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

[IanC]

IanC. Wasn't it you who encouraged us not to respond to that troll?

I'm bored.

 

[orogenicman]

IanC. Wasn't it you who encouraged us not to respond to that troll?

I'm bored.

Take a walk. Ride a bike. Anything but respond to that guy.

 

[PMZ]

Need to warm? Are you kidding? You just get further and further out there. In the first place, "need" is irrelavent. In the second place, the universe is working towards cold. Energy moves from less entropy (warm) to more entropy (cold). Nothing warms because it needs to warm. If left alone, it all works towards cold.

We can change the debate to semantics if you want to.

AGW is caused by a deficit in outgoing, in the balance of incoming and outgoing radiant energy relative to earth. More energy in than out, the surplus adds to earth's energy until it's temperature rises enough to overpower whatever is restricting energy from going out, and balance is restored.

So simple. So obvious.

And yet there's been no warming for 15+ years now even though CO2 has increased.

The earth, at it's most simplistic, has to include land, oceans, ice, and atmosphere. You are considering only one of those systems.

Consider, how much warmer does a glass of ice water get as the ice melts?

Again, science fails in every way to support what you want to be true.

 

[PMZ]

IanC. Wasn't it you who encouraged us not to respond to that troll?

I'm bored.

Study the scienceofdoom.com 12 part series.

 

[IanC]

IanC. Wasn't it you who encouraged us not to respond to that troll?

I'm bored.

Study the scienceofdoom.com 12 part series.

Hahahaha. What makes you think I wasn't reading them as they were posted?

 

[westwall]

Imagine how stupid one must be to believe that the greenhouse effect is in any way related to the physiology of human respiration.

Is the Earth a closed system?

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out.

So the low estimate of 37,000 TONS (that's the low estimate BTW) of material that arrives from space every year, how do you explain that?

 

[westwall]

He theorized in 1896 what you still don't know to this day. If he's stupid what are you?

Actually, he hypothesized and his claims remain hypothesis. Perhaps you should learn the difference between hypothesis and theory and what it takes to become theory. AGW as well as the greenhouse effect itself remains hypothesis. Calling them theory does not make them so and when applied to the real world, his hypothesis fails.

Actually you have so little credibility here and on this topic that what you think is irrelevant. That's the position that you chose.

So says the moron who doesn't know about meteorites! BTW you have been PROVEN WRONG!

 

[PMZ]

I'm bored.

Study the scienceofdoom.com 12 part series.

Hahahaha. What makes you think I wasn't reading them as they were posted?

Were you?

Is there anything in his MATLAB model that you took exception to?

 

[PMZ]

Actually, he hypothesized and his claims remain hypothesis. Perhaps you should learn the difference between hypothesis and theory and what it takes to become theory. AGW as well as the greenhouse effect itself remains hypothesis. Calling them theory does not make them so and when applied to the real world, his hypothesis fails.

Actually you have so little credibility here and on this topic that what you think is irrelevant. That's the position that you chose.

So says the moron who doesn't know about meteorites! BTW you have been PROVEN WRONG!

Here, you can learn about asteroids too.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroidwatch/facts.cfm

They don't become meteors until they're in our atmosphere. By then their energy and mass are already part of earth's.

 

[orogenicman]

I'm bored.

Study the scienceofdoom.com 12 part series.

Hahahaha. What makes you think I wasn't reading them as they were posted?

Because you were bored?

 

[westwall]

Those charts keep showing shorter and shorter periods of time. Why not show an honest chart?

Well, if you want longer periods of time, how about this one:

The trend is rather obvious.

And it began when the planet was coming out of a major cooling period. So major that the magazines of the day (and the warmist pushers of today) were all warning us that we might be entering a new ice age.

How convenient.... And how ignorant a statement to come from someone who claims to be a geologist.

 

[orogenicman]

Is the Earth a closed system?

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out.

So the low estimate of 37,000 TONS (that's the low estimate BTW) of material that arrives from space every year, how do you explain that?

37,000 tons spread out over the entire surface of the atmosphere, in particles mostly the size of dust, entering the atmosphere over the course of an entire year? Compared to the mass of the entire earth? Not even noticeable.

 

[westwall]

Only radiant energy in and radiant energy out.

So the low estimate of 37,000 TONS (that's the low estimate BTW) of material that arrives from space every year, how do you explain that?

