how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[itfitzme]

if the term backradiation offends thee, simply pluck it out and insert the word radiation.

post the comment # where PMZ or itfitzme called CO2 an element. sounds hilarious.

You and SlackSack have this inability to recall reality. *SlackSack has made the same BS comment.



Yet, Siagon notes;



All the while, SlackSack repeats the same absurdity of plants not getting carbon from CO2.

So SlackSack makes up BS, and you imagine it.

Perhaps you're remembering one of your denier buddies, who said;

"For the record, carbon dioxide is not a gas, it is a chemical element."

The first part.. What in the hell are you rambling about now? Ian believes in the magic backradiation nonsense, I do not... Moron..

The second part.. Please post a link to my words socko..LOL you don't know what it means when we refer to base element either I see... Here's a clue; it's when you take a compound and break it down into the elements it is made of, or their "base elements" .. You've never heard the expression? LOL probably not, considering how much you actually know... Would "basic elements" suit you better socko?

LOL moron..

LOL, dude you just made some pretty ignorant claims and now you talk about people being willfully ignorant...

You just made some crazy claim that CO2 is a base element. Gimme a break man..

Gslack -*

The only person here talking about 'base elements' is you.*

No one else mentions them, no one else refers to them.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/302499-earth-will-die-from-lack-of-co2-2.html

Okay, so now we've resorted to nitpicking common spelling errors of words which sound similar? Wow... talk about desperate to make a point? Sad!!*

For the record, carbon dioxide is not a gas, it is a chemical element. On earth, it's natural state is gaseous, but it can also be found in solid form (dry ice). This is also a common error, but I will not take the opportunity to insult you over it and call you and idiot for this, because people commonly make this mistake. Instead, I will call you an idiot for claiming this is "right wingers" parroting Fox News, when there are people who would have needles stuck in their eyes before watching Fox News, who have totally rejected this nonsense.

BTW ifitzpmz, quote my posts you respond to it's the decent way to debate..


LOL, so plant's build themselves from CO2? how very scientific.. ROFL.. Please get that published I can't wait to see the response...

I got something for ya... How about this, maybe CARBON is the basis of CARBON based life forms? MORON...

Dude you're an idiot... Carbon is the basis of carbon-based life forms. Not CO2 CARBON.. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas created from many natural processes on the planet. Processes like volcanic activity, and many others. The gas didn't create the life forms that use it as fuel, the life form evolved to feed on it. Carbon-based life remember? Not CO2 based, but carbon based.*

The planets eco-system adapts to the environment not the other way around...

Some scientist...LOL

Did the whiney baby go crying to mommy?

 

[PMZ]

The climate that we built civilization around was the one based on the GHG concentrations of the mid 19th century. That was the last time systems earth was in energy balance with the sun. Since then the steady increase in GHG concentrations has eroded the ability of the earth to radiate enough energy into space to balance incoming solar radiation. Given enough time at a given concentration, the earth would restore balance again by raising our apparent long term temperature average to what it would need to be to force enough out through the GHG molecules to restore balance. Some day we will reach atmospheric stability again and the dynamics will settle down and a new average global temperature suitable for the new long term GHG concentrations will be reached.

Nobody knows what that long term concentration of GHGs will be, or when it will be reached. Or how long after that, stability will be reached. Or what the weather will be like at that average global temperature.

Until then, for sure mankind will be dealing with some nasty consequences. And continuous changes in weather.

All of the while building a brand new sustainable energy infrastructure.

And adjusting to a new reality.

 

[itfitzme]

You and SlackSack have this inability to recall reality. *SlackSack has made the same BS comment.

Yet, Siagon notes;

All the while, SlackSack repeats the same absurdity of plants not getting carbon from CO2.

So SlackSack makes up BS, and you imagine it.

Perhaps you're remembering one of your denier buddies, who said;

The first part.. What in the hell are you rambling about now? Ian believes in the magic backradiation nonsense, I do not... Moron..

The second part.. Please post a link to my words socko..LOL you don't know what it means when we refer to base element either I see... Here's a clue; it's when you take a compound and break it down into the elements it is made of, or their "base elements" .. You've never heard the expression? LOL probably not, considering how much you actually know... Would "basic elements" suit you better socko?

