Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LOL, you stated that CO2 was sequestered into fossil fuels socko. Not carbon CO2. WHen we told you that CO2 breaks down into carbon and oxygen and does not remain CO2 forever you went on trying to prove it.
ROFL,so please... We all know you are an idiot and a liar...
Hahaha. You actually think coal or oil is only made up of carbon? The CO2 loses the O2 in the live plant, to make sugars. Burn the plant with the same O2 and you get CO2 and energy. Perhaps I should add water into the mix as well but you should already know that from your links.
You are as foolish as you are arrogant.
"you stated that CO2 was sequestered into fossil fuels sock"
He lives in his own imaginary world as I have never spoke of CO2, the carbon cycle, sequestration of CO2, or anything remotely like it.
He is quite psychotic which is why I have him on ignore and only become aware of his ranting when someone else, of sane mind, responds to him.
Yes, yes, you would rather kiss the ass of a liar and known troll, than actually man up and defend your position.. We all see what kind of save-ass you are Ian.
Just as I said before no less...LOL I am batting .1000 about you so far... ROFL
Funnier than watching Duck Dynasty...
You sho is battin about 0.1000 on most everything...
Only an immature ass would really bother over a misplaced decimal point.. LOL, really? That's all you have? All of your High handed nonsense and down talking to me and anybody who disagrees with your claim, and since your obvious screw up a few posts ago you have resorted to fussing over a decimal point?
LOL..Oaky I'm batting 1.000 ,or actually more like .9999 because nobodies perfect. Happy?
Funnier than watching Duck Dynasty...
You sho is battin about 0.1000 on most everything...
Only an immature ass would really bother over a misplaced decimal point.. LOL, really? That's all you have? All of your High handed nonsense and down talking to me and anybody who disagrees with your claim, and since your obvious screw up a few posts ago you have resorted to fussing over a decimal point?
LOL..Oaky I'm batting 1.000 ,or actually more like .9999 because nobodies perfect. Happy?
No... Keep digging.. I can get happier... Jerk.
Weather is what happens due to the daily and yearly energy fluctuations on various parts of the earth. Weather is also how the earth finally achieves the AGW required by increased atmospheric GHG concentrations. There is a significant but undetermined time delay between increases GHGs and the final resolution of restored energy balance. Maybe years. I think that it will take years before those dynamics can be finally modeled.
The model that says that AGW is an inevitable consequence of increased atmospheric GHG concentrations is right on. The long term weather forecast that predicts how long the time constant is for energy stabilization is still several years away. If ever. No problem. We know what has to be done. And it's underway. While you're whining, responsible people are doing. They'll carry you, don't worry.
The model that says that AGW is an inevitable consequence of increased atmospheric GHG concentrations is right on. The long term weather forecast that predicts how long the time constant is for energy stabilization is still several years away. If ever. No problem. We know what has to be done. And it's underway. While you're whining, responsible people are doing. They'll carry you, don't worry.
The model that says that AGW is an inevitable consequence of increased atmospheric GHG concentrations is right on. The long term weather forecast that predicts how long the time constant is for energy stabilization is still several years away. If ever. No problem. We know what has to be done. And it's underway. While you're whining, responsible people are doing. They'll carry you, don't worry.
No climate model has ever predicted anything accurately. Thanks for playing but you're pathetic. Keep on blabbing though.....it clearly makes YOU feel good.
Slaying the Slayers with the Alabama Two-Step « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.
This represents what I believe to be the simplest description of how greenhouse gases cause warming of the surface. It bypasses all of the esoteric discussions and instead deals only with observations, which I believe cannot be easily explained any other way:
FIRST, warming can be caused by a decrease in the rate of energy loss by the climate system (or any other system, for that matter).
SECOND, IR absorbing gases are observed from satellites to reduce the rate of energy loss to space.
THEREFORE, adding more IR absorbing gases will cause a warming tendency.
QED.
Again I emphasize, however, the above simple argument is necessarily true only to the extent that all other elements of the climate system remain the same, which they will not. These other changes are called ‘feedbacks’, and they can either make or break theories of global warming and associated climate change.
for konradv. you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate. the effect is real, the positive feedbacks are not. no positive feedback, no problem.
ever wonder why ocean water never exceeds 31C and is seldom above 29C? different pathways are expanded or contracted depending on how much energy is available to power them. and the natural order of things is to reduce the impact of disturbance to the system. negative feedback. homeostasis.
the climate models are rough projections of what may happen given the few parameters that are fed into them. slight changes in how clouds (or a host of other things) can radically change the outcome of those results. the feddbacks of the IPCC climate models are obviously only as good as the information and programing put into them. I think the real climate system acts to dampen the effect of extra CO2 as it does with many other things. obviously other disagree with me. but we shall see.
