Why Co2 Can Not Cause Further Warming...

[mamooth]

The world doesn't classify me as a fringe kook, so, unlike you, I have no reason to be in a state of perpetual bitterness. And to top it off, I have the constant entertainment of seeing all the denier bitter beer faces.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD and jc, you'll wake up tomorrow, and you'll still be whackaloon fringe cultists. And so it will go, every day, for the rest of your lives, nothing to look forward to but more humiliation.

On some level, you understand that. No wonder you deniers are so bitter.

We're bitter? dude you posting this junk just show who the bitter person is. Perhaps you shouldn't look in the mirror, you'll just see the bitterness. You are a wanna be, you wanna be like us, but you can't because then you lose your funding. Funny how that goes eh?

Mamooth has gone completely off the deep end...I don't think I have seen many people online more bitter than her....Strange how she thinks our hilarious laughter at her craziness equals bitterness... She took that memo to seriously....all she has done for the past few days is post the same one liner over and over blaming skeptics for the very behavior warmer wackos are guilty of.

 

[SSDD]

The world doesn't classify me as a fringe kook, so, unlike you, I have no reason to be in a state of perpetual bitterness. And to top it off, I have the constant entertainment of seeing all the denier bitter beer faces.

Actually the only people who don't classify you as a fringe kook are other fringe kooks...

 

[Billy_Bob]

So... you don't think Billy Bob's claims are extraordinary? It doesn't bother you that he quotes extraordinary numbers and then attempts to back them up with references that say something completely different - if you get any response from him at all? That doesn't bother you?

Got it.

Did ya miss the part where the REAL empirical observations are closer to the basic warming characteristics of CO2 as defined by basic physics---- than the fantasically inflated MAGICAL numbers produced and marketed by the Global baloney crowd? This part aint rocket science Bullwinky....

on what basis do you get off withe extraordinary?? Or are ya having problems with a cogent observation?

I missed that part when I chose to listen to the experts of mainstream science. Your story doesn't match their observations, their logic, their rational, their science. Why is that?

Because those charlatans have invented Magic Multipliers to apply to the warming powers of CO2. The REAL warming powers are in those curves in the OP.. Everything else is a figment of well bribed imagination. When Trenberth got famous for his Energy Diagram (misnamed) -- he had NO CONCEPT that he was to discover a massive negative feedback. In a stroke of desperation to explain the pause, it came to him. SMACK in the head. The oceans store a shitload of heat. Why didn't I think of that before??

((Better question would be --- How did Trenberth get that Energy so BALANCED that it showed the right answer WHILST LEAVING OUT THAT MASSIVE AMOUNT OF MISSING HEAT GOING INTO THE OCEAN.. Answer --- He's a fraud.. ))

Everything else beyond those curves is the DIFFERENCE between me and charlatans who now are hiding under rocks.. That's the part of Global Warming that I DENY PROUDLY. Well that and the idea that the Climate system is so fragile that a 2degC jolt could cause it to commit suicide all by itself..

Then you have joined the fringe conspiracy whackaloons. Enjoy your day.

When logic and reason fail to teach the ignorant ... The respond by calling names...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Only a fool can not see what it is they gain... Power, Control, wealth...

Glad to see you admit why you're in it. Specifically, are you going for the power, the control or the wealth?

Look, we get, you assume everyone else must be like yourself, dishonest to the core and instantly willing to sell out your integrity for a buck. That's a very bad assumption, since most people aren't like you. On both an intellectual and a moral level, you're not fit to sniff the jocks of the people you criticize.

That's one reason why you will always be classified as part of a fringe conspiracy of whackaloons. It's never going to get any better for you. You can rant here on a message board, and it won't make a bit of difference. The world will still correctly keep classifying you as being part of the kook fringe. If you want to change that, you'll have to do some actual science. And no, raving conspiracy theories are not science.

Lots of supposition... no facts... and name calling... New Memo from her handlers?? Step up the disdain and rhetoric... Pathetically desperate..

 

[Youch]

First, man-made-global-warming. Then when that didn't stick politically, it became just global warming. Now, it is simply climate change.....after all, who can argue that climate changes? But the political intent is still the same. Self-aggrandizement. Power. Control. Leverage. This isn't even debatable any more. The US has recorded far more record cold temps than warm temps in recent years, yet we are to believe Algore, Obama and the rest of the leftist establishment when they proclaim that, gasp, climate is changing (the inference being, warming caused by a bad species of animals that need to be controlled), and thus government must come to our rescue; to rescue us from ourselves. The fearmongering of "climate change" is THE TOOL used to advance the EPA's size and scope and budget and claws into our homes, property and business, all to grow government. Commie-pinko-socialist-fascist-statist-tyrants is what it all boils down to, and their drone followers too ignorant to understand or too dependent to care.

Look at it another way. Notice how only politicians and leftists are pushing the agenda? If the science is so "settled" as we are told, and if the climate really was observed to be getting warmer, then wouldn't the vast majority be onboard with such obviousness and that there wouldn't need to be the political mandating? But a full 69+% of people understand it to be bunk and mule fritters, and even casual observers of weather and climate can discern cooling from warming. Libs think so little of mankind.....ironical, ain't it??

 

[Crick]

One of the warmists favorite things about CO2 is the fact that in an argon filled tube and with varying concentrations of CO2 it reflects radiated warmth back to the surface. CO2 however saturates a low levels and does little in increasing that reflection of heat. As the saturation grows it displaces water vapor and allows long wave infrared radiation to escape at night when water vapor would be most effective in heat retention.

Lets look at the LOG (or rate of diminishing returns) of this trace gas and the experiment vs reality.