LOL moron..

Hahaha. So you got caught lying and misrepresenting another poster's words again, gslack? Par fort the course with you.

Yep, par for the course. Completely out of touch with reality. Can't remember what he says. Just makes it up. Can't remember what other's say, just makes that up. Won't bother proving it, referencing a post. Can't remember what the science says, just makes it up.

By his theory, plants get carbon from pencil lead, coal, diamonds, nano-tubes, and buckyballs. I have told him repeatedly to learn about photosynthsis and leave the advanced biology and physics to the grownups.

IN ALL FAIRNESS... BOSS did change his mind, later. And, it really is an insult to him to say he's a "buddy" of SlackSack. But it is the oy direct reference to CO2 as an element. So either they are remembering that or remembering themselves. Probably themselves.... So my apologies to BOSS, in retrospect. He was getting hammered in starting a thread, so he got all testy and it stuck out in my mind. He's way smarter that SlackSack....

But he's a denier

 

[IanC]

The first part.. What in the hell are you rambling about now? Ian believes in the magic backradiation nonsense, I do not... Moron..

The second part.. Please post a link to my words socko..LOL you don't know what it means when we refer to base element either I see... Here's a clue; it's when you take a compound and break it down into the elements it is made of, or their "base elements" .. You've never heard the expression? LOL probably not, considering how much you actually know... Would "basic elements" suit you better socko?

LOL moron..

Hahaha. So you got caught lying and misrepresenting another poster's words again, gslack? Par fort the course with you.

Yep, par for the course. Completely out of touch with reality. Can't remember what he says. Just makes it up. Can't remember what other's say, just makes that up. Won't bother proving it, referencing a post. Can't remember what the science says, just makes it up.

By his theory, plants get carbon from pencil lead, coal, diamonds, nano-tubes, and buckyballs. I have told him repeatedly to learn about photosynthsis and leave the advanced biology and physics to the grownups.

IN ALL FAIRNESS... BOSS did change his mind, later. And, it really is an insult to him to say he's a "buddy" of SlackSack. But it is the oy direct reference to CO2 as an element. So either they are remembering that or remembering themselves. Probably themselves.... So my apologies to BOSS, in retrospect. He was getting hammered in starting a thread, so he got all testy and it stuck out in my mind. He's way smarter that SlackSack....

But he's a denier

Could you bump up the post where gslack says plants get thru carbon from pencil lead, diamonds and buckyballs? That sounds hilarious.

 

[itfitzme]

Hahaha. So you got caught lying and misrepresenting another poster's words again, gslack? Par fort the course with you.

Yep, par for the course. Completely out of touch with reality. Can't remember what he says. Just makes it up. Can't remember what other's say, just makes that up. Won't bother proving it, referencing a post. Can't remember what the science says, just makes it up.

By his theory, plants get carbon from pencil lead, coal, diamonds, nano-tubes, and buckyballs. I have told him repeatedly to learn about photosynthsis and leave the advanced biology and physics to the grownups.

IN ALL FAIRNESS... BOSS did change his mind, later. And, it really is an insult to him to say he's a "buddy" of SlackSack. But it is the oy direct reference to CO2 as an element. So either they are remembering that or remembering themselves. Probably themselves.... So my apologies to BOSS, in retrospect. He was getting hammered in starting a thread, so he got all testy and it stuck out in my mind. He's way smarter that SlackSack....

But he's a denier

Could you bump up the post where gslack says plants get thru carbon from pencil lead, diamonds and buckyballs? That sounds hilarious.

It follows logically. He says plants don't get it from CO2. And if you make the effort, you'll find comments of soil carbon. Of course, plants aren't absorbing complex carbohydrates, like dead plants, bacteria do that. And, it wouldn't make for much of a carbon cycle, now would it? So I looked for the forms of carbon in the ground that are CARBON. That logically leaves pencil lead, diamonds, coal, buckminster fullerenes and carbon nanotubes. He can't be refering to anything else because there isn't anything else. He's very instructional. If I've got his theory down right, bacteria break down the plant matter into soil carbon. Perhaps he only meant on of them, pencil lead, diamonds, coal, buckminster fullerenes OR carbon nanotubes... But I presented pictures too, and he never said it was one and not the others. I can only go on what he says.

