# The worse case---Earth 2100



## ScienceRocks (Dec 28, 2013)

I want all of you to watch the worse case...This is what happens if we keep adding 2-3% more co2 into the Atmosphere until 2100.

100gt a year of co2 like case this is....

I think it makes a good case for the very worse. Agree?

This happens if we listen to the conservatives!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv4SqNF0KS8]Earth 2100(full documentary)HD - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 28, 2013)

Matthew said:


> I want all of you to watch the worse case...This is what happens if we keep adding 2-3% more co2 into the Atmosphere until 2100.
> 
> 100gt a year of co2 like case this is....
> 
> ...



Pure fantasy.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 28, 2013)




----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 28, 2013)

Americans or liberal Americans do not give a damn about the future, if they did they would not leave their grand children with a debt they created.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 28, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Americans or liberal Americans do not give a damn about the future, if they did they would not leave their grand children with a debt they created.



Idiot,

They wouldn't vote for assholes that destroy and rebuild entire foreign nations like yourside.

What you want is NO infrastructure, education or science programs for those children. Why fuck over our people??? Oh'yesss your side likes to pound your chest about how great this country is but don't want to keep it so.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 28, 2013)

Matthew said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Americans or liberal Americans do not give a damn about the future, if they did they would not leave their grand children with a debt they created.
> ...



Your side has left the future indebted they left them taxes they cannot pay. Your side has created slaves for the government.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 28, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


 
Actually, the corporations and the banks did that.  You didn't know this?  Huh.


----------



## Daktoria (Dec 28, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Americans or liberal Americans do not give a damn about the future, if they did they would not leave their grand children with a debt they created.



That's not fair.

Medicare, medicaid, and Social Security are helping conservative oldtimers, the military is a neoconservative project, and the right-wing has abandoned trying to handle educational policy, throwing it to the birds of feminist, multiculturalist, unionized labor in the name of emotivist, relativist, consumerism.

The left is backlashing against the right's insistence on ruggedly individualist pragmatic conformity to norms in families, churches, and businesses, and it's picking away at conservatism's base by victimizing its social outcasts.  Conservatism's establishment abandons those who are outcast because it judges them as too impractical, dysfunctional, useless, or cost-prohibitive to be protected.  It isn't willing to confront liberalism's destruction of social values, cohesion, or fabric, but rather anti-intellectually concedes to it while destroying its own intellectual base.

There is an ever-increasing amount of people who are originally victimized by the right, and later victimized by the left.  You see this especially among half of the up and coming libertarian movement which doesn't sympathize with either conservative rugged individualism or liberal cultural relativism, but rather believes in objective morality.

I say half here though because the other half actually believes in synthesizing rugged individualism with cultural relativism in a dark compromise, and takes the same conservative excuse of "who's going to change things" as an excuse to not take the time, energy, and attention to discuss ideas.  Libertarianism itself is not the answer, but there is an element within libertarianism which is.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Corporations and banks don't sign legislation, or create taxes.


----------



## editec (Dec 28, 2013)

Oh,  I suspect that the feces will hit the fan for most Americans long before Global Warming is really a major problem.


While I suspect that the climate is changing dramatically, that is truly NOT the primary thing threatening most of us for the next couple of decades.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 28, 2013)

The Drama Llama says....


----------



## Stephanie (Dec 28, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Americans or liberal Americans do not give a damn about the future, if they did they would not leave their grand children with a debt they created.



that's why they have to focus on myths how we are going to destroy earth because we are the cause of globull warming, things like abortion, etc etc
It's easier than looking at the reality they helped create with their so called superior ideas and policies


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 28, 2013)

5 years ago Al Whore said the north pole would be iceless by now

Every year for 15 years, you people have predicted the worst hurricane season ever is coming.  In that time 3 records were set, for the mildest years on record.

Same for tornadoes.  You did get one really bad week, but that's it


So take your prediction and shove it up your ass where you got it from.

the fearmongering days of you global warming kooks is over, you've been lied to.  Please just admit you're wrong and move the fuck on.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



who did they create a national debt w/o spending the money?

I gotta know how companies, that must make profit, created government debt.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 28, 2013)

Matthew said:


> I want all of you to watch the worse case...This is what happens if we keep adding 2-3% more co2 into the Atmosphere until 2100.
> 
> 100gt a year of co2 like case this is....
> 
> ...



Really? Leftists need fictional characters and Hollywood effects behind a theatrical attempt to sell the destruction of the planet? 

Save it.. Already been done with "The Day After Tomorrow" and Sharknado and Inconvienient Truth.. 3 of my favorite ways to end civilization as we know it. Sorry guy --- cut me out a couple FACTS from the 2 hour fantasy --- and you got a deal.. ((If any FACTS are in that mess))  Smells like an old-timey holy-roller revival hit for you guys.. 

WAS there any BOILING OCEANS as CBS portrayed it just a couple months ago?? I'd tune in for that...


----------



## boedicca (Dec 28, 2013)

Matthew said:


> I want all of you to watch the worse case...This is what happens if we keep adding 2-3% more co2 into the Atmosphere until 2100.
> 
> 100gt a year of co2 like case this is....
> 
> ...





This is what happens in your wee feverish imaginative alternate reality.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 28, 2013)

And always the scientific fact reveals that CO2 does not drive climate.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 28, 2013)

Matthew said:


> I want all of you to watch the worse case...This is what happens if we keep adding 2-3% more co2 into the Atmosphere until 2100.
> 
> 100gt a year of co2 like case this is....
> 
> ...



It won't happen and here's what the AGW faithful will say:

"See, if it wasn't for us, global warming wouldn't have been stopped." 

When we all know it wasn't happening anyway.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 28, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



No one knows that because it's bull shit.

Dumbass.


----------



## PredFan (Dec 28, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



What an idiot he is.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 28, 2013)

Another thread that proves AGW is just a religion and not science.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 29, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Your side has left the future indebted they left them taxes they cannot pay. Your side has created slaves for the government.



What Rob illustrates, along with Predfan, Stephanie, Kosh and others, is how denialists only respond with political rants to anything. That's because they're a purely political cult. They never talk science, because they suck so hard at science. 

They also suck hard at logic, statistics, history, common sense, and so on. They're 'tards. After all, if they weren't 'tards, they wouldn't be denialists. Their political cult spoonfeeds them a load of BS, and then the denialists all run over here, with brown-stained teeth, to tell us all how tasty that BS was, and how everyone should eat the BS with them.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 29, 2013)

mamooth said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Your side has left the future indebted they left them taxes they cannot pay. Your side has created slaves for the government.
> ...



Global warming is political and is a cultist movement, only an idiot would deny it.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 29, 2013)

Reb, you might want to slip off into the jungle before they start serving the koolaid. It won't help you to declare you're not a cultist if you get forced to drink.

