Did Obama Tell You Folks It Snowed While He Was In Alaska? No!

[threegoofs]

Its not magic, Its chemistry and physics.

CO2 will work on a logarithmic scale, but we arent dealing with massive increases in concentration - we are dealing with a small absolute increase - a few hundred ppm (but a very large relative increase - double the concentration or more). At this point, the diminishing effect of CO2 is minimal - it still is a very potent greenhouse gas at any level.

You think its magic because you have little understanding of the topic, and refuse to listen to people who do.

Do you know what the Dunning Kruger effect is?

how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

Feel free to look it up.

www.ipcc.ch

This may help you climb down off the mountain.

ahem..... so again,
how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

ahem.... so again. Look it up www.ipcc.ch

Im not here to do your homework for you.

what you can't answer? Just so you know it's 1C for each doubling. That's it. Not what the IPCC report reports. Sorry, it just doesn't. Now you post up where you have evidence to prove the IPCC report and we're good.

LOL,. Again with the homework!

The IPCC provides the evidence in the report. If you have other sientific sources that disagree, and incorporate all the indirect forcings, please post them.

 

[jc456]

how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

Feel free to look it up.

www.ipcc.ch

This may help you climb down off the mountain.

ahem..... so again,
how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

ahem.... so again. Look it up www.ipcc.ch

Im not here to do your homework for you.

what you can't answer? Just so you know it's 1C for each doubling. That's it. Not what the IPCC report reports. Sorry, it just doesn't. Now you post up where you have evidence to prove the IPCC report and we're good.

LOL,. Again with the homework!

The IPCC provides the evidence in the report. If you have other sientific sources that disagree, and incorporate all the indirect forcings, please post them.

so you don't know, ok.

 

[threegoofs]

Feel free to look it up.

www.ipcc.ch

This may help you climb down off the mountain.

ahem..... so again,
how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

ahem.... so again. Look it up www.ipcc.ch

Im not here to do your homework for you.

what you can't answer? Just so you know it's 1C for each doubling. That's it. Not what the IPCC report reports. Sorry, it just doesn't. Now you post up where you have evidence to prove the IPCC report and we're good.

LOL,. Again with the homework!

The IPCC provides the evidence in the report. If you have other sientific sources that disagree, and incorporate all the indirect forcings, please post them.

so you don't know, ok.

No. You dont know. And most tellingly, you dont even know where to go to look it up.

Thats what we call doubly incompetent in my little corner of science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The absolute truth is.......NOBODY knows why warming occurs!!! Nobody. The alarmists have oversimplified much.........but of course......when you have an agenda, you rule out the facts you don't like!!!





Empirical evidence matters in science........but not to the alarmists. We need better understanding of the last 2,000 years. To the k00ks, that doesn't matter.

Fake denier scientist talks to denier fake news host. Curry is considered to have gone off the deep end years ago. She gets little respect from the scientific community and whores herself out to the Heartland Institute.

Here's the last few thousand years, as published in PNAS.

View attachment 49602

Don't you just love the false adjustments to Marcott Et AL... WE know that the adjustments fail in review of empirical evidence and reality. The Satellite records confirms that Marcott's adjustments failed..

 

[Billy_Bob]

you do understand that from April to September the northern hemisphere gets much sun. Isn't it amazing that the warm temperatures are during that period of time. Hmmmmmm, the sun, that yellow ball in the sky. BTW, that's been happening before man got on the planet. It's also why there are no longer miles of ice in the US. It melted. funny how the sun causes that?

Like I said, how does that relate to the fact that warming, due to CO2, is occurring at a rapid rate?

that's a very good question. How is CO2 doing that when it isn't that type of gas. It is one that is logarithmic, meaning the more you have the less it absorbs. So you tell me how CO2 does that. Give us an explanation. You explain, no copy and pastes, you explain how CO2 has this magic.

Its not magic, Its chemistry and physics.

CO2 will work on a logarithmic scale, but we arent dealing with massive increases in concentration - we are dealing with a small absolute increase - a few hundred ppm (but a very large relative increase - double the concentration or more). At this point, the diminishing effect of CO2 is minimal - it still is a very potent greenhouse gas at any level.

You think its magic because you have little understanding of the topic, and refuse to listen to people who do.

Do you know what the Dunning Kruger effect is?

how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

Feel free to look it up.

www.ipcc.ch

This may help you climb down off the mountain.

Epic Fail....

You post magical numbers of .. OMG!!!! water vapor enhancement... yet it is not seen in the empirical evidence. We are actually finding a NEGATIVE forcing in CO2 rise.. Quite the opposite of the IPCC garbage..