 

[itfitzme]

Here we go... See... Plants don't build themselves fromCO2. That is laughable. CO2 doesn't get gobbled up by plants. It is broken down into oxygen and carbon. Soil carbon.

BTW ifitzpmz, quote my posts you respond to it's the decent way to debate..


LOL, so plant's build themselves from CO2? how very scientific.. ROFL.. Please get that published I can't wait to see the response...

I got something for ya... How about this, maybe CARBON is the basis of CARBON based life forms? MORON...

Dude you're an idiot... Carbon is the basis of carbon-based life forms. Not CO2 CARBON.. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas created from many natural processes on the planet. Processes like volcanic activity, and many others. The gas didn't create the life forms that use it as fuel, the life form evolved to feed on it. Carbon-based life remember? Not CO2 based, but carbon based.*

The planets eco-system adapts to the environment not the other way around...

Some scientist...LOL

CARBON numbnuts. There's no "new" carbon cycle, it's the same as it always was. The fact you don't know this shows how full of shit you are...heres a nice picture...Notice the part about "soil carbon" Yeah it's even in the soil silly socko...

A nice article on it...From wikkipedia no less,again shows what you know...

Carbon cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The carbon cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged among the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere of the Earth. Along with the nitrogen cycle and the water cycle, the carbon cycle comprises a sequence of events that are key to making the Earth capable of sustaining life; it describes the movement of carbon as it is recycled and reused throughout the biosphere.
The global carbon budget is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and losses) of carbon between the carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere ↔ biosphere) of the carbon cycle. An examination of the carbon budget of a pool or reservoir can provide information about whether the pool or reservoir is functioning as a source or sink for carbon dioxide. The carbon cycle was initially discovered by Joseph Priestley and Antoine Lavoisier, and popularized by Humphry Davy.[1]

Another? Sure...From the NOAA no less...

ESRL Integrating Research and Technology Theme: Carbon Cycle Science

What is the Carbon Cycle?
Carbon is exchanged, or "cycled" among Earth's oceans, atmosphere, ecosystem, and geosphere. All living organisms are built of carbon compounds. It is the fundamental building block of life and an important component of many chemical processes. It is present in the atmosphere primarily as carbon dioxide (CO2), but also as other less abundant but climatically significant gases, such as methane (CH4).

Sources and Sinks
Because life processes are fueled by carbon compounds which are oxidized to CO2, the latter is exhaled by all animals and plants. Conversely, CO2 is assimilated by plants during photosynthesis to build new carbon compounds. CO2 is produced by the burning of fossil fuels, which derive from the preserved products of ancient photosynthesis. The atmophere exchanges CO2 continuously with the oceans. Regions or processes that predominately produce CO2 are called sources of atmospheric CO2, while those that absorb CO2 are called sinks.

LOL, I can literally source and cite links on it all day dumbass...so do you want to explain your theory about CO2 that *doesn't break down, or is it just your tweaker intellect at work talking in circles?

CO2 breaks down into carbon and oxygen respectively. It doesn't wait to be gobbled up by a plant, and if it's not, it doesn't just hang around as CO2 forever. It breaks down,kind of like your scientist BS does everytime you speak..

Fake scientists, seems like it's the norm here anymore... Do any "scientists" have jobs or are they all trolling web forums? LOL

The scientists speaks. I learn. Boy, am I learning alot.

Soil carbon. Plants don't gobble it up. That's laughable. It doesn't just hang around forever. It breaks down into oxygen and carbon. Soil carbon. Not plants. Plants don't gobble it up. So not complex carbohydrates .Carbon. Just Carbon. That leaves pencil lead (graphite), diamonds, coal, buckyballs, and carbon nano-tubes. He hasn't explained which ones. I'm waiting for that.

Oh, almost forgot. I'm a fake scientist tweaker numbnuts idiot.

 

[gslack]

You and SlackSack have this inability to recall reality. *SlackSack has made the same BS comment.