There is a way for denialists to show they're not cultists. Just tell us what evidence would be required to get you to change your position. All the rational people here have no trouble doing that, but denialists won't say. That's because denialists don't want to be honest by saying "No evidence could change my mind, but I'll change my position when my political leaders tell me to."


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 29, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Reb, you might want to slip off into the jungle before they start serving the koolaid. It won't help you to declare you're not a cultist if you get forced to drink.
> 
> There is a way for denialists to show they're not cultists. Just tell us what evidence would be required to get you to change your position. All the rational people here have no trouble doing that, but denialists won't say. That's because denialists don't want to be honest by saying "No evidence could change my mind, but I'll change my position when my political leaders tell me to."



You do realize scientist doing global warming research have been directed to cover up their findings?


----------



## Politico (Dec 29, 2013)

2100? Good news, we'll alll be dead.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 29, 2013)

Politico said:


> 2100? Good news, we'll alll be dead.


 
Even your grandchildren?


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 29, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 the traitor said:


> You do realize scientist doing global warming research have been directed to cover up their findings?



By whom?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> bigrebnc1775 the traitor said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize scientist doing global warming research have been directed to cover up their findings?
> ...



I've posted the link you've read it keep trying traitor.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 29, 2013)

Mr. reb, I don't know if you realize it or not, but the civil war has been over since 1865.  Just a heads up.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Mr. reb, I don't know if you realize it or not, but the civil war has been over since 1865.  Just a heads up.



The worse case---Earth 2100 and that has to do with the thread in what way?


----------



## Pop23 (Dec 29, 2013)

Matthew said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Americans or liberal Americans do not give a damn about the future, if they did they would not leave their grand children with a debt they created.
> ...



The *farce* is strong within you Luke Skywalker


----------



## Kosh (Dec 29, 2013)

mamooth said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Your side has left the future indebted they left them taxes they cannot pay. Your side has created slaves for the government.
> ...



Anyone believing in AGW does not believe in science and thus a science discussion impossible. AGW is religion and that is fact, but good luck believing what the scribes tell you.

From the real science, CO2 does not drive climate it never has.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 29, 2013)

So, is the AGW Cult moving to India and China and asking them to stop?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 29, 2013)

Matthew said:


> I want all of you to watch the worse case...This is what happens if we keep adding 2-3% more co2 into the Atmosphere until 2100.
> 
> 100gt a year of co2 like case this is....
> 
> ...



Why on Earth would I watch 90 minutes of conjecture that claims to be a documentary? If it was a documentary it would have to have been filmed in 2110 using the brand new telesense technology stored on quantum disks that are read by neural net interface that is implanted in all humans at age 5, and we wouldn't have any way to watch it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 29, 2013)

By the way, did you know that at least one of the predictions from this "documentary" has already been displaced by subsequent events?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 29, 2013)

Matthew said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Americans or liberal Americans do not give a damn about the future, if they did they would not leave their grand children with a debt they created.
> ...



They wouldn't vote for Obama? How the fuck did he win?

Twice?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 29, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Because corporations have the power to borrow money from my great grand children without my permission.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 29, 2013)

Being that the nations of this planet have never worked together to do much of anything, I doubt they will respond to any amount of scientific evidence, now or in 2100.

If these predictions are anywhere near accurate, then nature will finally resolve the global warming dispute for us once and for all.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 29, 2013)

They worked together on the CFC ban.

They worked together on the DDT ban.

They worked together to eliminate leaded gasoline.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> They worked together on the CFC ban.
> 
> They worked together on the DDT ban.
> 
> They worked together to eliminate leaded gasoline.



You are aware the DDT ban was a mistake right? Millions have died because of it. And millions more will die because of it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> They worked together on the CFC ban.
> 
> They worked together on the DDT ban.
> 
> They worked together to eliminate leaded gasoline.



They did? I could have sworn that what they did was take the money and run.


----------



## Flopper (Dec 29, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> They worked together on the CFC ban.
> 
> They worked together on the DDT ban.
> 
> They worked together to eliminate leaded gasoline.


The costs was minuscule compared with the cost of proposals to preventing catastrophic climate change


----------



## Kosh (Dec 29, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > They worked together on the CFC ban.
> ...



No amount of money in the world can stop climate change.

Global warming is a natural process that happens on this planet.

AGW is a farce used to promote a religious belief.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 29, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > They worked together on the CFC ban.
> ...


 
If only it was that simple:

DDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 29, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Reb, you might want to slip off into the jungle before they start serving the koolaid. It won't help you to declare you're not a cultist if you get forced to drink.
> ...



Damn. Just when one thinks that you cannot get any dumber, you prove that you are capable of doing that. 

So, just who is giving all these scientists from all over the world, from every political system in the world, the orders to cover up their findings? And why is it that you think that these millions of scientists would do so even if ordered? 

You are one dumb ass redneck. The research dating back nearly two hundred years concerning the causes of global warming is there on the net for the reading. Original papers by the scientists that made the observations. That you are too damned lazy to read those papers in an indicator of the level of your intellect.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 29, 2013)

Matthew said:


> I want all of you to watch the worse case...This is what happens if we keep adding 2-3% more co2 into the Atmosphere until 2100.
> 
> 100gt a year of co2 like case this is....
> 
> ...



Eat a dick


----------



## Flopper (Dec 29, 2013)

Kosh said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...


What religious belief us that?


----------



## Kosh (Dec 29, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



The AGW religion the one based on faith and not science. 

But you already knew that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Yes it is true YOU can get dumber you show it every time to defend the cover up of the politically charged theory of global warming. And you and I have already been through this with this subject when I posted the link.


----------



## Politico (Dec 30, 2013)

I can never remember who is posting what dumb crap. Which one of you thinks it is man made again?


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 30, 2013)

Matthew said:


> I want all of you to watch the worse case...



I want you to get something through your thick skull:

*WE ARE IN AN ICE AGE!*

I'm asking something that you could accomplish in about half a second.  But I know you won't comply.   Why should I cede over the next hour and a half to do what you want me to?


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 30, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> WE ARE IN AN ICE AGE!



Yep.  There you go.  It's just like my momma used to tell us: "Never think you've heard the worst".


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > WE ARE IN AN ICE AGE!
> ...



Oh, so you're one of those uneducated, ignorant types who don't know the facts and science of the matter.  A glaciation (commonly know as an ice age) is a period of global cold climate sufficient to form permanent ice sheets.  Outside of ice ages the earth remains ice free, even at the poles.  The only occasional exceptions being temporary ice patches that may form at high altitudes with seasonal changes.  