Slaying the Slayers with the Alabama Two-Step « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.The question of how much warming will result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we skeptics are skeptical of. The climate system is amazingly complex, and the IPCC position that elements within the climate system (especially clouds) will change in ways which amplify the resulting small warming tendency is highly questionable, to say the least. If the climate system instead acts to reduce the warming, then anthropogenic global warming (AGW) becomes for all practical purposes a non-issue.
This represents what I believe to be the simplest description of how greenhouse gases cause warming of the surface. It bypasses all of the esoteric discussions and instead deals only with observations, which I believe cannot be easily explained any other way:
FIRST, warming can be caused by a decrease in the rate of energy loss by the climate system (or any other system, for that matter).
SECOND, IR absorbing gases are observed from satellites to reduce the rate of energy loss to space.
THEREFORE, adding more IR absorbing gases will cause a warming tendency.
QED.
Again I emphasize, however, the above simple argument is necessarily true only to the extent that all other elements of the climate system remain the same, which they will not. These other changes are called feedbacks, and they can either make or break theories of global warming and associated climate change.
for konradv. you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate. the effect is real, the positive feedbacks are not. no positive feedback, no problem.
ever wonder why ocean water never exceeds 31C and is seldom above 29C? different pathways are expanded or contracted depending on how much energy is available to power them. and the natural order of things is to reduce the impact of disturbance to the system. negative feedback. homeostasis.
the climate models are rough projections of what may happen given the few parameters that are fed into them. slight changes in how clouds (or a host of other things) can radically change the outcome of those results. the feddbacks of the IPCC climate models are obviously only as good as the information and programing put into them. I think the real climate system acts to dampen the effect of extra CO2 as it does with many other things. obviously other disagree with me. but we shall see.
Don't you think that you've embarrassed yourself enough quoting someone like Roy Spencer?
Roy Spencer - SourceWatch
To account for warming Spencer's favored alternative theory is that it's due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation; yet the PDO shows no [long-term] trend, and therefore...is not responsible for the trend of global warming.
Scientifically, the crucial point in Spencer's position is that of climate sensitivity. Spencer suggests in his blog that climate sensitivity may be low, due to mainstream climate scientists underestimating clouds, and he claims that satellite data will support him.
Rebuttal
"Roy Spencer has come up with yet another silver bullet to show that climate sensitivity is lower than IPCC estimates. I.e., he fits a simple 1-box climate model to the net flux of heat into the upper 700 m of the ocean, and infers a climate sensitivity of only about 1 °C (2x CO2). There are several flaws in his methodsinconsistent initial conditions, failure to use the appropriate data, and failure to account for ocean heating deeper than 700 m. (He fixed the last one in an update.) All of these flaws pushed his model to produce a lower climate sensitivity estimate. When the flaws are corrected, the model estimates climate sensitivities of at least 3 °C, which is the IPCCs central estimate. ... while Spencers latest effort doesnt really do any damage to the consensus position, it turns out that it does directly contradict the work he promoted in The Great Global Warming Blunder."
Dude, you are embarrassing yourself.
What is your best quess at the temp level the earth will achieve before stabilization and how long will it last?
There is the question. And do you think you can hold out long enough to see it?
4 to 12 degrees C per CO2 concentration doubling. For one thing I have no idea what the concentration will be when we stop adding, or when it will be reached, or how long after steady state will be realized.
The issue isn't was it hotter any time in Earth's long history than it is today or will be in the near future? The issue is that we are causing the current rapid warming and it is having widespread negative effects on the ecology of the planet and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. Simply proclaiming that it has been as hot or hotter before doesn't absolve us of our responsibilities to one another, other species, and the planet as a whole.
The issue isn't was it hotter any time in Earth's long history than it is today or will be in the near future? The issue is that we are causing the current rapid warming and it is having widespread negative effects on the ecology of the planet and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. Simply proclaiming that it has been as hot or hotter before doesn't absolve us of our responsibilities to one another, other species, and the planet as a whole.
The issue isn't was it hotter any time in Earth's long history than it is today or will be in the near future? The issue is that we are causing the current rapid warming and it is having widespread negative effects on the ecology of the planet and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. Simply proclaiming that it has been as hot or hotter before doesn't absolve us of our responsibilities to one another, other species, and the planet as a whole.
Nah the issue is whose sock are you? Mr. New guy who seems to know people...
The issue isn't was it hotter any time in Earth's long history than it is today or will be in the near future? The issue is that we are causing the current rapid warming and it is having widespread negative effects on the ecology of the planet and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. Simply proclaiming that it has been as hot or hotter before doesn't absolve us of our responsibilities to one another, other species, and the planet as a whole.