Yet, Siagon notes;



All the while, SlackSack repeats the same absurdity of plants not getting carbon from CO2.

So SlackSack makes up BS, and you imagine it.

Perhaps you're remembering one of your denier buddies, who said;

The first part.. What in the hell are you rambling about now? Ian believes in the magic backradiation nonsense, I do not... Moron..

The second part.. Please post a link to my words socko..LOL you don't know what it means when we refer to base element either I see... Here's a clue; it's when you take a compound and break it down into the elements it is made of, or their "base elements" .. You've never heard the expression? LOL probably not, considering how much you actually know... Would "basic elements" suit you better socko?

LOL moron..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/302499-earth-will-die-from-lack-of-co2-2.html

Okay, so now we've resorted to nitpicking common spelling errors of words which sound similar? Wow... talk about desperate to make a point? Sad!!*

For the record, carbon dioxide is not a gas, it is a chemical element. On earth, it's natural state is gaseous, but it can also be found in solid form (dry ice). This is also a common error, but I will not take the opportunity to insult you over it and call you and idiot for this, because people commonly make this mistake. Instead, I will call you an idiot for claiming this is "right wingers" parroting Fox News, when there are people who would have needles stuck in their eyes before watching Fox News, who have totally rejected this nonsense.

BTW ifitzpmz, quote my posts you respond to it's the decent way to debate..


LOL, so plant's build themselves from CO2? how very scientific.. ROFL.. Please get that published I can't wait to see the response...

I got something for ya... How about this, maybe CARBON is the basis of CARBON based life forms? MORON...

Dude you're an idiot... Carbon is the basis of carbon-based life forms. Not CO2 CARBON.. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas created from many natural processes on the planet. Processes like volcanic activity, and many others. The gas didn't create the life forms that use it as fuel, the life form evolved to feed on it. Carbon-based life remember? Not CO2 based, but carbon based.*

The planets eco-system adapts to the environment not the other way around...

Some scientist...LOL

Did the whiney baby go crying to mommy?

LOL, you dumbass tweaker.. What are you trying to claim now? WHat in the world have you dreamed up in your high stupor?

Please show me exactly what part of any of that either disputes anything I said, shows I was wrong, defends your claim, or proves anything beyond what I have said all along?

ROFL.. You moron..

 

[gslack]

Hahaha. So you got caught lying and misrepresenting another poster's words again, gslack? Par fort the course with you.

Yep, par for the course. Completely out of touch with reality. Can't remember what he says. Just makes it up. Can't remember what other's say, just makes that up. Won't bother proving it, referencing a post. Can't remember what the science says, just makes it up.

By his theory, plants get carbon from pencil lead, coal, diamonds, nano-tubes, and buckyballs. I have told him repeatedly to learn about photosynthsis and leave the advanced biology and physics to the grownups.

IN ALL FAIRNESS... BOSS did change his mind, later. And, it really is an insult to him to say he's a "buddy" of SlackSack. But it is the oy direct reference to CO2 as an element. So either they are remembering that or remembering themselves. Probably themselves.... So my apologies to BOSS, in retrospect. He was getting hammered in starting a thread, so he got all testy and it stuck out in my mind. He's way smarter that SlackSack....

But he's a denier

Could you bump up the post where gslack says plants get thru carbon from pencil lead, diamonds and buckyballs? That sounds hilarious.

He can't because it's a lie much like your pretense of being anything other than cowardly save-ass douchebag... ROFL, your new admiration for the troll is not a surprise.. It's your MO after all..

 

[gslack]

Here we go... See... CO2 doesn't get gobbled up by plants. It is broken down into oxygen and carbon. Soil carbon.

CARBON numbnuts. There's no "new" carbon cycle, it's the same as it always was. The fact you don't know this shows how full of shit you are...heres a nice picture...Notice the part about "soil carbon" Yeah it's even in the soil silly socko...

A nice article on it...From wikkipedia no less,again shows what you know...