WE will now see less than 1 deg C per doubling by empirical physical evidence. And by doing the calculations CO2 has only caused 0.459 Deg F of warming (0.23 Deg C) which is far less than expected and water vapor has not acted as an enhancement but a detractor from what we should see from CO2 ALONE..

 

[threegoofs]

The absolute truth is.......NOBODY knows why warming occurs!!! Nobody. The alarmists have oversimplified much.........but of course......when you have an agenda, you rule out the facts you don't like!!!





Empirical evidence matters in science........but not to the alarmists. We need better understanding of the last 2,000 years. To the k00ks, that doesn't matter.

Fake denier scientist talks to denier fake news host. Curry is considered to have gone off the deep end years ago. She gets little respect from the scientific community and whores herself out to the Heartland Institute.

Here's the last few thousand years, as published in PNAS.

View attachment 49602

Don't you just love the false adjustments to Marcott Et AL... WE know that the adjustments fail in review of empirical evidence and reality. The Satellite records confirms that Marcott's adjustments failed..

Yes. Satellite records always are great evidence to use in paleoclimate reconstructions. Given the level of your posts, I think you are confusing The Flintstones with The Jetsons.

You show your impressive genius more and more with every post.

 

[threegoofs]

Like I said, how does that relate to the fact that warming, due to CO2, is occurring at a rapid rate?

that's a very good question. How is CO2 doing that when it isn't that type of gas. It is one that is logarithmic, meaning the more you have the less it absorbs. So you tell me how CO2 does that. Give us an explanation. You explain, no copy and pastes, you explain how CO2 has this magic.

Its not magic, Its chemistry and physics.

CO2 will work on a logarithmic scale, but we arent dealing with massive increases in concentration - we are dealing with a small absolute increase - a few hundred ppm (but a very large relative increase - double the concentration or more). At this point, the diminishing effect of CO2 is minimal - it still is a very potent greenhouse gas at any level.

You think its magic because you have little understanding of the topic, and refuse to listen to people who do.

Do you know what the Dunning Kruger effect is?

how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

Feel free to look it up.

www.ipcc.ch

This may help you climb down off the mountain.

Epic Fail....

You post magical numbers of .. OMG!!!! water vapor enhancement... yet it is not seen in the empirical evidence. We are actually finding a NEGATIVE forcing in CO2 rise.. Quite the opposite of the IPCC garbage..

View attachment 49658

WE will now see less than 1 deg C per doubling by empirical physical evidence. And by doing the calculations CO2 has only caused 0.459 Deg F of warming (0.23 Deg C) which is far less than expected and water vapor has not acted as an enhancement but a detractor from what we should see from CO2 ALONE..

You apparently dont get the concept of indirect forcing. Its actually quite large.And most of that forcing is due to water vapor.

The other thing you dont seem to understand (not a real surprise, natch) is that the full effect of the warming has not been realized yet - equilibrium will take a few decades.

Maybe when you hit freshman year science class you'll understand more.

 

[jc456]

ahem..... so again,
how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

ahem.... so again. Look it up www.ipcc.ch

Im not here to do your homework for you.

what you can't answer? Just so you know it's 1C for each doubling. That's it. Not what the IPCC report reports. Sorry, it just doesn't. Now you post up where you have evidence to prove the IPCC report and we're good.

LOL,. Again with the homework!

The IPCC provides the evidence in the report. If you have other sientific sources that disagree, and incorporate all the indirect forcings, please post them.

so you don't know, ok.

No. You dont know. And most tellingly, you dont even know where to go to look it up.

Thats what we call doubly incompetent in my little corner of science.

oh another PeeWee moment. "I know you are but what am I" LOL. you know nothing otherwise you'd actually discuss. i.e., actually present some information you learned, but hey, I'm used to it in here. warmers cut and paste and then scream and yell, insult and squirm around. But actually know something, naw....

Like I said, you find me evidence in the scientific world that states CO2 can do more than 1C doubling I'm game.

 

[jc456]

Like I said, how does that relate to the fact that warming, due to CO2, is occurring at a rapid rate?

that's a very good question. How is CO2 doing that when it isn't that type of gas. It is one that is logarithmic, meaning the more you have the less it absorbs. So you tell me how CO2 does that. Give us an explanation. You explain, no copy and pastes, you explain how CO2 has this magic.

Its not magic, Its chemistry and physics.

CO2 will work on a logarithmic scale, but we arent dealing with massive increases in concentration - we are dealing with a small absolute increase - a few hundred ppm (but a very large relative increase - double the concentration or more). At this point, the diminishing effect of CO2 is minimal - it still is a very potent greenhouse gas at any level.