The presence of permanent ice sheets in Antarctica, Greenland, and the Arctic indicates that the earth is currently in an ice age.  There have been five major ice age in known history, the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age and the Quaternary glaciations.  The last of these, the Quaternary, began approximately 2.6 million years ago and continues today.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 30, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Oh, so you're one of those uneducated, ignorant types who don't know the facts and science of the matter.



Yes, I am one of those uneducated, ignorant types.

Quaternary glaciation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Last ice age" redirects here. This term is also used for the* last glacial period of the Quaternary glaciation**.

Northern Hemisphere glaciation during the Last Glacial Maximum. The creation of 3 to 4 km (1.9 to 2.5 mi) thick ice sheets caused a global sea level drop of about 120 m (390 ft).
Quaternary glaciation also known as the Pleistocene glaciation or the current ice age, refers to a series of glacial events separated by interglacial events during the Quaternary period from 2.58 Ma (million years ago) to present.[1] During this period, permanent ice sheets were established in Antarctica and perhaps Greenland, and fluctuating ice sheets occurred elsewhere (for example, the Laurentide ice sheet). The major effects of the ice age are erosion and deposition of material over large parts of the continents, modification of river systems, creation of millions of lakes, changes in sea level, development of pluvial lakes far from the ice margins, isostatic adjustment of the crust, and abnormal winds. It affects oceans, flooding, and biological communities. The ice sheets themselves, by raising the albedo, effect a major feedback on climate cooling.

* - Not currently underway.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, so you're one of those uneducated, ignorant types who don't know the facts and science of the matter.
> ...



Fail.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 30, 2013)

SwimExpert,

what relevance do you believe the Quaternary Glaciation has to the topic of anthropogenic global warming?


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, so you're one of those uneducated, ignorant types who don't know the facts and science of the matter.
> ...



Posting it twice only makes you twice as stupid.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SwimExpert,
> 
> what relevance do you believe the Quaternary Glaciation has to the topic of anthropogenic global warming?



*shakes head*

The same relevance this, this, and this has.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 30, 2013)

So when does the AGWCult move to India and China?


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 30, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert,
> ...



The board is not working well for me this morning.  Hopefully this won't appear twice.  

So, do you believe the five IPCC reports and the consensus accepting AGW as valid among climate scientists constitute confirmation bias, frequency illusion or focalism?

And what do any of those have to do with the Quaternary glacial period or of that with AGW?

Or, since none of those are applicable to AGW, should I assume that our being in the Quaternary period has no bearing on AGW whatsoever?  If so, you and I are in complete agreement.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 30, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Tell that to Jack Abrahmoff
Handing over legislation during dinner has consequences.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 30, 2013)

Or ALEC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 30, 2013)

co2 level is directly related to the galacialation of Greenland and Antarctica.

Greenland developed glacials around 350-400
and Antarctica developed them at around 500ppm

When our planet had over thousand parts per million within the current set-up of landmasses(the past 80 million years)...That is the way it worked. 


Leading into the ice age the past 3-5 million years was a decrease in co2...Each time we'd go through a glacial or interglacial we seen 100ppm charge within co2 percentage within our atmosphere....

CO2 was controlled by temperature. You're right but it was also a feed back cycle that helped amplify the effects of those cycles.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Or, since none of those are applicable to AGW, should I assume that our being in the Quaternary period has no bearing on AGW whatsoever?  If so, you and I are in complete agreement.



Let me guess, you're the type of person who can get straight A's in school, but can't apply any test material worth a damn to your every day life.  If you don't understand the relevance, then you are most certainly the most stupid person I've come across on this board.  Jesus Christ, I can't explain quantum physics to swamp rat.  It just isn't possible.  The cognitive capacity just isn't present in the student.  

Even Rdean, the raging idiot that he is, would at least piece the facts together and understand it.  He'd offer an amazingly ridiculous counter argument, no doubt.  But he'd still get it.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 30, 2013)

Matthew said:


> co2 level is directly related to the galacialation of Greenland and Antarctica.



False, and hopelessly outdated hypothesis.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 30, 2013)

The percentage of CO2 concentration change between warm/cool periods of glaciation is LESS than the percentage of change for current warming.. AND YET --- there was a 2.5 to 3.0 times temperature increase during the glacials. CO2 is NOT the planet thermostat... It's a bit player that PROXIES for temperature increases and decreases..


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 30, 2013)

That's not what these data indicate






http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/temperature-change.jpg

And note that the current CO2 levels would be 100 ppm over the top of this chart


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> That's not what these data indicate
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your math abilities suck as usual.. Go back and read my post.. Then I'll help you read the graph you just posted..


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 30, 2013)

Percent change.  I saw that earlier.  Started to compare it to the note about Arctic ice extents.

Obviously, there is a connection between temperature and CO2.

Obviously, the current rise has nothing to do with our position in the glacial timeline.

So, what point are you trying to make?


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> our position in the glacial timeline.



You're reflecting the kind of failed and faulty thinking that caused scientists in the 60s and 70s to believe that the next glacial period was going to start any day now.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> That's not what these data indicate
> 
> 
> 
> ...



By the way, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2013)

There are a number of factors that relate to ice ages. Tectonics, position of the land masses, trap volcanics, and a number of other things. However, through all of these, the one factor that seems to be the primary one is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, we see these factors affecting that level, and it is the CO2 level that drives warmng or cooling. 

Here is one of the world's leading glacialogists on the subject, Dr. Richard Alley. Addressing the American Geophysical Union Fall Conferance in 2009. Of course, I don't expect the numbnuts on this board to actually spend to time to listen to a real scientist, obese junkies are their speed, but for those wanting real information on the subject, this is a good start.

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" on Vimeo


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 30, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> However, through all of these, the one factor that seems to be the primary one is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, we see these factors affecting that level, and it is the CO2 level that drives warmng or cooling.



False.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Percent change.  I saw that earlier.  Started to compare it to the note about Arctic ice extents.
> 
> Obviously, there is a connection between temperature and CO2.
> 
> ...



Why do I think this is another fools errand? 

A 7 to 10degC change in temperature during the glacials is accompanied by a CO2 delta of only 200 to 280ppm (40%).. While the Modern Era sees a CO2 change of 280 to 400ppm (43%)  Should produce about the same warming by your simple ass climate model.. 

Your turn... Tell us again...  What is the RELEVENCE of comparing OUR level of CO2 to the glaciers???


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 30, 2013)

I never said there was.  I'm saying that the magnitude of the current change (among other points) makes it ridiculous to suggest that our CO2 is high because some other factor has warmed the planet.  This is not a natural cycle.

And it is neither due to TSI.

By the way, in response to your condescension, do get fucked.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 30, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > That's not what these data indicate
> ...



Where the fuck did you get the idea that was my position?