Carbon cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The carbon cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged among the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere of the Earth. Along with the nitrogen cycle and the water cycle, the carbon cycle comprises a sequence of events that are key to making the Earth capable of sustaining life; it describes the movement of carbon as it is recycled and reused throughout the biosphere.
The global carbon budget is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and losses) of carbon between the carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere ↔ biosphere) of the carbon cycle. An examination of the carbon budget of a pool or reservoir can provide information about whether the pool or reservoir is functioning as a source or sink for carbon dioxide. The carbon cycle was initially discovered by Joseph Priestley and Antoine Lavoisier, and popularized by Humphry Davy.[1]

Another? Sure...From the NOAA no less...

ESRL Integrating Research and Technology Theme: Carbon Cycle Science

What is the Carbon Cycle?
Carbon is exchanged, or "cycled" among Earth's oceans, atmosphere, ecosystem, and geosphere. All living organisms are built of carbon compounds. It is the fundamental building block of life and an important component of many chemical processes. It is present in the atmosphere primarily as carbon dioxide (CO2), but also as other less abundant but climatically significant gases, such as methane (CH4).

Sources and Sinks
Because life processes are fueled by carbon compounds which are oxidized to CO2, the latter is exhaled by all animals and plants. Conversely, CO2 is assimilated by plants during photosynthesis to build new carbon compounds. CO2 is produced by the burning of fossil fuels, which derive from the preserved products of ancient photosynthesis. The atmophere exchanges CO2 continuously with the oceans. Regions or processes that predominately produce CO2 are called sources of atmospheric CO2, while those that absorb CO2 are called sinks.

LOL, I can literally source and cite links on it all day dumbass...so do you want to explain your theory about CO2 that *doesn't break down, or is it just your tweaker intellect at work talking in circles?

CO2 breaks down into carbon and oxygen respectively. It doesn't wait to be gobbled up by a plant, and if it's not, it doesn't just hang around as CO2 forever. It breaks down,kind of like your scientist BS does everytime you speak..

Fake scientists, seems like it's the norm here anymore... Do any "scientists" have jobs or are they all trolling web forums? LOL

The scientists speaks. I learn. Boy, am I learning alot.

Soil carbon. Plants don't gobble it up. It doesn't just hang around forever. It breaks down into oxygen and carbon. Soil carbon. Not plants. Plants don't gobble it up. So not complex carbohydrates .Carbon. Just Carbon. That leaves pencil lead (graphite), diamonds, coal, buckyballs, and carbon nano-tubes. He hasn't explained which ones.

Good, you should listen..

Now as much as I hate to interrupt your tweaking, please point to the part that is untrue, or anything that disputes anything I have said here?

LOL, you got too high again and screwed up didn't ya socko... ROFL.

And Ian supporting you is as pathetic as it gets...

 

[gslack]

Ian, if you wanted to show how full of shit you were, I can't think of a better way than to support this trolling sock.. ROFL. Please since he's obviously to high, why don't you point tothe part in his spamming that "gets me" in some way?

LOL, I'll wait...

 

[Old Rocks]

Wait for what, silly ass? G-Slack, you have already proven yourself to be one of the most ignorant people on this board.

 

[itfitzme]

Wait for what, silly ass? G-Slack, you have already proven yourself to be one of the most ignorant people on this board.

I don't think he likes me.

 

[gslack]

Wait for what, silly ass? G-Slack, you have already proven yourself to be one of the most ignorant people on this board.

Not much for reading are you...LOL, and your transparency is as bad as Ians..

How's the solar panel business going ?

ROFL

 

[gslack]

Wait for what, silly ass? G-Slack, you have already proven yourself to be one of the most ignorant people on this board.

I don't think he likes me.

Nobody likes you socko, oldsocks is solar panel salesman and Ian's a coward willing to be pals with anybody who suits his needs at the time.. Like you.. LOL, he can't argue his point on merit so he jumps on the backs of anybody willing to take the heat off him.. Don't you find it odd he is suddenly treating you with resepct?

LOL I find it hilarious.. Mr. Science authority is convenient butt-buddy to the forum tweaker..

Any plans on explaining what your thread spamming accomplished? What part "got me"?

No of course not because you don't know anyway. In your tweaking haze you just thought posting evidence that I said the same thing then as I do now is somehow going to damage me... ROFL..

