There is no Climate Emergency !

[ReinyDays]

It takes balls to claim that number is "trace" ... just saying ...

You flopped badly on this one.

Okay ... you're a pussy for calling 10^19 "trace" ... sheesh ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's a hoax, like Covid

Typical dead on arrival comment by a leftist warmist/alarmist.

You have a counterpoint to offer, or just troll some more.........?

There's no common ground. You either believe humankind has an impact on things, or you don't.

That's not science Brah. You "Believe" that humankind has an impact on the climate -- that's a Cult

 

[CrusaderFrank]

... a trace gas with a trace IR absorption window, with a trace Logarithmic effect ...

Just some quick back-of-the-$100-bill calculations ... a five-gallon bucket holds over 10^19 molecules of CO2 ... or:
10,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules ...

It takes balls to claim that number is "trace" ... just saying ...

CO2 is an atmospheric rounding error

 

[Sunsettommy]

It takes balls to claim that number is "trace" ... just saying ...

You flopped badly on this one.

Okay ... you're a pussy for calling 10^19 "trace" ... sheesh ...

It is when it is .041% of the ATMOSPHERE

I am going by composition of the atmosphere (when I listed the more abundant molecules) , you are talking about a SINGLE Molecule (ignoring all the others in this argument), thus what you present is misleading.

How come you don't compare CO2 number with either Nitrogen or Oxygen numbers?

From YOUR post 18:

a five-gallon bucket holds over 10^19 molecules of CO2 ... or:
10,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules ...

In that same 5 gallon bucket, how much N2 or O2 does it hold?

Snicker.........

 

[mamooth]

Actually it is DECLINING warmth as the chart clearly shows, that we face into the future.

For over 40 years running now, your Ice Age cult has been predicting frozen doomsday.

And for 40 years, the world has kept warming strongly, not seeming to care about your predictions.

No matter. Your faith is strong. Each time doomsday fails to manifest, you simply push the date of doomsday back some more. You've been pushing it back for 40 years, and you'll be pushing it back for another 40 years.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Actually it is DECLINING warmth as the chart clearly shows, that we face into the future.

For over 40 years running now, your Ice Age cult has been predicting frozen doomsday.

And for 40 years, the world has kept warming strongly, not seeming to care about your predictions.

No matter. Your faith is strong. Each time doomsday fails to manifest, you simply push the date of doomsday back some more. You've been pushing it back for 40 years, and you'll be pushing it back for another 40 years.

Translation: I can NOT produce a mature rational counter argument against a THREE THOUSAND YEARS long cooling trend.

You are right on cue, bring up something I haven't been saying at all, I have long acknowledged the warming trend since the late 1970's, you have seen it many times in the forum, but then you are a poor thinking warmist/alarmist bullcrapper with a poor memory.....

By the way you left out the rest of what I wrote, your tiny quote is DISHONEST!

The bolded part is what you quoted, the rest you ignored to push your 40 year argument, while I was talking about a 3,000 year time frame.

"Actually it is DECLINING warmth as the chart clearly shows, that we face into the future. The decline accelerated around 3,000 years ago, which is a foreboding trend, one that warmist/alarmists are stupidly ignoring, because they have been programmed to fear a trace gas with a trace IR absorption window, with a trace Logarithmic effect.

But it is a slow decline that seems to drop quickly every 1,000 years +/- 100 years, to a new lower level, then a warming trend returns that doesn't reach the previous warm period level, that is what the chart is telling us."

You are pathetic.

 

[fncceo]

Okay ... you're a pussy for calling 10^19 "trace" ... sheesh ...

Now that's what I call ... SCIENCE!

 

[mamooth]

Translation: I can NOT produce a mature rational counter argument against a THREE THOUSAND YEARS long cooling trend.

No, it's a 6000 - 8000 years cooling trend.

That is, except for the last decades of very fast warming.

That's how we know the current fast warming isn't any natural cycle, because it's in direct opposition to the natural cooling cycle.

"Actually it is DECLINING warmth as the chart clearly shows,

Your chart leaves off the recent past, the part that shows the current very rapid warming. Leaving that out is deliberate dishonesty on your part.