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 30, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Let me guess, you're the type of person who can get straight A's in school, but can't apply any test material worth a damn to your every day life.  If you don't understand the relevance, then you are most certainly the most stupid person I've come across on this board.  Jesus Christ, I can't explain quantum physics to swamp rat.  It just isn't possible.  The cognitive capacity just isn't present in the student.



My goodness, but you must be VERY smart indeed.  It's a true honor to have someone of your intellectual calibre actually spend the time to write back and answer my puerile inquiries. 

So, do you believe the five IPCC reports and the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that AGW is valid are examples of confirmation bias, frequency illusion and/or focalism?


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 30, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > our position in the glacial timeline.
> ...



VERY few scientists in the 60s and 70s were concerned about the next glacial period, though the temperature trend from 1941 to 1979 would tend to support just such a hypothesis.

I thought you were better informed than that.  The "Coming Ice Age" of the late 60s and early 70s was mass media sensationalism and is now the sole demesne of global warming deniers trying to run down mainstream science.

Is that what you do?  Run down mainstream science?  Are you smarter than all of them?


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 30, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > However, through all of these, the one factor that seems to be the primary one is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, we see these factors affecting that level, and it is the CO2 level that drives warmng or cooling.
> ...



False


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 30, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Percent change.  I saw that earlier.  Started to compare it to the note about Arctic ice extents.
> ...


Because you're a fool?






flacaltenn said:


> A 7 to 10degC change in temperature during the glacials is accompanied by a CO2 delta of only 200 to 280ppm (40%).. While the Modern Era sees a CO2 change of 280 to 400ppm (43%)  Should produce about the same warming by your simple ass climate model..



It's a real shame that you're so retarded, fecalhead, otherwise you'd be able to see the obvious. The 7 to 10 degree temperature increases between the glacial periods and the interglacial periods and the 80-100ppm rise in CO2 levels that produced those temperature increases both happened over thousands of years. Mankind has increased CO2 levels by over 120ppm in only a little over a century. The Earth's temperatures have not yet had time to come into an equilibrium with the drastically increased CO2 levels. The last time in Earth's history that CO2 levels were this high and were sustained at these levels for some time, temperatures *were* "_7 to 10deg_" hotter. It just takes some time for temperatures to catch up with the 'forcing' produced by the extra CO2.

*Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report*
UCLA Newsroom
By Stuart Wolpert 
October 08, 2009
(excerpts)
*You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science. "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today &#8212; and were sustained at those levels &#8212; global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years &#8212; until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new.*


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Right here.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> My goodness, but you must be VERY smart indeed.



Well, since you've asked, I'm in the 99.8% percentile of human intelligence.  



> It's a true honor to have someone of your intellectual calibre actually spend the time to write back and answer my puerile inquiries.



Puellatine mockery will not help your cause.



> So, do you believe the five IPCC reports and the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that AGW is valid are examples of confirmation bias, frequency illusion and/or focalism?



That's exactly what I said, isn't it?


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 30, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...



Well, blew that, didn't ya.

For the umpteenth time, my position is that current GHG and temperature levels are primarily anthropogenic, not natural.

Regarding the Quaternary, I'd like to say what I should have said when you first pointed it out:  So what?


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I never said there was.  I'm saying that the magnitude of the current change (among other points) makes it ridiculous to suggest that our CO2 is high because some other factor has warmed the planet.  This is not a natural cycle.
> 
> And it is neither due to TSI.
> 
> By the way, in response to your condescension, do get fucked.



That's the response I wanted.. You might be getting it.. The MAGNITUDE of the current temperature change is less than 1/5 of the temperature change during the glacials.. But has almost the SAME CO2 change occuring.. 

So if today is not a natural cycle --- but the glacials WERE ---- why is the CO2 ratio virtually the same? If CO2 is the only important climate driver --- hows come we don't see a 7 or 10degC change??? 

Is it because the glacials were largely driven by "OTHER" effects? If so -- what makes you think that today is "unnatural"? 

Physics predicts a 1.2degC warming per doubling of CO2.. That's a little more than what we've seen during the last century.. And if NATURAL forces drove the temperature swing HIGHER during the glacials --- then that all makes sense.. 

OR --- you could tell me whats unnatural about observing a 0.8 degC rise for a 40% increase in CO2??? You think it should be MORE than that? I'll cop to the fact that man may have contributed some to that rise. But it's demonstrably LESS of an effect than the NATURAL forces applied during the glacials.. 

*OR --- maybe the OP is a big steaming pile and we shouldn't be drawing conclusions about whether CO2 is HIGHER than it's been for the past 400,000 yrs?*? 

OR MAYBE --- it takes 10,000 yrs for a 40% CO2 increase to send the climate into a 10degC over-drive ??? 

CLEARLY CO2 didn't drive the climate during those glacial  epochs.. And OBSERVATION is that our trivial 0.8degC rise (or so) is NOT unexpected.. But CO2 is NOT gonna drive the climate into meltdown as predicted by AGW.. Because if it COULD do that --- it would have done it during the glacial epochs.. Or there is an unknown multi-millenial delay to the effect that we don't see coming.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Wait a second......you mean to tell me that major climate change hysteria is linked with mass media sensationalism?  Who knew!?


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 30, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > My goodness, but you must be VERY smart indeed.
> ...



Hmm... well, I actually didn't ask. Your placement wrt to modesty must be equally extreme.  And I have to wonder, though, at the 'truthiness' of this statement given you seem to expect us to believe you.  Why don't you post an image of your test results with a personal note added for veracity's sake.



			
				Abraham said:
			
		

> It's a true honor to have someone of your intellectual calibre actually spend the time to write back and answer my puerile inquiries.





SwimExpert said:


> Puellatine mockery will not help your cause.



I've got to confess, I'm such an ignoramus I've never heard that word.  Neither have five dictionaries, two encyclopedias or two search engines.



			
				Abraham said:
			
		

> So, do you believe the five IPCC reports and the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that AGW is valid are examples of confirmation bias, frequency illusion and/or focalism?





SwimExpert said:


> That's exactly what I said, isn't it?



No, actually, it is not.  You said they were as relevant to AGW as was your statement about the Quaternary.  Since the Quaternary's relevance to AGW was never established, neither were your three falsities.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 30, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > However, through all of these, the one factor that seems to be the primary one is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, we see these factors affecting that level, and it is the CO2 level that drives warmng or cooling.
> ...



The causal link between CO2 levels and temperatures has been scientifically established. Your unsupported denial of that connection and the scientific research that supports it is about as significant or meaningful as a fart in a hurricane. Denying reality like that just demonstrates how scientifically ignorant, brainwashed and retarded you are, DrownedRat.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 30, 2013)

SwinExpert said:
			
		

> Well, since you've asked, I'm in the 99.8% percentile of human intelligence.



