2014 On Track To Be Hottest Year On Record

[RKMBrown]

Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.

However, that's still not as stupid as you claiming CO2 "displaced" other gases from the atmosphere. That's in the running for the single dumbest thing I've ever read here.

And, for the third time (you seem to have a habit of evading simple questions), explain to everyone how the observed increase in CO2 levels squares with your whackaloon claim that the the CO2 cycle can't be "overwhelmed." I mean, we know it was "overwhelmed", because we directly measure it being "overwhelmed".

 

[RollingThunder]

Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.

However, that's still not as stupid as you claiming CO2 "displaced" other gases from the atmosphere. That's in the running for the single dumbest thing I've ever read here.

And, for the third time (you seem to have a habit of evading simple questions), explain to everyone how the observed increase in CO2 levels squares with your whackaloon claim that the the CO2 cycle can't be "overwhelmed." I mean, we know it was "overwhelmed", because we directly measure it being "overwhelmed".

An apt self-reflection of your insanity but otherwise a vacuous kindergarden response.

You seem to be an embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs where people fail to adequately assess their level of competence — or specifically, their incompetence — at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence robbing them of the ability to critically analyse their performance, leading to a significant overestimate of themselves. Put more crudely, they're too stupid to realize they're stupid.

 

[RKMBrown]

Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.

However, that's still not as stupid as you claiming CO2 "displaced" other gases from the atmosphere. That's in the running for the single dumbest thing I've ever read here.

And, for the third time (you seem to have a habit of evading simple questions), explain to everyone how the observed increase in CO2 levels squares with your whackaloon claim that the the CO2 cycle can't be "overwhelmed." I mean, we know it was "overwhelmed", because we directly measure it being "overwhelmed".

An apt self-reflection of your insanity but otherwise a vacuous kindergarden response.

You seem to be an embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs where people fail to adequately assess their level of competence — or specifically, their incompetence — at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence robbing them of the ability to critically analyse their performance, leading to a significant overestimate of themselves. Put more crudely, they're too stupid to realize they're stupid.

ROFL you're a fucking retard.

 

[Crick]

Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.

However, that's still not as stupid as you claiming CO2 "displaced" other gases from the atmosphere. That's in the running for the single dumbest thing I've ever read here.

And, for the third time (you seem to have a habit of evading simple questions), explain to everyone how the observed increase in CO2 levels squares with your whackaloon claim that the the CO2 cycle can't be "overwhelmed." I mean, we know it was "overwhelmed", because we directly measure it being "overwhelmed".

So, you have no to any of his questions, no response to any of his comments. Got it.

 

[RollingThunder]

Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.

However, that's still not as stupid as you claiming CO2 "displaced" other gases from the atmosphere. That's in the running for the single dumbest thing I've ever read here.

And, for the third time (you seem to have a habit of evading simple questions), explain to everyone how the observed increase in CO2 levels squares with your whackaloon claim that the the CO2 cycle can't be "overwhelmed." I mean, we know it was "overwhelmed", because we directly measure it being "overwhelmed".

An apt self-reflection of your insanity but otherwise a vacuous kindergarden response.

You seem to be an embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs where people fail to adequately assess their level of competence — or specifically, their incompetence — at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence robbing them of the ability to critically analyse their performance, leading to a significant overestimate of themselves. Put more crudely, they're too stupid to realize they're stupid.

ROFL you're a fucking retard.

More projection from another sad victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect who is too stupid to be capable of realizing just how completely idiotic he is.

 

[RKMBrown]

Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.

However, that's still not as stupid as you claiming CO2 "displaced" other gases from the atmosphere. That's in the running for the single dumbest thing I've ever read here.

And, for the third time (you seem to have a habit of evading simple questions), explain to everyone how the observed increase in CO2 levels squares with your whackaloon claim that the the CO2 cycle can't be "overwhelmed." I mean, we know it was "overwhelmed", because we directly measure it being "overwhelmed".

So, you have no to any of his questions, no response to any of his comments. Got it.

How does one respond to the idiocy that believes increased parts per million of CO2 will increase the number of molecules per square inch in our atmosphere? How does one respond to such foolish notions as that? Do you even know what the name of the green house gas is that is the largest portion of our atmosphere? Can you even fathom that our atmosphere is not in a glass container? Do you not understand what a gas is? How does one respond to the utter lunacy of people that declare CO2 is bad for plant life?

 

[Crick]

Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.

However, that's still not as stupid as you claiming CO2 "displaced" other gases from the atmosphere. That's in the running for the single dumbest thing I've ever read here.