You always fudge the data somehow. You have to. All the data always contradicts your religious beliefs, and your cult forbids you from admitting that, so you see fraud as the only option available to you.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Mamooth is continually deflecting in a dishonest manner, as this will show.

First this fella FIRST post in the thread stated at POST 25:

"For over 40 years running now, your Ice Age cult has been predicting frozen doomsday.

And for 40 years, the world has kept warming strongly, not seeming to care about your predictions.

No matter. Your faith is strong. Each time doomsday fails to manifest, you simply push the date of doomsday back some more. You've been pushing it back for 40 years, and you'll be pushing it back for another 40 years."

===

That a reply to what I wrote in post 26:

"Actually it is DECLINING warmth as the chart clearly shows, that we face into the future."

I mention the CHART, which covers 10,000 years.

The dishonest little boy left out the rest of my words of the paragraph, which I pointed out already HERE

"Actually it is DECLINING warmth as the chart clearly shows, that we face into the future. The decline accelerated around 3,000 years ago, which is a foreboding trend, one that warmist/alarmists are stupidly ignoring, because they have been programmed to fear a trace gas with a trace IR absorption window, with a trace Logarithmic effect."

He did that on purpose to inject his 40 years bullshit, while hiding that I stated this:

The decline accelerated around 3,000 years ago

You are continually distorting what I state, which is why I consider your bullshit as trolling.

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm curious what Mamooth wants us to do ... and what steps he has done himself ... is he burning though all this coal just to say we should stop burning coal? ... at least I'm using hydro-power to post on the internet, fill my gas tank once a month whether I need to or not ... and buy beer locally brewed ...

My big vice is keeping these 19th Century windows ... they leak like the USS Pennsylvania on Dec 7th, 1941 ... but I have a lame excuse, this is regulated by the National Park Service and the last thing I need is some damn park ranger come banging on my door with his ticket book ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

I'm curious what Mamooth wants us to do ... and what steps he has done himself ... is he burning though all this coal just to say we should stop burning coal? ... at least I'm using hydro-power to post on the internet, fill my gas tank once a month whether I need to or not ... and buy beer locally brewed ...

My big vice is keeping these 19th Century windows ... they leak like the USS Pennsylvania on Dec 7th, 1941 ... but I have a lame excuse, this is regulated by the National Park Service and the last thing I need is some damn park ranger come banging on my door with his ticket book ...

He has a terrible habit of distorting the debate, he is here as a troll, he doesn't really care that the AGW conjecture has never made it to level of theory, how can they when they use 3 to over 100 separate emission scenario/temperature based models at a time, all showing DIFFERENT range of projections, at best only one can be correct, the rest can't be.....

There is NOTHING settled in it.

 

[mamooth]

I'm curious what Mamooth wants us to do ...

I'll take that as your admission that you can't argue against my science. Why else would you deflect like that?

 

[mamooth]

First this fella FIRST post in the thread stated at POST 25:

I can see why that triggered you. You and your cult have been predicting strong cooling nonstop for over 40 years now, and instead we've seen strong warming. You've all been as wrong as it's possible to be. In contrast, the mainstream science has gotten all the predictions right.

Mainstream science has earned crediblity by getting everything right. You're considered a cult joke because of your perfect record of failure. Whining about how you have no crediblity because of a great conspiracy against you won't get you credbility. You have to earn it the hard way, by doing good science and making predictions that come true.

I mention the CHART, which covers 10,000 years.

But it doesn't cover the recent past, which shows fast warming instead of slow cooling. Hence, it was a dishonest presentation of data on your part. You deliberately left out the part that showed you were totally wrong.

The dishonest little boy left out the rest of my words of the paragraph,

I said I _agreed_ with them, dumbass. I flat out stated the earth has been slowly cooling for 6000-8000 years.

You can't actually be as stupid as you sound, so I see deliberate dishonesty as the only other explanation for your actions.

 

[ReinyDays]

I'll take that as your admission that you can't argue against my science. Why else would you deflect like that?