This bodes poorly for the human species.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 30, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I never said there was.  I'm saying that the magnitude of the current change (among other points) makes it ridiculous to suggest that our CO2 is high because some other factor has warmed the planet.  This is not a natural cycle.
> ...



Your ignorant bullshit was debunked in *post #81*, fecalhead, you're just too retarded to realize that fact.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 30, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> SwinExpert said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, it would indeed "_bode poorly_" *if* SwineExpert's claims could be believed, but, in reality, they are obviously just more evidence of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I never said there was.  I'm saying that the magnitude of the current change (among other points) makes it ridiculous to suggest that our CO2 is high because some other factor has warmed the planet.  This is not a natural cycle.
> 
> And it is neither due to TSI.
> 
> By the way, in response to your condescension, do get fucked.



There isn't the slightest thing ridiculous about it considering the fact that the Earth has warmed numerous times in the recent past.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> Your placement wrt to modesty must be equally extreme.



Perhaps.  But since the two are mutually exclusive conditions, it's also irrelevant.



> And I have to wonder the 'truthiness' of this statement given you seem to expect us to believe you.  Why don't you post an image of your test results with a personal note added for veracity's sake.



You're the one who brought it up.  When you failed at argumentation, you attempted to retort with false information.  When you failed with facts, you resorted to ridicule.  Now that you've failed with that, you're responding with more explicit ad hominems that reek of desperation.



> I've got to confess, I'm such an ignoramus I've never heard that word.  Neither have five dictionaries, two encyclopedias or two search engines.



Of course you haven't.  It's not an actual word.  Next time before you try using your word-a-day selection in a sentence, you might try looking up its etymology.



> No, actually, it is not.  You said they were as relevant to AGW as was your statement about the Quaternary.  Since the Quaternary's relevance to AGW was never established, neither were your three falsities.



Mea culpa.  I forgot that you're one of those spoon fed types.  You only know that raw information which has been specifically implanted directly into your brain.  No ability to gleam knowledge or understanding on your own.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 30, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> The causal link between CO2 levels and temperatures has been scientifically established. Your unsupported denial of that connection and the scientific research that supports it is about as significant or meaningful as a fart in a hurricane. Denying reality like that just demonstrates how scientifically ignorant, brainwashed and retarded you are, DrownedRat.



The causal mechanism of which you speak is not anywhere near as prevalent or powerful as the interpretation you or Old Rocks present.  You seem to think that I lack knowledge or understanding of these things.  In fact, the opposite is true.  I am more fully and well versed on this subject than the typical lay person.  

The effect of CO2 on climate change is neither as pronounced, nor as direct, as you seem to believe.  The truth of the matter is that there are a wide range of factors that contribute to climate change.  But atmospheric CO2 levels is not a substantial contributor to temperature changes over time.  Much more relevant is ocean currents and oceanic CO2 levels.  Despite the Al Gore types that yell the loudest, the truth is that scientists do not believe that atmospheric CO2 levels cause temperature changes.  Instead, it is one of several feedback mechanisms.

Your thinking also reflects what I call the HSP fallacy (historical significant precision).  It refers to the mistaken idea that scientifically studied historical trends can indicate precise information for insignificant scales within the larger field of view.  The past 100 years is an insignificant period of time in the overall geological scale.  The past few decades is more insignificant.  It is absolutely impossible to use measurements of over the past 100 years and call them "unprecedented" regarding the full scale of the earth's existential history.  The data scientists are able to acquire regarding historical climate patterns is based on extremely large time frames.  The notion that anything that has been recorded over the past 100 years, much less the past 30 years, can be claimed to be unprecedented is an impossible conclusion to draw from the data or logic.  We have absolutely no way to know what kinds of changes may have occurred over a 100 year time period a million years ago.


----------



## RollingThunder (Dec 30, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Your placement wrt to modesty must be equally extreme.
> ...



LOLOLOL

Your posts are strong evidence that you're an ignorant moron, DrownedRat.

Your claims that you are a super genius are just more evidence that you're a delusional retard, desperately trying to substantiate your your ignorant denier cult myths with claims of personal expertise because you can't support them with any actual facts or scientific research.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 30, 2013)

bripat9643 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I never said there was. I'm saying that the magnitude of the current change (among other points) makes it ridiculous to suggest that our CO2 is high because some other factor has warmed the planet. This is not a natural cycle.
> ...


 
Do you have any evidence that it has done so in the past at the rate in which it is doing so today?


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 30, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SwinExpert said:
> ...



This is the kind of delicious irony that Hollywood writers just can't make up.

In your intellectual incompetence, you have a pivotal misunderstanding of the Dunning-Kruger effect.  Namely, the increasingly common false notion that confidence indicates incompetence, and that humility indicates competence.  In reality, however, the Dunning-Kruger effect does not operate as such, even though you individually are committing such a failing by thinking this.






_The critical point to note is that theres a clear positive correlation between actual performance (gray line) and perceived performance (black line): the people in the top quartile for actual performance think they perform better than the people in the second quartile, who in turn think they perform better than the people in the third quartile, and so on. So the bias is definitively not that incompetent people think theyre better than competent people. Rather, its that incompetent people think theyre much better than they actually are. But they typically still dont think theyre quite as good as people who, you know, actually are good. (Its important to note that Dunning and Kruger never claimed to show that the unskilled think theyre better than the skilled; thats just the way the finding is often interpreted by others.)_

what the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn?t | [citation needed]

So nice try, but no cigar.  Next time leave the pop psychology to the Barnes and Noble self help section.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 30, 2013)

Oh, and as for your "swine expert" whip, let's be honest.  Everyone loves bacon.  And I cook a mean ham.  Translated into your language:  When I cook ham everyone gets food poisoning.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 30, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Oh, and as for your "swine expert" whip, let's be honest. Everyone loves bacon. *And I cook a mean ham.* Translated into your language: When I cook ham everyone gets food poisoning.


 
Being possibly the easiest meat to cook in the modern kitchen, this is obviously not supporting your argument as well as you might think it is.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 30, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Nice outreach to the folks who have been leaning hard on D-K studies they dont understand. Bout time someone explained it to them... 



We have a large "below the intersect" problem going on here..


----------



## Kosh (Dec 30, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Oh my the mann Hockey stick has a hold on this one.







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 30, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> So if today is not a natural cycle --- but the glacials WERE ---- why is the CO2 ratio virtually the same?