And, for the third time (you seem to have a habit of evading simple questions), explain to everyone how the observed increase in CO2 levels squares with your whackaloon claim that the the CO2 cycle can't be "overwhelmed." I mean, we know it was "overwhelmed", because we directly measure it being "overwhelmed".

So, you have no to any of his questions, no response to any of his comments. Got it.

How does one respond to the idiocy that believes increased parts per million of CO2 will increase the number of molecules per square inch in our atmosphere? How does one respond to such foolish notions as that? Do you even know what the name of the green house gas is that is the largest portion of our atmosphere? Can you even fathom that our atmosphere is not in a glass container? Do you not understand what a gas is? How does one respond to the utter lunacy of people that declare CO2 is bad for plant life?

Speaking of lunacy...

what do you say to someone making passionate rejoinders to arguments no one is presenting?

 

[RKMBrown]

Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.

However, that's still not as stupid as you claiming CO2 "displaced" other gases from the atmosphere. That's in the running for the single dumbest thing I've ever read here.

And, for the third time (you seem to have a habit of evading simple questions), explain to everyone how the observed increase in CO2 levels squares with your whackaloon claim that the the CO2 cycle can't be "overwhelmed." I mean, we know it was "overwhelmed", because we directly measure it being "overwhelmed".

So, you have no to any of his questions, no response to any of his comments. Got it.

How does one respond to the idiocy that believes increased parts per million of CO2 will increase the number of molecules per square inch in our atmosphere? How does one respond to such foolish notions as that? Do you even know what the name of the green house gas is that is the largest portion of our atmosphere? Can you even fathom that our atmosphere is not in a glass container? Do you not understand what a gas is? How does one respond to the utter lunacy of people that declare CO2 is bad for plant life?

Speaking of lunacy...

what do you say to someone making passionate rejoinders to arguments no one is presenting?

Now you are claiming that no one is arguing that human activity is causing global warming via increased amounts CO2 and further that the increased amounts of CO2 are "damaging" plants? WTF is wrong with your brain?

 

[Crick]

Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.

However, that's still not as stupid as you claiming CO2 "displaced" other gases from the atmosphere. That's in the running for the single dumbest thing I've ever read here.

And, for the third time (you seem to have a habit of evading simple questions), explain to everyone how the observed increase in CO2 levels squares with your whackaloon claim that the the CO2 cycle can't be "overwhelmed." I mean, we know it was "overwhelmed", because we directly measure it being "overwhelmed".

So, you have no [response] to any of his questions, no response to any of his comments. Got it.

How does one respond to the idiocy that believes increased parts per million of CO2 will increase the number of molecules per square inch in our atmosphere? How does one respond to such foolish notions as that? Do you even know what the name of the green house gas is that is the largest portion of our atmosphere? Can you even fathom that our atmosphere is not in a glass container? Do you not understand what a gas is? How does one respond to the utter lunacy of people that declare CO2 is bad for plant life?

Speaking of lunacy...

what do you say to someone making passionate rejoinders to arguments no one is presenting?

Now you are claiming that no one is arguing that human activity is causing global warming via increased amounts CO2 and further that the increased amounts of CO2 are "damaging" plants? WTF is wrong with your brain?

In post 10124023 you make no comment about the contention that human activity is causing global warming from increased CO2.

I have heard no one claim that increased CO2 is damaging plants. I have certainly heard that climate change is bad for plants - native flora grows where the environment and climate are suited for it. Make the climate unsuited for a plant and it will do poorly. And, of course, adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes the planet to warm and that alters the climate.

The rest of the comments in post 10124023 are such nonsense I can't even tell what you're talking about.

Molecules do not occupy square inches. They could occupy cubic inches but that's not what you said.

I have never heard anyone contend that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its density (if that is what you were actually trying to say).

The greenhouse gas with the greatest effect is water vapor. Everyone here has known that for a great long while. But human activity has not directly affected water vapor levels. Indirectly, of course, it has, as increasing temperatures lead to increased humidity. However, the lifetime of water vapor in the atmosphere is a matter of days at most, so its behavior in several ways is NOT analogous to that of CO2.

Everyone here is also fully and long aware that the greenhouse effect taking place in the Earth's atmosphere is not the same process that causes a glass greenhouse to warm.

Everyone here - even SSDD - is fully aware of the basic nature of gases.

