And POOF, it was gone....

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus a harmful addition to our atmosphere. A "pollutant" is "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose".

CO2 above 280 ppm fits that description. Excess CO2 is a pollutant.

Wrong....

What a delirious moron..

7,000ppm yet here we are today... how did the earth survive?

 

[SSDD]

The CO2 from your car exhaust has a different ratio of carbon isotopes

Yeah? So?

CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is magic...Gaia has imbued it with the power to destroy us all...3000ppm of natural CO2 is fie, but a hundred ppm of CO2 from natural hydrocarbons burned by man will wreak havoc on everything..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Your car burns FF, that is, pollutes the air with carbon that was safely stored away

So coal was carbon that used to be in the air, then in a plant, than back in the air.

So, you have to distort my meaning to make a point? Isn't that a bit sleazy, Toddster? Carbon that was safely stored away for millions or even hundreds of millions of years, didn't influence our climate, didn't add to the conditions in which our habitat evolved and to which it is adapted, is "excess" compared to these habitable, pre-industrial conditions. That's not rocket science.

How is his point distorted? It is absolutely factual. You are the person resorting to religious analogy to vilify a gas that is the fundamental building block of life on this planet. It is you who has determined that 280 ppm is a somehow magical number that MUST NOT BE CROSSED. The history of this planet shows the majority of the time the CO2 concentrations have been much higher. Thus, a thinking person would infer that THAT is the normal level. What we are experiencing now is the abnormal.

That's how science works.

The actual long term mean is around 1400-1600ppm.. just say'in

 

[SSDD]

He just told you that Australia and NZ (and the US and Britain and all of Europe) have loads of laws and regulations preventing and controlling polluting practices. And using taxes to control behavior goes back as far as taxes. It's effective and everyone here knows that if the government passed laws directly prohibiting such behaviors, you and yours would be screaming about it like a two-year old with a fire ant in his diapers. It's what you scream and whine about now.

Applying pressure through taxation allows that free market system you all adore to evolve efficient and cost effective means to solve the problem.

It's rather obvious here that you don't have a side. You just oppose contemporary thinking no matter which way it goes.

No....I just oppose stupidity wherever it may be found....and unfortunately....liberalism seems to have a never ending supply of stupid...there is a reason that liberals are known as the kings of unintended consequences....taxes invariably hurt the people least able to afford the hurt....

 

[Muhammed]

Things font cast to exist because someone deleted it from their website but I know that historically ignoring science has always had good results.

Whats the science say?

Virtually every Scientific Society, National Academy of Science, and major University has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. That is what science says.

Your argument is fallacious.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...I didn't misrepresent or mis understand anything..............and the fantasy 239.7 wm2 radiating back to the earth from the atmosphere which we will "ASSUME" is real for the purpose of this discussion...........

Congratulations this is what Old Rocks and I were telling you all along. You have one minor mistake, but it's not important. You are assuming back-radiation for the purposes of discussion. So since you now agree with Rocks and I, and three university classes, just what is your problem?


.

 

[Olde Europe]

The actual long term mean is around 1400-1600ppm.. just say'in

Why is that relevant? Because, it is not.

At the current level of solar irradiation, the glaciation point (the CO2 concentration below which polar icecaps start to build) is estimated to be 500ppm CO2. 450 million years ago, for instance, the younger sun's radiative output was 4% lower. That might not seem a lot, but it is: The glaciation point back then was somewhere near 3000ppm CO2.

Just sayin'.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...I didn't misrepresent or mis understand anything..............and the fantasy 239.7 wm2 radiating back to the earth from the atmosphere which we will "ASSUME" is real for the purpose of this discussion...........

Congratulations this is what Old Rocks and I were telling you all along. You have one minor mistake, but it's not important. You are assuming back-radiation for the purposes of discussion. So since you now agree with Rocks and I, and three university classes, just what is your problem?


.

You guys just aren't very bright are you? First, you have no idea what the graphic is stating, second, you have no idea where the numbers are coming from....third, you don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that the whole exercise was to point out how far from reality the basis of the model is....

Either not very bright...or congenital liars who simply can't operate in the realm of truth...

 

[SSDD]

The actual long term mean is around 1400-1600ppm.. just say'in

Why is that relevant? Because, it is not.

At the current level of solar irradiation, the glaciation point (the CO2 concentration below which polar icecaps start to build) is estimated to be 500ppm CO2. 450 million years ago, for instance, the younger sun's radiative output was 4% lower. That might not seem a lot, but it is: The glaciation point back then was somewhere near 3000ppm CO2.

Just sayin'.

Since CO2 has no effect on temperature whatsoever, your estimate is nothing more than a number pulled out of someone's ass for political expedience...

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...I didn't misrepresent or mis understand anything..............and the fantasy 239.7 wm2 radiating back to the earth from the atmosphere which we will "ASSUME" is real for the purpose of this discussion...........