I'm just curious about how much of a hypocrite you are ... do you even know how much of your electricity comes from burning fossil fuels ... where I live we've completely banned burning coal, forced all the coal burning power plants to shut down* ... and by 2029 it will be illegal for retail power companies to buy coal power on the wholesale market ... we can't stop railroads from carrying coal through the State, and we can't prohibit blue water colliers from docking at the Port of Portland ... but that twenty feet between the two (ha ha ha) we can, and do ...

The few times you actually say anything about science is generally limited to basic physics, usually you're just pissed off and name-calling like all this is personal for you or something ... the next step up is meteorology and your knowledge is limited to what you hear on the Weather Channel ...

Please tell me ... how is convection included in these climate models? ... and what exactly is convecting this energy? ...

* = There was only one, and it was losing money, the owners were glad to shut down to be honest ...

 

[mamooth]

I'm just curious about how much of a hypocrite you are ...

Have I ever called for an immediate end to all fossil fuel use?

No?

Then clearly I'm not a hypocrite for using fossil fuel energy.

usually you're just pissed off and name-calling like all this is personal for you or something ...

Speaking of hypocrites, I never hear a peep of protest from you over the way the deniers engage in their endless insult tirades and trolling.

Please tell me ... how is convection included in these climate models?

In a GCM, convection is handled by an overall parameter, since convection cells are too small and chaotic to be modeled individually.

... and what exactly is convecting this energy? ...

Both air and water vapor. Which one moves more heat, that depends on the location. In a dry area, the air will be moving more of the energy, in a moist area the water vapor will be moving more.

 

[ReinyDays]

Have I ever called for an immediate end to all fossil fuel use?
No?
Then clearly I'm not a hypocrite for using fossil fuel energy.

Then you're advocating continued burning of fossil fuels as we want? ... and that's why it's okay for you to pour carbon dioxide into the atmosphere posting on the internet ... blow through 50 gallons of gas a month commuting to work ... and you agree that global warming is a benefit to human-kind ... belch that CO2 suckers, I dare ya ...

That's where black-and-white theology will get you ... I asked want you think are the reasonable solutions to this doom-and-gloom future you seem to believe in ... you return with extremism ... a lot of thought there, partner, a lot of thought ...

Speaking of hypocrites, I never hear a peep of protest from you over the way the deniers engage in their endless insult tirades and trolling.

I called S'Tommy a pussy in post #21 if that helps ... as I said before, you're better than that ... I'm holding you to a higher standard ... yes, it's personal ...

In a GCM, convection is handled by an overall parameter, since convection cells are too small and chaotic to be modeled individually.
Both air and water vapor. Which one moves more heat, that depends on the location. In a dry area, the air will be moving more of the energy, in a moist area the water vapor will be moving more.

Fair ... your knowledge is spotty ... just the minimum to grasp climate matters ...

The entire atmosphere convects energy all the time ... the large scale circulation that dominates all things weather and climate ... not small and not chaotic ... I'd like to hear more about this "parameter" though, sounds interesting ...

I'm buffooned by your reference to a "dry area" ... what the hell are you talking about? ... the surface is liquid water, that's not dry ... this is solar energy directly evaporating water, and lifting this water vapor in the atmospheric column ... without changing temperature ... how do we even measure that? ...

In a dry area, the air will be moving more of the energy
The area is dry because the air isn't moving ... the opposite of convection ... basic meteorology ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

RienyDays writes:

"I called S'Tommy a pussy in post #21 if that helps ... as I said before, you're better than that ... I'm holding you to a higher standard ... yes, it's personal ..."

He wrote this earlier at POST 21.

Okay ... you're a pussy for calling 10^19 "trace" ... sheesh ...

I laughed over it, but the funny thing is that I never disputed this post at all, just that you keep overlooking the .041% part, which is obviously a trace gas by percentage.

I get snotty with him because he constantly spews out a lot of name calling to anyone who doesn't agree with him, which is nearly everybody......, thus I give him some in return. If he wants me to stop, then he should stop too, but he never will because that is his actual personality.

 

[ReinyDays]

... just that you keep overlooking the .041% part, which is obviously a trace gas by percentage ...