All you've succeeded in doing is making it clear to everyone here that you are a great long ways behind the conversations taking place. You might want to review a few of the threads before rejoining the conversation, in order to make certain your comments are a bit more pertinent and apropos.

 

[RollingThunder]

Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.

However, that's still not as stupid as you claiming CO2 "displaced" other gases from the atmosphere. That's in the running for the single dumbest thing I've ever read here.

And, for the third time (you seem to have a habit of evading simple questions), explain to everyone how the observed increase in CO2 levels squares with your whackaloon claim that the the CO2 cycle can't be "overwhelmed." I mean, we know it was "overwhelmed", because we directly measure it being "overwhelmed".

So, you have no to any of his questions, no response to any of his comments. Got it.

How does one respond to the idiocy that believes increased parts per million of CO2 will increase the number of molecules per square inch in our atmosphere? How does one respond to such foolish notions as that? Do you even know what the name of the green house gas is that is the largest portion of our atmosphere? Can you even fathom that our atmosphere is not in a glass container? Do you not understand what a gas is? How does one respond to the utter lunacy of people that declare CO2 is bad for plant life?

Speaking of lunacy...

what do you say to someone making passionate rejoinders to arguments no one is presenting?

Now you are claiming that no one is arguing that human activity is causing global warming via increased amounts CO2 and further that the increased amounts of CO2 are "damaging" plants? WTF is wrong with your brain?

Nope, wrong again as usual, moron. Human activities, like burning CO2 emitting fossil fuels and deforestation, are definitely causing global warming by raising the natural pre-industrial CO2 levels of about 280ppm by over 43% to over 400ppm. Nobody said different. The "passionate rejoinders to arguments no one is presenting" that you are making and that Crick was referring to, involve idiotic statements that you have just made, like: "How does one respond to the idiocy that believes increased parts per million of CO2 will increase the number of molecules per square inch in our atmosphere?", which nobody ever claimed. Either you're a troll making up lies to bug and distract people, or you are a retard with ZERO reading comprehension skills.

CO2 is good for plants at its current concentration. Increasing concentrations of CO2 either have no effect (C4 photosynthesis) or it winds up being less good for the plants in one way or another. Your assumption that because something is necessary and beneficial (like CO2 for plants) then more (and more and more....) of it must be better, is very stupid. A certain amount of salt, for example, is necessary and beneficial to humans but try ingesting a hundred times as much daily for a while and see what happens to you (please).

 

[Old Rocks]

How does one believe that someone can have an IQ of more than two digits and speak of the number of molecules per square inch in the atmosphere?

 

[Vigilante]

Global Warming...it's all about the...

It's ALWAYS BEEN about the money!

 

[Crick]

Did you ever see Bambi? Remember what Thumper's Mom told him? She said, "If you don't have something nice (or meaningful) to say, don't say anything at all cause you're wasting everyone's fucking time".

 

[Vigilante]

Algore: We Have Ten Years Left Before Earth Cooks
January 27, 2006
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Try this one from yesterday's stack. I don't know if you people know this or not, but Al Gore has been out at the Sundance Film Festival out there in Park City, Utah. This is one of Robert Redford's big do's, and apparently Al Gore is working on a movie that -- what is the name of this movie? Oh, that's right, "An Inconvenient Truth," and the movie will document his efforts to raise alarm on the effects of global warming, and so he brought Tipper and the kids out there.

He's attending parties and posing for pictures with his fans. He's enjoying macaroni and cheese at the Discovery Channel's soir?e. He's palling around with Laurie David of Curb Your Enthusiasm, who is the husband of Larry David, who drives the Prius and then flies the GV. Larry David says, "You know, Al is a funny guy, but he's also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan."
Now, the last time I heard some liberal talk about "ten years" it was 1988, Ted Danson. We had ten years to save the oceans; we were all going to pay the consequences, which would result in our death. Now Al Gore says we've got ten years. Ten years left to save the planet from a scorching. Okay, we're going to start counting. This is January 27th, 2006. We will begin the count, ladies and gentlemen. This is just... You have to love these people -- from afar, and from a purely observational point of view.
END TRANSCRIPT

ONE year, EIGTHY DAYS to go!...

 

[Crick]

That the Earth has reached a tipping point and that it is not longer possible to save ourselves from hitting a 2C rise is quite likely. Recent statements from the UN are quite clear about this. We've put this off far too long. And try to remember your basic English: "Ten years left to save the Earth from turning into a total frying pan" (a quote from Rush Limbaugh, not Al Gore) is perfectly applicable to the current situation.