View attachment 32135

The left hand column is degrees Celsius and the top is parts per million of CO2. At 260PPM CO2 had expended 95% of its warming capability in our atmosphere. At 380 PPM we had only recorded 0.2 Deg C rise in 1990. Today at 399ppm with the globe cooling we show and empirical rise of 0.0 Deg C for that rise over the last 60 years.

The rate of CO2 rise has remained constant up until ten years ago when it dropped 0.8 on average per year from 2.6 PPM to 1.8 PPM. That drop coincided with oceanic oscillations going cold and ocean uptake of CO2 increase.

What this tells us.

First thing it tells us is that temperature and CO2 are not linked. There are atmospheric processes which offset or null the base warming rate of CO2 found in the lab. Empirical (observed) rates of increase are 0.0 to 0.4 deg C per doubling above 260PPM. Increase in CO2 does not result in runaway warming as shown by the paleo climate record.

Second thing this tells us is that CO2 in a lab environment reacts differently in the earths atmosphere. The two plots on this graph show GCM models and empirical evidence. Note the deflection at 260ppm.

The third thing this tells us is that our current level of 399PPM, if doubled would only result in another 0.0 to 0.4 deg C rise as seen over the last 100 years. This is important because GCM (Global Climate Models) use this number to determine rate of heat increase and the reaction of water vapor to that increase. (aka: Climate Sensitivity) The Current cooling trend shows the total decoupling of water vapor from that equation using CO2 as the driver. The current IPCC rating of 1.0 to 1.8 Deg C per doubling of CO2 is laid waste as to high by empirical evidence. The EPA's rating of 4.0 to 6.1 deg C per doubling is pure fantasy and contrived numbers to push a liberal agenda.

What we are left with is a negative forcing in water vapor. As CO2 further increases in our atmosphere the night time long wave black body radiation will increase causing further cooling. Further increase in CO2 will now result in a zero net gain of heat retention.

Its simple physics.. And empirical evidence...

What is the source of this graph and the accompanying text?

 

[SSDD]

What is the source of this graph and the accompanying text?

The source is irrelevant...either you can prove it is incorrect or you can't...all the source can give you is a target to hurl an ad hominem at as if that would do anything more than prove your logical deficiency.

 

[Crick]

What is the source of this graph and the accompanying text?

The source is irrelevant...either you can prove it is incorrect or you can't...all the source can give you is a target to hurl an ad hominem at as if that would do anything more than prove your logical deficiency.

It wasn't your graph. You have nothing of value to add to this "conversation". However, if you think sources are irrelevant, I will consider myself free to make up whatever nonsense I like and post it as established fact. That should make things much, much easier.

Fucking idiot.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Looks Like Crick is throwing shit pellets again in every thread he can find when they disprove his AGW meme...

 

[Kosh]

CO2 does NOT drive climate. never has..

 

[Crick]

Try Om mani padme hum. I think you'll find it far more meaningful and productive. Perhaps fewer of us will think you a blinking idiot.

 

[SSDD]

It wasn't your graph. You have nothing of value to add to this "conversation". However, if you think sources are irrelevant, I will consider myself free to make up whatever nonsense I like and post it as established fact. That should make things much, much easier.

Look who thinks he was made king and can determine how the conversation moves along....guess that is why you think it would be best to kill people who disagree with you...save you from having your ass handed to you as often.

Again, sources are irrelevant....either the data is correct or it is incorrect and you can either prove it wrong or you can't...my bet is that you can't so in order to make yourself feel a bit better, you want to hurl an insult towards wherever the offensive (in your eye) data came from.

And by the way, when you just make shit up as you often do, one of us skeptics comes along and disproves it....clearly you can't disprove the data in the graph...sorry guy, you lose once again.....well, I'm not really sorry to se you lose once again...in fact, seeing you lose is one of the things that keeps me coming back.

 

[Crick]

God are you stupid.

None of us have the time, resources, knowledge or training to prove or disprove (ignoring that this is the natural sciences and proofs are exceedingly few and far between) any of these articles. The purpose of providing sources is obvious. A peer reviewed, heavily cited study by multiple professors of good standing in their fields is far LIKELIER to be correct than is some polemic screed by a graduate of the high school or infantile journalism.

 

[jc456]

God are you stupid.

None of us have the time, resources, knowledge or training to prove or disprove (ignoring that this is the natural sciences and proofs are exceedingly few and far between) any of these articles. The purpose of providing sources is obvious. A peer reviewed, heavily cited study by multiple professors of good standing in their fields is far LIKELIER to be correct than is some polemic screed by a graduate of the high school or infantile journalism.

why?

 

[mamooth]

A source can't fudge and lie if there's a good peer review team. Thus, a good peer review would eliminate nearly all of SSDD's sources, which explains his hostility towards peer review.

 

[jc456]

A source can't fudge and lie if there's a good peer review team. Thus, a good peer review would eliminate nearly all of SSDD's sources, which explains his hostility towards peer review.

The only thing peer review means is one thing, you must think as the peer and not any other way. What a useless religion that is.

 

[mamooth]

jc, you only have experience with denier pal review, so of course you think it's crap. You need to understand that your side's dishonesty is not representative of the process.

 

[jc456]

jc, you only have experience with denier pal review, so of course you think it's crap. You need to understand that your side's dishonesty is not representative of the process.

ah, no. All one has to do is go visit your so called peer groups and see how the buddy system works. That is the true DENIER Group!!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

One has to laugh at the depths of ignorance displayed by the wingnuts posting on this board. They think because they don't like the conclusions of the scientists that have studied atmospheric physics, climate, and glaciology for decades, that they can just flap-yap nonsense and that is equal to what real scientists are stating. That 400,000 person march was just the beginning, as more people are affected by extreme weather, you are going to see more activism by people previously uninvolved.