I'd say because in every case we're talking about the same planet and what is sustainable in it's environs is likely determined by the mix of the atmosphere, the buffering available in its exposed geology and, of course, our oceans.  If you want to say that it IS a natural cycle, you can explain why CO2 concentrations have already hit levels not seen in millions of years and will undoubtedly reach values higher yet.  But I wouldn't bother with that till you've solved the great mystery as to how humans could burn the gigatonnes of fossil fuels which they have burned without producing almost exactly the amount of excess CO2 which we find in today's atmosphere and oceans.



flacaltenn said:


> If CO2 is the only important climate driver --- hows come we don't see a 7 or 10degC change???



The amount of time from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution till today would not cross a single pixel on the graph we've been looking at.  If we continue producing GHGs as we are at present, we will see a 7 or 10 degree C rise.



flacaltenn said:


> Is it because the glacials were largely driven by "OTHER" effects? If so -- what makes you think that today is "unnatural"?



Are you under the impression that I believe our ice ages were precipitated by a shortage of CO2?  My favored theory is simply Milankovitch with feedbacks.

*Causes of ice ages* (Wikipedia)

The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial&#8211;interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition, such as the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane (the specific levels of the previously mentioned gases are now able to be seen with the new ice core samples from EPICA Dome C in Antarctica over the past 800,000 years[41] ); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles; the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.[citation needed]
Some of these factors influence each other. For example, changes in Earth's atmospheric composition (especially the concentrations of greenhouse gases) may alter the climate, while climate change itself can change the atmospheric composition (for example by changing the rate at which weathering removes CO2).
Maureen Raymo, William Ruddiman and others propose that the Tibetan and Colorado Plateaus are immense CO2 "scrubbers" with a capacity to remove enough CO2 from the global atmosphere to be a significant causal factor of the 40 million year Cenozoic Cooling trend. They further claim that approximately half of their uplift (and CO2 "scrubbing" capacity) occurred in the past 10 million years.[42][43]
*******************************************************



flacaltenn said:


> Physics predicts a 1.2degC warming per doubling of CO2.. That's a little more than what we've seen during the last century.. And if NATURAL forces drove the temperature swing HIGHER during the glacials --- then that all makes sense..



Climate science gives a climate sensitivity value of 3C/doubling for the real climate.  Prior to this I thought I recalled you claiming that the CO2, lab result sensitivity was on the order of 0.4C.  Good to see you fall in with the rest of the world.  Of course the rest is provided by positive feedback mechanisms: Water vapor, albedo changes and methane releases.



flacaltenn said:


> OR --- you could tell me whats unnatural about observing a 0.8 degC rise for a 40% increase in CO2??? You think it should be MORE than that? I'll cop to the fact that man may have contributed some to that rise. But it's demonstrably LESS of an effect than the NATURAL forces applied during the glacials..



When as much time has passed as was required for the full onset of any of the glacial periods, ask again.



flacaltenn said:


> *OR --- maybe the OP is a big steaming pile and we shouldn't be drawing conclusions about whether CO2 is HIGHER than it's been for the past 400,000 yrs?*?
> 
> OR MAYBE --- it takes 10,000 yrs for a 40% CO2 increase to send the climate into a 10degC over-drive ???



Or maybe under a natural regime it took 10,000 years for the CO2 levels to get high enough to drive a 10C increase



flacaltenn said:


> CLEARLY CO2 didn't drive the climate during those glacial  epochs..



As I attempted to say earlier - with the graph you didn't like - surely it did.  You see CO2, methane and water vapor listed as possible causes of ice ages.  We come out of ice ages when CO2 and the rest rise.  Shakun found CO2 to be a second stage driver to temperature increases.




flacaltenn said:


> And OBSERVATION is that our trivial 0.8degC rise (or so) is NOT unexpected.. But CO2 is NOT gonna drive the climate into meltdown as predicted by AGW.. Because if it COULD do that --- it would have done it during the glacial epochs..



You don't think 7-10C would constitute a meltdown?


----------



## Kosh (Dec 30, 2013)

CO2 Does not drive Climate!


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 30, 2013)

Mostly babble.. That's what we get.. BS about Skakun finding CO2 as a "secondary" driver... 

SAME PERCENTAGE increase BULLWINKLE...  ABSOLUTE CO2 levels are not relevent here.. 

FUCK the "climate science" 3drgC/doubling.. It isn't ever gonna happen.. That's not physics --- it's arm-waving fortune telling. 

And I've been highly consistent with the number I found in MULTIPLE ATMOS physics textbooks. It's ALWAYS been 1.2 -- to 1.5degC per doubling.. But thats WITHOUT calculating the OVERLAP spectrum with water vapor. So SOMETIMES I do call it more like 0.4degC or 0.6degC/doubling..

Bottom line -- this thread sucks.. There is no significance to the ABSOLUTE level of CO2 today versus during the glacials. BUT -- there is a huge difference in the climate reaction to the SAME RATIO increase of CO2..


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 30, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Your placement wrt to modesty must be equally extreme.
> ...



The graph you provided arguing Dunning-Kruger says precisely the opposite.



Abraham3 said:


> And I have to wonder the 'truthiness' of this statement given you seem to expect us to believe you.  Why don't you post an image of your test results with a personal note added for veracity's sake.





SwimExpert said:


> You're the one who brought it up.  When you failed at argumentation, you attempted to retort with false information.  When you failed with facts, you resorted to ridicule.  Now that you've failed with that, you're responding with more explicit ad hominems that reek of desperation.



I did no such thing.  

I have known a fair number of very intelligent, very educated people.  I've never noticed that any of them possess the ego or the insecurity you've displayed here.  If you're as intelligent as you claim, how is it that the only field in which you've demonstrated any skill is abusing others?  Your immediate claims to a superior intellect were the sort of thing you'd expect from an eight-year old, not any adult I've ever met.  Your attacks on others reek of a personal insecurity that has to drive down all around you in order to keep your head above water.



Abraham3 said:


> I've got to confess, I'm such an ignoramus I've never heard that word.  Neither have five dictionaries, two encyclopedias or two search engines.





SwimExpert said:


> Of course you haven't.  It's not an actual word.  Next time before you try using your word-a-day selection in a sentence, you might try looking up its etymology.



As a cover-up, that was simply pathetic.  Next time try to remain within your own linguistic limitations.  

What word choice of mine do you believe was inappropriate based on its etymology?



Abraham3 said:


> No, actually, it is not.  You said they were as relevant to AGW as was your statement about the Quaternary.  Since the Quaternary's relevance to AGW was never established, neither were your three falsities.





SwimExpert said:


> Mea culpa.



Live with it.  Learn from it.



SwimExpert said:


> I forgot that you're one of those spoon fed types.  You only know that raw information which has been specifically implanted directly into your brain.  No ability to gleam knowledge or understanding on your own.



I think I've had just about enough of the insult-fest.  If you actually have an observation to make about the climate, I'd be interested.  But I don't think you do.  I think your specialty is restricted to insulting people and bragging like a spoiled toddler.  But, hey, surprise us.