Would you rather have 99.999% of $100 or 0.041% of a $1,000,000? ... is 5 ppmv trace when that much plutonium will kill you? ...

I understand your position, but measuring by volume doesn't address the reactivity ... pH = 5 is 10 ppm bare nekked protons, if this is what you're peeing, then you need to see a doctor ... and soon ... for comparison, 400 ppm is a pH = 3.4 which is generally what's found in soda pop ... not a big difference between pop and water, but even at 0.04% these bare nekked protons make more than a trace of effect ... same with CO2 in the atmosphere, the added 130 ppm makes a small difference, not a trace difference ... and let's go ahead and extend our analogy; the acid in soda pop does have some negative health effects, and we can characterize these effects as trace and acceptable for the benefit of a tasty treat after a day digging ditches; same with CO2, it's effect on humans is trace with the benefit of milder temperatures ...

Chugging down 18 molar hydrochloric acid would be like running out of fossil fuels without any alternatives ... both are profoundly bad for humans (although good for all other living organisms) ... there's lots better reasons to conserve energy than some farcical future of hypercanes and hockey sticks ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

... just that you keep overlooking the .041% part, which is obviously a trace gas by percentage ...

Would you rather have 99.999% of $100 or 0.041% of a $1,000,000? ... is 5 ppmv trace when that much plutonium will kill you? ...

I understand your position, but measuring by volume doesn't address the reactivity ... pH = 5 is 10 ppm bare nekked protons, if this is what you're peeing, then you need to see a doctor ... and soon ... for comparison, 400 ppm is a pH = 3.4 which is generally what's found in soda pop ... not a big difference between pop and water, but even at 0.04% these bare nekked protons make more than a trace of effect ... same with CO2 in the atmosphere, the added 130 ppm makes a small difference, not a trace difference ... and let's go ahead and extend our analogy; the acid in soda pop does have some negative health effects, and we can characterize these effects as trace and acceptable for the benefit of a tasty treat after a day digging ditches; same with CO2, it's effect on humans is trace with the benefit of milder temperatures ...

Chugging down 18 molar hydrochloric acid would be like running out of fossil fuels without any alternatives ... both are profoundly bad for humans (although good for all other living organisms) ... there's lots better reasons to conserve energy than some farcical future of hypercanes and hockey sticks ...

Your post here was never disputed:

Just some quick back-of-the-$100-bill calculations ... a five-gallon bucket holds over 10^19 molecules of CO2 ... or:
10,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules ...

It takes balls to claim that number is "trace" ... just saying ...

But it was misleading since I was going by Atmosphere mass from the start, there is a reason why they use the number .041% in the first place, it was in relation to total mass of the atmosphere, which 99% of people would have quickly understood, but YOU keep trucking with the other way, of which I never said it was wrong, but doesn't place it in relation with the atmosphere as a whole, of which I was talking about all along.

I asked YOU this question which you have ignored completely, gee I wonder why.....

"In that same 5 gallon bucket, how much N2 or O2 does it hold?"

I think you avoided it because it would quickly make CO2 look very, very small, even appear as a ..... snicker,... trace molecule in relation to them.

Tough questions to answer:

Is .041% a large number?

Is .041% a correct number?

Is .041% an honest measure of CO2 mass in the atmosphere?

Is .041% much smaller than 78% (N2) , 21% (O2) , .9% (argon)? POST 20

Hopefully you will understand why I can correctly call it a trace molecule in the atmosphere.

By the way YOU COMPLTELY ignored POST 24

"It is when it is .041% of the ATMOSPHERE

I am going by composition of the atmosphere (when I listed the more abundant molecules) , you are talking about a SINGLE Molecule (ignoring all the others in this argument), thus what you present is misleading.

How come you don't compare CO2 number with either Nitrogen or Oxygen numbers?"

I wonder why.....



Cheers.

 

[mamooth]

I'm buffooned by your reference to a "dry area" ... what the hell are you talking about? ...

You've apparently never heard of deserts, yet you're claiming I lack climate knowledge?

Wow.