37,000 tons spread out over the entire surface of the atmosphere, in particles mostly the size of dust, entering the atmosphere over the course of an entire year? Compared to the mass of the entire earth? Not even noticeable.

No doubt. Kind of like the amount of CO2 compared to the rest of the atmosphere

 

[westwall]

Actually you have so little credibility here and on this topic that what you think is irrelevant. That's the position that you chose.

So says the moron who doesn't know about meteorites! BTW you have been PROVEN WRONG!

Here, you can learn about asteroids too.

Top Ten Asteroid Factoids - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

They don't become meteors until they're in our atmosphere. By then their energy and mass are already part of earth's.

What did I call them? Oh yeah..................... METEORITES!



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo]What A Maroon! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[orogenicman]

Those charts keep showing shorter and shorter periods of time. Why not show an honest chart?

Well, if you want longer periods of time, how about this one:

The trend is rather obvious.

And it began when the planet was coming out of a major cooling period. So major that the magazines of the day (and the warmist pushers of today) were all warning us that we might be entering a new ice age.

How convenient.... And how ignorant a statement to come from someone who claims to be a geologist.

Oh please. That myth largely came from one science paper. Most Earth scientists were not convinced, regardless of what the popular rags were publishing.

 

[orogenicman]

So the low estimate of 37,000 TONS (that's the low estimate BTW) of material that arrives from space every year, how do you explain that?

37,000 tons spread out over the entire surface of the atmosphere, in particles mostly the size of dust, entering the atmosphere over the course of an entire year? Compared to the mass of the entire earth? Not even noticeable.

No doubt. Kind of like the amount of CO2 compared to the rest of the atmosphere

You are comparing 37,000 tons (the equivalent to approximately 12 large underground storage tank pits) of primarily vaporized magnesium/iron silicate to 28 billion tons of manmade CO2 gas released into the atmosphere every year? No doubt, you will want to rephrase that bs statement.

 

[IanC]

Study the scienceofdoom.com 12 part series.

Hahahaha. What makes you think I wasn't reading them as they were posted?

Were you?

Is there anything in his MATLAB model that you took exception to?

I read a lot of things. SoD made quite a few errors along the way. The difference is that he responded to criticism and made his position stronger. AGW fights making even the simplest of corrections. Errors stand that should have been corrected as soon as they were pointed out. Mann used a proxy upside down!! He is still using it upside down, and so are the people referencing Mann in their own work. What good is a proxy if orientation doesn't matter? Actually it does matter, but it suited Mann's purposes better upside down.

 

[westwall]

Well, if you want longer periods of time, how about this one:

The trend is rather obvious.

And it began when the planet was coming out of a major cooling period. So major that the magazines of the day (and the warmist pushers of today) were all warning us that we might be entering a new ice age.

How convenient.... And how ignorant a statement to come from someone who claims to be a geologist.

Oh please. That myth largely came from one science paper. Most Earth scientists were not convinced, regardless of what the popular rags were publishing.

What is not in doubt is the fact that the Arctic was at a very high level of ice. The highest seen in decades as evidenced by the even earlier newspaper reports of the Arctic ice caps demise....

 

[westwall]

37,000 tons spread out over the entire surface of the atmosphere, in particles mostly the size of dust, entering the atmosphere over the course of an entire year? Compared to the mass of the entire earth? Not even noticeable.

No doubt. Kind of like the amount of CO2 compared to the rest of the atmosphere

You are comparing 37,000 tons (the equivalent to approximately 12 large underground storage tank pits) of primarily vaporized magnesium/iron silicate to 28 billion tons of manmade CO2 gas released into the atmosphere every year? No doubt, you will want to rephrase that bs statement.

And you're comparing that to the 5.2 QUADRILLION TONS of atmosphere? You need to get a grip there boyo, you're starting to sound like a real science cripple here...

 

[orogenicman]

And it began when the planet was coming out of a major cooling period. So major that the magazines of the day (and the warmist pushers of today) were all warning us that we might be entering a new ice age.

How convenient.... And how ignorant a statement to come from someone who claims to be a geologist.

Oh please. That myth largely came from one science paper. Most Earth scientists were not convinced, regardless of what the popular rags were publishing.

What is not in doubt is the fact that the Arctic was at a very high level of ice. The highest seen in decades as evidenced by the even earlier newspaper reports of the Arctic ice caps demise....

And you honestly believe that those news clippings make your case for you? Oh my. Where's my facepalm image?