Congratulations this is what Old Rocks and I were telling you all along. You have one minor mistake, but it's not important. You are assuming back-radiation for the purposes of discussion. So since you now agree with Rocks and I, and three university classes, just what is your problem?

You guys just aren't very bright are you? First, you have no idea what the graphic is stating, second, you have no idea where the numbers are coming from....third, you don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that the whole exercise was to point out how far from reality the basis of the model is....

Either not very bright...or congenital liars who simply can't operate in the realm of truth...

Now you are being a troll again. You put up graphs from universities.

1. We all understand what the graphic is saying.
2. We all agree on where the numbers are coming from.
3. We all agreed it was an oversimplification from the get-go, and not based on reality.

And now you are saying:

1. We have no idea of what the graphic is stating.;
2. We don't know where the numbers are coming from;
3. Not based on reality.

That sort of self contradiction comes from someone who is either not very bright, a congenital liar, or can't operate in the realm of truth.
In short you are a veritable a troll.

 

[jc456]

Sorry guy...I didn't misrepresent or mis understand anything....I simply put what the graphic was saying into language that you could finally understand and you rebelled against the truth....

Sorry guy. At least two people explained the graph to you, but you didn't understand the science and you thought the the graph showed that two ice cubes could warm something up. Also you thought the sun was radiating at 18C. We straightened you out on your misunderstandings. You're welcome.

he did, what post number did he make that accusation?

 

[jc456]

And neither one of you had the first clue...As I already stated...I never thought the sun was radiating at -18 degrees...that is minus 18 degrees you idiot...but that is what the model claimed....I never thought any of it was correct and yet, it describes accurately exactly how screwed up the greenhouse model is...

You straighten nothing out...you lied....you failed to even grasp the basics of what the graphic were saying..and you proved that you can't even plug numbers into the SB law and get radiating temperatures from radiating wattages...the only thing you straighten out was my erroneous impression that you were smarter than a bag of rocks...you straighten out that error post haste...

And the fact that you are still in denial over what it says reveals volumes about you..

Nope. Wrong again. I already said why in a different thread.

you have no idea what you said in that other thread. cause you misrepresented the entire thread here again. you all love rat holes. it must be where you live.

 

[jc456]

Sorry guy...I didn't misrepresent or mis understand anything..............and the fantasy 239.7 wm2 radiating back to the earth from the atmosphere which we will "ASSUME" is real for the purpose of this discussion...........

Congratulations this is what Old Rocks and I were telling you all along. You have one minor mistake, but it's not important. You are assuming back-radiation for the purposes of discussion. So since you now agree with Rocks and I, and three university classes, just what is your problem?

You guys just aren't very bright are you? First, you have no idea what the graphic is stating, second, you have no idea where the numbers are coming from....third, you don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that the whole exercise was to point out how far from reality the basis of the model is....

Either not very bright...or congenital liars who simply can't operate in the realm of truth...

Now you are being a troll again. You put up graphs from universities.

1. We all understand what the graphic is saying.
2. We all agree on where the numbers are coming from.
3. We all agreed it was an oversimplification from the get-go, and not based on reality.

And now you are saying:

1. We have no idea of what the graphic is stating.;
2. We don't know where the numbers are coming from;
3. Not based on reality.

That sort of self contradiction comes from someone who is either not very bright, a congenital liar, or can't operate in the realm of truth.
In short you are a veritable a troll.

what post did you agree you knew what the numbers were? Dude, I've been following the discussion in both threads and so far you acknowledged jack, except that you misrepresented and continue to misrepresent what was discussed by SSDD. PERIOD. Now you explain which post number you said you agreed where the numbers came from in the university's two graphs? It's a challenge for you that I'm sure you'll flunk.

 

[jc456]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus a harmful addition to our atmosphere. A "pollutant" is "any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose".

CO2 above 280 ppm fits that description. Excess CO2 is a pollutant.

again, here you are stating man and most life forms contributes too much CO2, so you want what exactly? say it out loud your solution!!!

 

[jc456]

That was because your "computation" was so inane that any logical person would not stoop that low in their thinking. Your "computation" had nothing to do with the GHE. It was a simple calculation of what the temperature the earth would be if there was no atmosphere at all. That's hardly relevant.

It was, according to you an accurate representation of the fundamental mechanism of the greenhouse effect...now your claim is that it was something else entirely...and it is clearly titled "energy balance at the earth's surface...not the temperature of the earth with no atmosphere...lies upon top of lies topped off with a great big cherry of ignorance....you still don't have a clue...

I was not referring to the University diagram and analysis as being inane.
I was referring to your inane computation that lead to a value -18C. That has nothing to do with the diagram nor the GHE. Yet you thought it did.

BTW, here is a post from you where you acknowledge that you have no fking idea where the numbers came from. LOL....