And, BTW, it's spelled E-I-G-H-T-Y

 

[Vigilante]

That the Earth has reached a tipping point and that it is not longer possible to save ourselves from hitting a 2C rise is quite likely. Recent statements from the UN are quite clear about this. We've put this off far too long. And try to remember your basic English: "Ten years left to save the Earth from turning into a total frying pan" (a quote from Rush Limbaugh, not Al Gore) is perfectly applicable to the current situation.

And, BTW, it's spelled E-I-G-H-T-Y

OCD much?....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That the Earth has reached a tipping point and that it is not longer possible to save ourselves from hitting a 2C rise is quite likely. Recent statements from the UN are quite clear about this. We've put this off far too long. And try to remember your basic English: "Ten years left to save the Earth from turning into a total frying pan" (a quote from Rush Limbaugh, not Al Gore) is perfectly applicable to the current situation.

And, BTW, it's spelled E-I-G-H-T-Y

120PPM of CO2 causes a 2 degree temperature increase

Are you sure?

Does a 60PPM increase raise it 1 degree?

What does your lab work show?

 

[Billy_Bob]

That the Earth has reached a tipping point and that it is not longer possible to save ourselves from hitting a 2C rise is quite likely. Recent statements from the UN are quite clear about this. We've put this off far too long. And try to remember your basic English: "Ten years left to save the Earth from turning into a total frying pan" (a quote from Rush Limbaugh, not Al Gore) is perfectly applicable to the current situation.

And, BTW, it's spelled E-I-G-H-T-Y

gawd the bull shit is deep with this post...

 

[Crick]

So, again, none of you have anything worth reading.

 

[RKMBrown]

Someone who didn't suck hard at both logic and science would understand the craziness of claiming we have to heat the earth now to avert an ice age in 20,000 years. It's like claiming you have to start running the furnace full blast in July so that the house will be warm in winter. It's so dang stupid, you have to wonder if the person saying it is capable of feeding themselves.

However, that's still not as stupid as you claiming CO2 "displaced" other gases from the atmosphere. That's in the running for the single dumbest thing I've ever read here.

And, for the third time (you seem to have a habit of evading simple questions), explain to everyone how the observed increase in CO2 levels squares with your whackaloon claim that the the CO2 cycle can't be "overwhelmed." I mean, we know it was "overwhelmed", because we directly measure it being "overwhelmed".

So, you have no [response] to any of his questions, no response to any of his comments. Got it.

How does one respond to the idiocy that believes increased parts per million of CO2 will increase the number of molecules per square inch in our atmosphere? How does one respond to such foolish notions as that? Do you even know what the name of the green house gas is that is the largest portion of our atmosphere? Can you even fathom that our atmosphere is not in a glass container? Do you not understand what a gas is? How does one respond to the utter lunacy of people that declare CO2 is bad for plant life?

Speaking of lunacy...

what do you say to someone making passionate rejoinders to arguments no one is presenting?

Now you are claiming that no one is arguing that human activity is causing global warming via increased amounts CO2 and further that the increased amounts of CO2 are "damaging" plants? WTF is wrong with your brain?

In post 10124023 you make no comment about the contention that human activity is causing global warming from increased CO2.

I have heard no one claim that increased CO2 is damaging plants. I have certainly heard that climate change is bad for plants - native flora grows where the environment and climate are suited for it. Make the climate unsuited for a plant and it will do poorly. And, of course, adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes the planet to warm and that alters the climate.

The rest of the comments in post 10124023 are such nonsense I can't even tell what you're talking about.

Molecules do not occupy square inches. They could occupy cubic inches but that's not what you said.

I have never heard anyone contend that adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its density (if that is what you were actually trying to say).

The greenhouse gas with the greatest effect is water vapor. Everyone here has known that for a great long while. But human activity has not directly affected water vapor levels. Indirectly, of course, it has, as increasing temperatures lead to increased humidity. However, the lifetime of water vapor in the atmosphere is a matter of days at most, so its behavior in several ways is NOT analogous to that of CO2.

Everyone here is also fully and long aware that the greenhouse effect taking place in the Earth's atmosphere is not the same process that causes a glass greenhouse to warm.

Everyone here - even SSDD - is fully aware of the basic nature of gases.

All you've succeeded in doing is making it clear to everyone here that you are a great long ways behind the conversations taking place. You might want to review a few of the threads before rejoining the conversation, in order to make certain your comments are a bit more pertinent and apropos.

ROFL we're all gonna die, god please bring us an ice age... ROFL