You think its magic because you have little understanding of the topic, and refuse to listen to people who do.

Do you know what the Dunning Kruger effect is?

how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

Feel free to look it up.

www.ipcc.ch

This may help you climb down off the mountain.

Epic Fail....

You post magical numbers of .. OMG!!!! water vapor enhancement... yet it is not seen in the empirical evidence. We are actually finding a NEGATIVE forcing in CO2 rise.. Quite the opposite of the IPCC garbage..

View attachment 49658

WE will now see less than 1 deg C per doubling by empirical physical evidence. And by doing the calculations CO2 has only caused 0.459 Deg F of warming (0.23 Deg C) which is far less than expected and water vapor has not acted as an enhancement but a detractor from what we should see from CO2 ALONE..

they're using the temperature humidity index as their number. Think about it. We get that reading on hot days when there is high humidity. That's what they're doing. Not real temperatures. what a bunch of dishonest folks.

 

[jc456]

that's a very good question. How is CO2 doing that when it isn't that type of gas. It is one that is logarithmic, meaning the more you have the less it absorbs. So you tell me how CO2 does that. Give us an explanation. You explain, no copy and pastes, you explain how CO2 has this magic.

Its not magic, Its chemistry and physics.

CO2 will work on a logarithmic scale, but we arent dealing with massive increases in concentration - we are dealing with a small absolute increase - a few hundred ppm (but a very large relative increase - double the concentration or more). At this point, the diminishing effect of CO2 is minimal - it still is a very potent greenhouse gas at any level.

You think its magic because you have little understanding of the topic, and refuse to listen to people who do.

Do you know what the Dunning Kruger effect is?

how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

Feel free to look it up.

www.ipcc.ch

This may help you climb down off the mountain.

Epic Fail....

You post magical numbers of .. OMG!!!! water vapor enhancement... yet it is not seen in the empirical evidence. We are actually finding a NEGATIVE forcing in CO2 rise.. Quite the opposite of the IPCC garbage..

View attachment 49658

WE will now see less than 1 deg C per doubling by empirical physical evidence. And by doing the calculations CO2 has only caused 0.459 Deg F of warming (0.23 Deg C) which is far less than expected and water vapor has not acted as an enhancement but a detractor from what we should see from CO2 ALONE..

You apparently dont get the concept of indirect forcing. Its actually quite large.And most of that forcing is due to water vapor.

The other thing you dont seem to understand (not a real surprise, natch) is that the full effect of the warming has not been realized yet - equilibrium will take a few decades.

Maybe when you hit freshman year science class you'll understand more.

again, you have no idea what you're discussing here. you fail. Sorry charlie you're just tuna of the sea.

 

[threegoofs]

Its not magic, Its chemistry and physics.

CO2 will work on a logarithmic scale, but we arent dealing with massive increases in concentration - we are dealing with a small absolute increase - a few hundred ppm (but a very large relative increase - double the concentration or more). At this point, the diminishing effect of CO2 is minimal - it still is a very potent greenhouse gas at any level.

You think its magic because you have little understanding of the topic, and refuse to listen to people who do.

Do you know what the Dunning Kruger effect is?

how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

Feel free to look it up.

www.ipcc.ch

This may help you climb down off the mountain.

Epic Fail....

You post magical numbers of .. OMG!!!! water vapor enhancement... yet it is not seen in the empirical evidence. We are actually finding a NEGATIVE forcing in CO2 rise.. Quite the opposite of the IPCC garbage..

View attachment 49658

WE will now see less than 1 deg C per doubling by empirical physical evidence. And by doing the calculations CO2 has only caused 0.459 Deg F of warming (0.23 Deg C) which is far less than expected and water vapor has not acted as an enhancement but a detractor from what we should see from CO2 ALONE..

You apparently dont get the concept of indirect forcing. Its actually quite large.And most of that forcing is due to water vapor.

The other thing you dont seem to understand (not a real surprise, natch) is that the full effect of the warming has not been realized yet - equilibrium will take a few decades.

Maybe when you hit freshman year science class you'll understand more.

again, you have no idea what you're discussing here. you fail. Sorry charlie you're just tuna of the sea.

In other words, YOU don't understand my response and can only bluff your way through.

I see the concepts of lag and equilibrium are foreign to you. Maybe if you ask a scientist, or an average high school physics class attendee, you might learn something.

 

[Billy_Bob]

that's a very good question. How is CO2 doing that when it isn't that type of gas. It is one that is logarithmic, meaning the more you have the less it absorbs. So you tell me how CO2 does that. Give us an explanation. You explain, no copy and pastes, you explain how CO2 has this magic.