 

[gslack]

Thanks for sharing your breakdown Ian.. LOL it was truly good to see. You just confirmed everything I said about you here.. You not only got busted talking in a circle, but you just embraced the most anti-scientific poster on the board all to save yourself having to actually stand up...

ROFL

 

[SSDD]

Good, you should listen..

Now as much as I hate to interrupt your tweaking, please point to the part that is untrue, or anything that disputes anything I have said here?

Not likely. In the first place, they don't grasp the topic well enough to understand that everything you posted is right...in the second place, they won't take any topic on directly because doing so might actually require some knowledge on the topic and when an idiot tries to speak intelligently, his ignorance can't help but show. Like the claim from ifitzmpmz that Prictet's experiment proved backradiation. Just one claim on his own that wasn't cut and paste and what does he do? He references Prictet's experiment as evidence for backradiation.

And Ian supporting you is as pathetic as it gets...

If Ian weren't so detatched from reality he might see that becoming butt buddies with a couple of wacko socks who are clearly first class passengers on the crazy train is a pretty good indication that he is also riding the crazy train.

 

[SSDD]

Wait for what, silly ass? G-Slack, you have already proven yourself to be one of the most ignorant people on this board.

Not much for reading are you...LOL, and your transparency is as bad as Ians..

How's the solar panel business going ?

ROFL

Rocks isn't much for science either. Don't hold your breath for him to actually discuss a topic either. Short meaningless statements and clips from the cultists bible are all you are likely to get from him.

 

[SSDD]

Thanks for sharing your breakdown Ian.. LOL it was truly good to see. You just confirmed everything I said about you here.. You not only got busted talking in a circle, but you just embraced the most anti-scientific poster on the board all to save yourself having to actually stand up...

ROFL

Sleep with dogs and you wake up with fleas..

 

[IanC]

Yep, par for the course. Completely out of touch with reality. Can't remember what he says. Just makes it up. Can't remember what other's say, just makes that up. Won't bother proving it, referencing a post. Can't remember what the science says, just makes it up.

By his theory, plants get carbon from pencil lead, coal, diamonds, nano-tubes, and buckyballs. I have told him repeatedly to learn about photosynthsis and leave the advanced biology and physics to the grownups.

IN ALL FAIRNESS... BOSS did change his mind, later. And, it really is an insult to him to say he's a "buddy" of SlackSack. But it is the oy direct reference to CO2 as an element. So either they are remembering that or remembering themselves. Probably themselves.... So my apologies to BOSS, in retrospect. He was getting hammered in starting a thread, so he got all testy and it stuck out in my mind. He's way smarter that SlackSack....

But he's a denier

Could you bump up the post where gslack says plants get thru carbon from pencil lead, diamonds and buckyballs? That sounds hilarious.

It follows logically. He says plants don't get it from CO2. And if you make the effort, you'll find comments of soil carbon. Of course, plants aren't absorbing complex carbohydrates, like dead plants, bacteria do that. And, it wouldn't make for much of a carbon cycle, now would it? So I looked for the forms of carbon in the ground that are CARBON. That logically leaves pencil lead, diamonds, coal, buckminster fullerenes and carbon nanotubes. He can't be refering to anything else because there isn't anything else. He's very instructional. If I've got his theory down right, bacteria break down the plant matter into soil carbon. Perhaps he only meant on of them, pencil lead, diamonds, coal, buckminster fullerenes OR carbon nanotubes... But I presented pictures too, and he never said it was one and not the others. I can only go on what he says.

So it was you who said it? And then attributed it to gslack?

How is tthat different than what gslack does?

 

[IanC]

Thanks for sharing your breakdown Ian.. LOL it was truly good to see. You just confirmed everything I said about you here.. You not only got busted talking in a circle, but you just embraced the most anti-scientific poster on the board all to save yourself having to actually stand up...

ROFL

What an odd little man you are.

I asked Fitz the same question as you, in the same words.

It appears that you really don't understand the circle of life. Plants use sunlight to build sugar from low energy H2O and CO2. Animals use that sugar for energy, releasing H2O and CO2.

Posting up links that you either don't read or understand is a waste of time.