT science, I have made a reasonable case for it.

 

[mamooth]

If you examine Flac's kook claims, his math is hilariously wrong. Like it always is. At least he's consistent in his total incompetence.

A Hiroshima bomb is 63 terajoules, 6.3 E13 joules

4 Hiroshima bombs/sec is 2.5 E14 watts

The surface area of the earth is about 500 million km^2, 5 E14 m^2

2.5 E14 watts/ 5 E14 m^2 = 0.5 watts/m^2

Flac said 60 watts/m^2. So, flac was only off by a factor of 100 or so. That's actually better than is usual for his claims.

Flac, this should be where you apologize for screaming others were wrong, when it was you who was the raging dumbass.

 

[daveman]

Dave, I only tell you this because I care about your well being. All that gunslinger crap... it makes you look like a ten year old. Really. Show it to someone who doesn't know its you and ask them. Really. Maybe a ten year old with self-esteem problems.

And the REALLY funny part is, you think I'll change my behavior because you don't like it.

No doubt, you told your mother the same thing.

My mother was a pure woman from a noble family. And I, at least, know who my father is, you pig-eating son of a whore!

-- Ahmed Ibn Fahdlan, The 13th Warrior

 

[daveman]

If you examine Flac's kook claims, his math is hilariously wrong. Like it always is. At least he's consistent in his total incompetence.

A Hiroshima bomb is 63 terajoules, 6.3 E13 joules

4 Hiroshima bombs/sec is 2.5 E14 watts

The surface area of the earth is about 500 million km^2, 5 E14 m^2

2.5 E14 watts/ 5 E14 m^2 = 0.5 watts/m^2

Flac said 60 watts/m^2. So, flac was only off by a factor of 100 or so. That's actually better than is usual for his claims.

Flac, this should be where you apologize for screaming others were wrong, when it was you who was the raging dumbass.

So, half a watt per square meter.

And the cult says this amount of energy is going to kill us all?

Absolutely ludicrous.

 

[SSDD]

The energy from four Hiroshima A-bombs every second seems pretty dramatic to me. And, as I know you know, heat content and temperature are not the same thing. There's the small matter of specific pressure and temperature-dependent heat capacity to deal with.

It would since you people thrive on alarmist rhetoric. 4 Hiroshima bombs every second spread across the surface of the earth amounts to almost as much energy per square meter as a 60 watt refrigerator light bulb. You people lie, you distort, you fabricate, you wave your hands hysterically, and did I say that you lie...well that one bears saying again. You lie about yourself, you lie about what you do, and you lie about climate change.

Tell us how dramatic the light from a 60 watt refrigerator bulb really is to you.

Take a look at this graph: See the text off the coast of Australia? Surface imbalance of .06 watts per square meter plus or minus 17 watts per square meter. So the energy from a 60 watt refrigerator light is dramatic to you? How dramatic is that figure when it is stated with an uncertainty of plus or minus 113 Hiroshima bombs.

I think the fact that you are a liar and an alarmist can't be stated often enough.

Sounds like a fixation to me. BTW, you erred by a factor of ten. The diagram says 0.6, not 0.06. You failed to refute or even cast doubt on anything I said. So where is the lie that would make me a liar? At least when I call you an incomparable idiot WRT science, I have made a reasonable case for it.

It is .6...and your idiocy continues...and the uncertainty is plus or minus 17 which makes all of your claims absurd.