Its not magic, Its chemistry and physics.

CO2 will work on a logarithmic scale, but we arent dealing with massive increases in concentration - we are dealing with a small absolute increase - a few hundred ppm (but a very large relative increase - double the concentration or more). At this point, the diminishing effect of CO2 is minimal - it still is a very potent greenhouse gas at any level.

You think its magic because you have little understanding of the topic, and refuse to listen to people who do.

Do you know what the Dunning Kruger effect is?

how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

Feel free to look it up.

www.ipcc.ch

This may help you climb down off the mountain.

Epic Fail....

You post magical numbers of .. OMG!!!! water vapor enhancement... yet it is not seen in the empirical evidence. We are actually finding a NEGATIVE forcing in CO2 rise.. Quite the opposite of the IPCC garbage..

View attachment 49658

WE will now see less than 1 deg C per doubling by empirical physical evidence. And by doing the calculations CO2 has only caused 0.459 Deg F of warming (0.23 Deg C) which is far less than expected and water vapor has not acted as an enhancement but a detractor from what we should see from CO2 ALONE..

You apparently dont get the concept of indirect forcing. Its actually quite large.And most of that forcing is due to water vapor.

The other thing you dont seem to understand (not a real surprise, natch) is that the full effect of the warming has not been realized yet - equilibrium will take a few decades.

Maybe when you hit freshman year science class you'll understand more.

You apparently dont get that there is no indirect forcing from water vapor by empirical observed evidence. When you grow up a little and get out of diapers you might understand.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The absolute truth is.......NOBODY knows why warming occurs!!! Nobody. The alarmists have oversimplified much.........but of course......when you have an agenda, you rule out the facts you don't like!!!





Empirical evidence matters in science........but not to the alarmists. We need better understanding of the last 2,000 years. To the k00ks, that doesn't matter.

Fake denier scientist talks to denier fake news host. Curry is considered to have gone off the deep end years ago. She gets little respect from the scientific community and whores herself out to the Heartland Institute.

Here's the last few thousand years, as published in PNAS.

View attachment 49602

Don't you just love the false adjustments to Marcott Et AL... WE know that the adjustments fail in review of empirical evidence and reality. The Satellite records confirms that Marcott's adjustments failed..

Yes. Satellite records always are great evidence to use in paleoclimate reconstructions. Given the level of your posts, I think you are confusing The Flintstones with The Jetsons.

You show your impressive genius more and more with every post.

Funny, You show your ignorance of science with yours...

You cant even defend the adjustment that Marcott made because even he admitted that he could not.. SO your a whiz kid who knows more than Marcott?.

 

[jc456]

how much warming will doubling of CO2 to 560 PPM represent? Do you have that number? And then the next doubling will be how much at 1120 PPM?

Feel free to look it up.

www.ipcc.ch

This may help you climb down off the mountain.

Epic Fail....

You post magical numbers of .. OMG!!!! water vapor enhancement... yet it is not seen in the empirical evidence. We are actually finding a NEGATIVE forcing in CO2 rise.. Quite the opposite of the IPCC garbage..

View attachment 49658

WE will now see less than 1 deg C per doubling by empirical physical evidence. And by doing the calculations CO2 has only caused 0.459 Deg F of warming (0.23 Deg C) which is far less than expected and water vapor has not acted as an enhancement but a detractor from what we should see from CO2 ALONE..

You apparently dont get the concept of indirect forcing. Its actually quite large.And most of that forcing is due to water vapor.

The other thing you dont seem to understand (not a real surprise, natch) is that the full effect of the warming has not been realized yet - equilibrium will take a few decades.

Maybe when you hit freshman year science class you'll understand more.

again, you have no idea what you're discussing here. you fail. Sorry charlie you're just tuna of the sea.

In other words, YOU don't understand my response and can only bluff your way through.

I see the concepts of lag and equilibrium are foreign to you. Maybe if you ask a scientist, or an average high school physics class attendee, you might learn something.

So, still peewee hermaning . Funny. Your lack of any answers shows your weakness. Cut and paste mumbo jumbo. It's all you got.

 

[rdean]

Do you know why Republicans insist climate change is a myth? Anyone? It's hilarious.

 

[jc456]

Do you know why Republicans insist climate change is a myth? Anyone? It's hilarious.

Methinks you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[threegoofs]

The absolute truth is.......NOBODY knows why warming occurs!!! Nobody. The alarmists have oversimplified much.........but of course......when you have an agenda, you rule out the facts you don't like!!!