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 30, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Mostly babble.. That's what we get.. BS about Skakun finding CO2 as a "secondary" driver...



I'm assuming you know what result I refer to.  If you think that's BS, please explain why.



flacaltenn said:


> SAME PERCENTAGE increase BULLWINKLE...  ABSOLUTE CO2 levels are not relevent here..



I say they are.  I say you're sticking with percentage increases because they support your hypothesis, not because it reflects any real physical phenomena.



flacaltenn said:


> FUCK the "climate science" 3drgC/doubling.. It isn't ever gonna happen.. That's not physics --- it's arm-waving fortune telling.



It's the conclusion of several hundred scientists all smarter, better educated, more experienced and just plain smarter than you.  Guess whose word I'm gonna take?



flacaltenn said:


> And I've been highly consistent with the number I found in MULTIPLE ATMOS physics textbooks. It's ALWAYS been 1.2 -- to 1.5degC per doubling.. But thats WITHOUT calculating the OVERLAP spectrum with water vapor. So SOMETIMES I do call it more like 0.4degC or 0.6degC/doubling..



That's being highly consistent?



flacaltenn said:


> Bottom line -- this thread sucks.. There is no significance to the ABSOLUTE level of CO2 today versus during the glacials. BUT -- there is a huge difference in the climate reaction to the SAME RATIO increase of CO2..



I think it serves one purpose: to show that current CO2 levels are not natural.  There were very few people actually making that contention, so it's not of enormous value.  But we did get to meet a new playmate.  Don't you love Mr SwimExpert?  He seems like quite an asset for your side of the argument being so smart and all.  Really...


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> I have known a fair number of very intelligent, very educated people.  I've never noticed that any of them possess the ego or the insecurity you've displayed here.



The truth is that you know nothing about me.  So let me tell you a little bit.  I was raised by parents who were extreme narcissists.  When my giftedness was discovered in my childhood they became obsessed with it.  They tried to push me mercilessly by placing extremely unreasonable demands on me, and constantly punished me when I did not live up to them.  Their hope was that I would be a real life Doogie Howser, and that they could ride my coat tails to notoriety.  When I was 7 years old I was a poor speller.  Thinking that they would "set me straight" my parents once decided to withhold me from school one Friday and force me to remember all my spelling words correctly, to ensure a 100% grade on my weekly test.  They spent all day drilling me on my spelling list, and severely beat me for every wrong answer.  When I went back to school on Monday school officials questioned me about my many visible wounds, and then my parents as well.  A couple days later I was withdrawn from school and within weeks we moved out of state.  My parents realized they had to learn new tactics and spent the rest of my upbringing subjecting me to substantial mental abuse and torture.

A year later, as I was entering the third grade, I had learned that the best way to resist my parents was to rebel against my abilities.  Mainly, I felt like all the hype that they kept feeding me as ridiculous, because I thought that the only things I was "good" at were things that were ridiculously easy.  I couldn't understand how any of it could be said to be difficult.  My parents pressed the school based on the fact that my end of year assessment tests showed I was on at least a 5th grade level in every area other than my primary weakness of spelling.  But by this point I had learned that the most effective way to counteract my parents' crushing demands of me was to reject any effort to be smart.  So the school puzzled over the fact that I was getting very poor grades and when questioned I constantly said that I didn't understand the material.  So the school though I might be autistic.  That's when they brought in the shrink to have me evaluated.  I have to admit he was good.  I didn't really realize at the time why I was spending so much time away from class with this guy, or that he was sizing me up.  As part of the process I was given an IQ test for the first time.  My gig was up.  He confronted me about my act, and I tepidly admitted what I had been doing, with a lukewarm explanation as to why.  He recommended that I not be skipped ahead out of concern that it would have an overall negative impact on me.  To this day, I'm honestly not sure whether or not that was the better decision.  On one hand feeding into my parents' ego would have made my life more of a living hell.  On the other, the lack of adequate cognitive stimulation was a nightmare of its own.

The following year my parents tried to press the school again to skip me ahead by at least one year, but again to no avail thanks to my continued resistance.  My fourth grade teacher, to this day, was an important influence in my life.  She constantly challenged my attitude and refused to buy my act (which, of course, had now been documented by the school system as a farce), but did so productively.  Unfortunately, she also ended up under investigation briefly, after my year end assessment test results were "too good to be true."  By this point, I was testing on a 7th grade level in almost every category, and nearly on a high school level in sciences.

By the time I was 10 my parents' favorite form of mental torture was to harass me about my giftedness, and to throw my IQ test in my face.  That's right, what ought to have been compliments were used as indictments against me.  I wanted nothing more than to be "normal" because I was sick and tired of being the bad guy and for having the burden of my parents' own irrational need to have their ego stroked.  This continued for pretty much the rest of my life, until I finally had the opportunity to leave the house and put them in my past.  As time passed I had to come to terms with my irrational guilt over my giftedness.  I tried to attribute it to wanting to be modest, but the truth is that I had become pretty self destructive, to the point where I had become extremely adverse to achieving success in almost anything.  Eventually, I had to make peace with my giftedness, and in doing so take my life back for myself.

So if you find my confidence to be offensive to you, you're just going to have to suck it up and deal with it.  This is my life, and I live it for myself.  I know that we live in a world where everyone gets a participation ribbon and there are no winners or losers.  But I've long since abandoned the practice of dumbing myself down for anyone else's ego.  And I don't owe it to you or anyone else to do any differently.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 30, 2013)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


 
Not surprisingly, your graph doesn't answer my question.  Do you have any evidence that it has done so in the past at the rate in which it is doing so today?


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 30, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I have known a fair number of very intelligent, very educated people. I've never noticed that any of them possess the ego or the insecurity you've displayed here.
> ...


 

Translation:  It's not about climate change.  It's all about SwimExpert.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 30, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Translation:  It's not about climate change.  It's all about SwimExpert.





And this is why I'm no longer ashamed to be gifted.  Because being ^^THIS^^ stupid is far worse.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



LOL. Them that have it don't have to brag about it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > SAME PERCENTAGE increase BULLWINKLE...  ABSOLUTE CO2 levels are not relevent here..
> ...



Impossible to talk about CO2 levels with a person who doesn't realize that the CO2 forcing function (W/m2) is ALWAYS taken as a ratio (percentage) of some reference concentration.






??? "...  no real physical phenomena eh" -- ?? Not in your fact-free, math-free world I guess.. The one created with crayoned in drawings from skepticalscience.. 

When the PERCENTAGE increase is the same ---- the temperature increase is supposed to be the same..  THAT'S why its curious that for the SAME PERCENTAGE change --- the temperature deviation during the glacials was 5 times what we get today.. 