 

[jc456]

The CO2 from your car exhaust has a different ratio of carbon isotopes

Yeah? So?

CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is magic...Gaia has imbued it with the power to destroy us all...3000ppm of natural CO2 is fie, but a hundred ppm of CO2 from natural hydrocarbons burned by man will wreak havoc on everything..

like they have an experiment that shows the difference between man's CO2 and natures CO2 and the magic quality of both and their differences.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...I didn't misrepresent or mis understand anything..............and the fantasy 239.7 wm2 radiating back to the earth from the atmosphere which we will "ASSUME" is real for the purpose of this discussion...........

Congratulations this is what Old Rocks and I were telling you all along. You have one minor mistake, but it's not important. You are assuming back-radiation for the purposes of discussion. So since you now agree with Rocks and I, and three university classes, just what is your problem?

You guys just aren't very bright are you? First, you have no idea what the graphic is stating, second, you have no idea where the numbers are coming from....third, you don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that the whole exercise was to point out how far from reality the basis of the model is....

Either not very bright...or congenital liars who simply can't operate in the realm of truth...

Now you are being a troll again. You put up graphs from universities.

1. We all understand what the graphic is saying.
2. We all agree on where the numbers are coming from.
3. We all agreed it was an oversimplification from the get-go, and not based on reality.

And now you are saying:

1. We have no idea of what the graphic is stating.;
2. We don't know where the numbers are coming from;
3. Not based on reality.

That sort of self contradiction comes from someone who is either not very bright, a congenital liar, or can't operate in the realm of truth.
In short you are a veritable a troll.

So is your dishonesty coming out of your denial...or are you basically just dishonest and really don't know any other way to be?

Post # 41 here I said as clearly as possible:

I am still trying to get to a place of agreement....I wan't to be sure I am not reading anything into your statements that you didn't intend to say.. Are we in agreement that the various graphics I copied from the various universities are, in fact, stripped down, bare bones, simplest possible models of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect?

If yes, then I have questions.

To which you replied....in post #44 Yes...

So crying now that you knew where the numbers were coming from, and that you understood what the graphic was saying, and making the claim that we all agreed that it wasn't based on reality is just more stinking bullshit from you...you agreed explicitly that it was a stripped down, simple model of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect....if your model is flawed at its most basic level, that flaw is going to insinuate itself into every part of a more complex model...if your basic premise is flawed, that flaw will pollute everything that comes after....

And I will be more than willing to copy posts from you yahoos asking where the numbers were coming from...and not having any idea what the graphic was saying...the evidence is there in abundance...

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...I didn't misrepresent or mis understand anything....I simply put what the graphic was saying into language that you could finally understand and you rebelled against the truth....

Sorry guy. At least two people explained the graph to you, but you didn't understand the science and you thought the the graph showed that two ice cubes could warm something up. Also you thought the sun was radiating at 18C. We straightened you out on your misunderstandings. You're welcome.

he did, what post number did he make that accusation?

I think that they have finally realized exactly how f'ked up that graphic is and are making some sort of attempt to distance themselves from it....wuwei is now claiming that he never agreed that it represented a basic stripped down model of the greenhouse effect when he explicitly agreed with me that it was...this whole exercise on their part is what running for the tall grass looks like...

 

[SSDD]

And neither one of you had the first clue...As I already stated...I never thought the sun was radiating at -18 degrees...that is minus 18 degrees you idiot...but that is what the model claimed....I never thought any of it was correct and yet, it describes accurately exactly how screwed up the greenhouse model is...

You straighten nothing out...you lied....you failed to even grasp the basics of what the graphic were saying..and you proved that you can't even plug numbers into the SB law and get radiating temperatures from radiating wattages...the only thing you straighten out was my erroneous impression that you were smarter than a bag of rocks...you straighten out that error post haste...

And the fact that you are still in denial over what it says reveals volumes about you..

Nope. Wrong again. I already said why in a different thread.

you have no idea what you said in that other thread. cause you misrepresented the entire thread here again. you all love rat holes. it must be where you live.

At this point, a person could construct an entire thread showing nothing more than the inherent dishonesty of these people.

 

[Olde Europe]

We all agree on where the numbers are coming from.

Naw, "we" don't. SSDD still thinks the equilibrium equation he kept howling about adds the atmosphere's downward longwave radiation (239.7W/m^2) to the earth's surface radiation (also 239.7W/m^2) to arrive at 303°K. That was his gross error from the start, that was what he thought demonstrates climate science in general, and the GHE in particular, are hoaxes, and he has yet to correct himself.

That sort of self contradiction comes from someone who is either not very bright, a congenital liar, or can't operate in the realm of truth.
In short you are a veritable a troll.

BTW, have you ever read Harry G. Frankfurt's "On Bullshit"? If not, I find you ought to remedy that. It's an enlightening and entertaining read - how often do you get that?