Empirical evidence matters in science........but not to the alarmists. We need better understanding of the last 2,000 years. To the k00ks, that doesn't matter.

Fake denier scientist talks to denier fake news host. Curry is considered to have gone off the deep end years ago. She gets little respect from the scientific community and whores herself out to the Heartland Institute.

Here's the last few thousand years, as published in PNAS.

View attachment 49602

Don't you just love the false adjustments to Marcott Et AL... WE know that the adjustments fail in review of empirical evidence and reality. The Satellite records confirms that Marcott's adjustments failed..

Yes. Satellite records always are great evidence to use in paleoclimate reconstructions. Given the level of your posts, I think you are confusing The Flintstones with The Jetsons.

You show your impressive genius more and more with every post.

Funny, You show your ignorance of science with yours...

You cant even defend the adjustment that Marcott made because even he admitted that he could not.. SO your a whiz kid who knows more than Marcott?.

What 'adjustment' are you talking about?

I'm guessing it's the one in your imaginstion.

 

[threegoofs]

You

Feel free to look it up.

www.ipcc.ch

This may help you climb down off the mountain.

Epic Fail....

You post magical numbers of .. OMG!!!! water vapor enhancement... yet it is not seen in the empirical evidence. We are actually finding a NEGATIVE forcing in CO2 rise.. Quite the opposite of the IPCC garbage..

View attachment 49658

WE will now see less than 1 deg C per doubling by empirical physical evidence. And by doing the calculations CO2 has only caused 0.459 Deg F of warming (0.23 Deg C) which is far less than expected and water vapor has not acted as an enhancement but a detractor from what we should see from CO2 ALONE..

You apparently dont get the concept of indirect forcing. Its actually quite large.And most of that forcing is due to water vapor.

The other thing you dont seem to understand (not a real surprise, natch) is that the full effect of the warming has not been realized yet - equilibrium will take a few decades.

Maybe when you hit freshman year science class you'll understand more.

again, you have no idea what you're discussing here. you fail. Sorry charlie you're just tuna of the sea.

In other words, YOU don't understand my response and can only bluff your way through.

I see the concepts of lag and equilibrium are foreign to you. Maybe if you ask a scientist, or an average high school physics class attendee, you might learn something.

So, still peewee hermaning . Funny. Your lack of any answers shows your weakness. Cut and paste mumbo jumbo. It's all you got.

You really have nothing, do you? The funny thing is, it's obvious that you know that, but you still keep going.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you know why Republicans insist climate change is a myth? Anyone? It's hilarious.

Don't know about Repubs RDean -- and I don't call it myth -- but it IS one of the largest propaganda campaigns in my lifetime. And one of the largest distortions of science ranking right up there with the advent of nuclear science which was initially hijacked for weaponry.

The original hysterical claims made are now all busted -- just 20 or 30 years since James Hansen juiced the press with forecasts of 0.5degC/decade and talked about the oceans boiling.

I buy that man plays a part -- but the rest of hype is sheer showmanship. Claims for what the science says -- versus what it ACTUALLY says are allowed to slide. What I DON'T believe is that the Earth is so fragile that a mere 2 deg temperature spike will send it into an irreversible death spiral that no longer depends on man's emissions.. Or that CO2 has the superpowers that some folks in climate science attribute to it.. Above and BEYOND what the solid basic science says that CO2 can do.

Lots of reasons.. You should read a bit more and laugh hilariously a lot less.....

 

[threegoofs]

Do you know why Republicans insist climate change is a myth? Anyone? It's hilarious.

Don't know about Repubs RDean -- and I don't call it myth -- but it IS one of the largest propaganda campaigns in my lifetime. And one of the largest distortions of science ranking right up there with the advent of nuclear science which was initially hijacked for weaponry.

The original hysterical claims made are now all busted -- just 20 or 30 years since James Hansen juiced the press with forecasts of 0.5degC/decade and talked about the oceans boiling.

I buy that man plays a part -- but the rest of hype is sheer showmanship. Claims for what the science says -- versus what it ACTUALLY says are allowed to slide. What I DON'T believe is that the Earth is not so fragile that a mere 2 deg temperature spike will send it into an irreversible death spiral that no longer depends on man's emissions.. Or that CO2 has the superpowers that some folks in climate science attribute to it.. Above and BEYOND what the solid basic science says that CO2 can do.

Lots of reasons.. You should read a bit more and laugh hilariously a lot less.....

Way to distort the consequences.

I guess I understand why you don't like the concept. You don't understand the consequences- you just make up scary scenarios and strawmen in your mind.