And I AM being consistent with the CO2 ONLY warming and what can be accounted for SOLELY from CO2 effects on the GHouse. It's 1.2degC WITHOUT accounting for band overlap with H2O.. And about 60% of that when H2O overlap is included for those heights of the atmos where most of the water vapor lives.. 

Anything ABOVE that calls upon the Magic Multipliers which are the CRUX of my objections to your AGW "beliefs"..


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 30, 2013)

The rate of infrared absorption is a function of CO2 concentration, not the percentage increase over some arbitrary value.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 30, 2013)

Abraham3 said:


> The rate of infrared absorption is a function of CO2 concentration, not the percentage increase over some arbitrary value.



OMG.. You just fling math aside like it doesn't matter. The function is logarithmic. So a 100 ppm increase at one point in the curve is gonna give different results than at another. BUT PERCENTAGES (or the C/Co ratios) will give consistent results ANYWHERE on the curve.

That's why your assertion that I was using percentages just to be ornery is so dad-gum funny.

Only thing I get out of Abraham convos is the humor... Reevaluating my investment constantly. Waiting for that giant nugget to pop out and pay off..


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 30, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Translation: It's not about climate change. It's all about SwimExpert.
> ...


 

I hate that for you.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 30, 2013)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > The rate of infrared absorption is a function of CO2 concentration, not the percentage increase over some arbitrary value.
> ...


 
Ahem:

Heat Stored by Greenhouse Gases


----------



## Abraham3 (Dec 31, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I have known a fair number of very intelligent, very educated people.  I've never noticed that any of them possess the ego or the insecurity you've displayed here.
> ...




No thanks.

You REALLY need help but you're not going to get it here.  We could care less.  This place is for arguing about the climate, not sorting out your personal issues.

Time for the ignore list.  Nighty-night Timmy.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 31, 2013)

This thread is really quite funny.  You guys tried to make some arguments, but you failed because your logic was bad.  You tried again, but then you failed because your facts were bad.  So now you've spend the past several pages trying to make personal attacks.  But you've failed at that even worse than your original failures.  So now you reach your final hope to save face.  Hatred, ignorance, and the outright disregard for hard math.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 31, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> This thread is really quite funny. You guys tried to make some arguments, but you failed because your logic was bad. You tried again, but then you failed because your facts were bad. So now you've spend the past several pages trying to make personal attacks. But you've failed at that even worse than your original failures. So now you reach your final hope to save face. Hatred, ignorance, and the outright disregard for hard math.


 
Really?  I posted the math here:
Heat Stored by Greenhouse Gases 

And you have yet to address it.  So it would appear that it is you who has disregarded the math, chump.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 31, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



Actually the graph answers your question, just that you still want to peddle your AGW propaganda.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 31, 2013)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Figures that Bullwinkle would Thank-You for that Ahem (throat choked?)

That particular guy has a long and glorious history of mangling physics and being spectacularly wrong.  AND NOTE --- this is NOT just a leftist source filtering bias.. I'll prove it to ya quickly -- so listen up.. 

Farther down on that pages after the ejaculation of maybe repeating some atmos physics badly we find....  



> *Planet Earth would not be warming if the Sun's energy output (Solar Irradiance) was not increasing. Favorably, our Sun is emitting more radiation now than it was 200 years ago, and so we should have no fear of a natural cycle that has occurred many times over in the lifetime of our Solar System.*
> 
> 
> Heat always moves from places of higher density of heat to places of lower density of heat, thus states the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Van Ness. 1969. Page 54). In daylight (P. S. obviously under, Sunlight), air is always colder than soil (P. S. obviously, the surface of soil); consequently, heat is transferred from the soil to the air, not vice versa. By the same physical law, the heat emitted by the Sun -a source of heat- is transferred to the Earth, which is a colder system.
> ...



How did I know this?? This loose cannon is the most often quoted "expert" of the Skeptic blunderheads that were beating up Dr. Roy Spencer for his defense of Back Radiation.. 
I Read thru his crap on that and decided to embargo anything else from him in the future.. 

LMFUCKINGAO....       Ahem !!!!!


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 31, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> This thread is really quite funny.  You guys tried to make some arguments, but you failed because your logic was bad.  You tried again, but then you failed because your facts were bad.  So now you've spend the past several pages trying to make personal attacks.  But you've failed at that even worse than your original failures.  So now you reach your final hope to save face.  Hatred, ignorance, and the outright disregard for hard math.



I like your attitude. And I admire your proper use of logic and reason.. Want to see you happy here.. So I'm offering 2 pieces of advice.. Do with them as you will.. 

1) You screwed up in handling the mixed messages and parental mental abuse.. I went thru similiar phases with school and parents, but my parents were slackers compared to yours. The way I handled it when my Dad abused me for bringing home a high school report with a B+ and Five A's was to grow my hair out long, pick up a rock band and do a lot a weed.. So by the time it escalated to a psychiatric exam -- the analyst had MUCH MORE to deal with than just my "revolt" against academic performance. The moral of this story is --- *Give them something BIGGER to worry about*.. I turned out fine.. Only wasted a couple of IQ points and part of my hearing.. Got some cool photos and momentos to impress the other nerds thru college tho.. 

((PS --- the B+ was in phys ed because I didn't wash my gym suit for a week))

2) Don't ever abandon the high ground on a public science forum.. Stick to your intuition and knowledge of the facts. The slackers and attackers are only here because they couldn't survive a week on the Political side of the forum.. They are not that good at personal insults and attacks. So not much damage compared to your trials and tribulations that you've already survived..


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 31, 2013)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


 
Actually, it doesn't because it cannot show the resolution needed to show that the rate of change that is going on today is not unique in the past 1 million or so years. Obviously you have problems reading graphs.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 1, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Translation:  It's not about climate change.  It's all about SwimExpert.
> ...





"Gifted" 

You're 'special' alright...


----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 1, 2014)




----------



## Abraham3 (Jan 1, 2014)

Kosh said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I attempted without success to determine what was the absolute value of the arbitrary zero on that graph.  Wikipedia only identifies it as the Vostok equivalent dT.  IF it is the same as the zero on Michael Mann's graph in the Global Warming article, then the current temperature anomaly is more than a degree above the mean of the Little Ice Age, the last notable feature on the above graph.  That puts current temperatures equal or above anything on that graph for nearly 10 million years.

Hard research, however, has only made thorough comparisons back to the last Holocene glaciation,  22,000 years back.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 4, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



No it defeats the AGW religion and thus will not be accepted into the AGW cultists programming.

It proves that the Earth's climate changes with or without humans on it.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 4, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...



More proof that the AGW cultists will believe the AGW scribes over the facts.


----------

