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

[PMZ]

"Ignor"ance IS bliss sometimes...

Perhaps to you. To me, knowledge is bliss.

 

[PMZ]

What prediction did algore ever make that has come to pass? Be specific.

That AGW was real and would have extremely costly consequences for mankind. No matter what we do. But the longer that we delay reducing the problem, the more costly those consequences will be.

That is an OPINION idiot. Not a prediction, try again.

Describe for us a prediction that's not an opinion. Nobody knows anything about the future except for what's probable. Nothing is for sure.

For instance, someone could say that you're a jerk today, so you'll probably be one tomorrow. True. But not certain. You could be dead tomorrow.

 

[PMZ]

BTW, I'm not "promoting a cause". I'm representing the truth. That's what you are at odds with. Believe me, truth is way more powerful than your ego.

Science and the scientific method have no interest in truth. They only care about facts. "Truth" is the realm of religion.

You have made it quite plain you are nothing but an ignorant internet troll so I suggest to my fellow USMB'rs that we no longer feed the troll...

"Science and the scientific method have no interest in truth."

Magnificently ignorant.

 

[PMZ]

All of these goons, hired by big oil, to deny the obvious. How? For a pat on the head, and a "good dittohead".

Pathetic. Who knew that those among us are for sale so cheaply.

 

[gslack]

It's painfully clear that deniers are not educated enough to understand that they have nothing to stand on. They have bet on the wrong horse simply because he was, they thought, cheaper. Wrong on all counts. Wrong on the science, wrong on the economics, wrong on the path forward.

I don't know when the last flat earther died, perhaps he hasn't yet, but those who think that science can be manipulated to support their personal agendas always lose. Mankind doesn't invent truth, they learn it. The universe simply doesn't care what humanity wants.

Investors understand and those who are placing their bets now are betting on sustainable. There are still more politics to be applied to getting those who got wealthy from fossil fuels to pay all of their own bills rather than dump them on the taxpayers. But as the republican party has chosen extinction over adaption the noise will die away pretty quickly.

And, "An Inconvenient Truth", will be regarded by history as the prescient work that it was.

In other words you can't account for your logic when it's tested, so you decide to grandstand and divert rather than defend your claims.. Got it...

Next sock please, this one's done..

I have not seen anyone tested by you. In fact, I haven't observed anyone trying to debate my science. Just 3ird grade name calling.

That's why your "side" has been so ostracized. Trying to introduce politics into science for your personal benefit. That certainly makes you both a bad scientist and a bad politician.

And unAmerican.

And irresponsible.

And disingenuous.

And ignorant.

I have stated my position simply and clearly. Nobody has disputed it. That's why the business community is moving on it.

Dude everyone BUT your big brothers have disputed your claims.. Seriously man time to up your meds...ROFL

 

[westwall]

In other words you can't account for your logic when it's tested, so you decide to grandstand and divert rather than defend your claims.. Got it...

Next sock please, this one's done..

I have not seen anyone tested by you. In fact, I haven't observed anyone trying to debate my science. Just 3ird grade name calling.

That's why your "side" has been so ostracized. Trying to introduce politics into science for your personal benefit. That certainly makes you both a bad scientist and a bad politician.

And unAmerican.

And irresponsible.

And disingenuous.

And ignorant.

I have stated my position simply and clearly. Nobody has disputed it. That's why the business community is moving on it.

Dude everyone BUT your big brothers have disputed your claims.. Seriously man time to up your meds...ROFL

 

[flacaltenn]

Do I detect another troll melt-down here?? Am I missing it in my "filtered" world?

***********************
View Post Today, 09:31 PM
Remove user from ignore listPMZ
This message is hidden because PMZ is on your ignore list.

View Post Today, 09:37 PM
Remove user from ignore listPMZ
This message is hidden because PMZ is on your ignore list.

View Post Today, 09:39 PM
Remove user from ignore listPMZ
This message is hidden because PMZ is on your ignore list.

View Post Today, 09:45 PM
Remove user from ignore listPMZ
This message is hidden because PMZ is on your ignore list.
*********************************

4 Posts in 14 minutes !!!

First ItFitzMe and now PMZ?? Must be a basic design flaw at the troll factory...
I suspect they skimped on the CPU cycle times and memory.

 

[itfitzme]

Nothing will be significant without China

At 1.344 billion, the population of China is 4.3 times that of the US. With emissions at 9.7 million metric tons (est 2011), it leads the world in total output, with the US coming in at 5.4 million total. On the other hand*per capita output is less than the US 17.3 metric tons per capita, less than half at 7.2.

Never the less, while China emissions per capita did show a decline in growth rate beginning in '05, the rate continues to rise through '09. *The US has, on the other hand, been flat for some time, declining into '09.

us co2 emissioms - Google Search

This is an interesting issue as each can claim success, compared to the other, one on per capita output and zero growth, the other on per
capita output.

China seems to be commited to reducing the growth rate of emissions. *A bit weak of an attempt.

Article-Guardian, UK
(2013)
Is China really a climate change leader? | Jennifer Duggan

China's Policy
(2012)
http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/File1324.pdf

The UN report on China's Policy
*(No date, after '05, before '10)
http://www.un.org/ga/president/61/follow-up/climatechange/China-KeyElements.pdf
*

 

[IanC]

Ergo, there has been no rise in CO2 global mean temperature...

Are you working on this chance to embarrass and defeat me??? Please feel free to work with the other 1/10 of your brain PMZ and produce for us both the warming projected SOLELY FROM CO2 and the wild claims made by the IPCC, the model butchers, and all your heroes including Al Gore..

Here's a hint --- Even AL GORE knows that the temp rise due to CO2 alone is not hysterical enough "to play on your FEARS"......

Quit scratching your ass, talk to your sock or clone and do some work...

Let's start with what we apparently agree on.

1) The more greenhouse gas molecules that there are in the atmosphere the more longwave radiation into space is reduced. However there is no effect on the incoming shortwave solar radiation.

2) Any body in a vacuum can only be affected by radiant energy. There are no other thermodynamic effects possible through a vacuum.

3) if a body in a vacuum receives radiant energy, it will rise in temperature until it radiates the same amount of energy away.

Do you agree so far? If not, what is your different understanding for these situations?

you make the same case as konradv. that CO2 makes it more difficult for the surface to shed radiation therefore it must be causing global warming now, and more global warming in the future. I agree with the basic mechanism and so do all of the major skeptics.

so why is there such a heated argument over 'settled science'? because it is only one factor out of many, many factors in the climate system. calculations suggest ~1C per doubling of CO2 if all other factors remain the same. although this calculation is also a model, the parameters are constrained enough to have confidence in the output.

is it the 1C rise from 280-560 ppm that is causing the hysteria? perhaps the second 1C from 560-1120 ppm? no, it is the 3x feedback factor that climate models have built in that are calling for catastrophe. that positive feedback has been found to be wildly exaggerated in the last few years, as could easily be expected because the earth is full of homeostatic negative feedbacks with very few unstable 'tipping point' positive ones.

if you look at Trenberth's energy budget, what do you see? take a good look at the different pathways, both below and above the clouds.

what did you see?

besides the 40W that directly escapes the surface through the 10 micrometer atmospheric window, how much pinballs its way to the top of the clouds? 26W. what takes most of the energy up to the cloudtop and passed the greenhouse effect blockage? thermals and evapotranspiration, 17W +80W.

you are worried about CO2 blocking some of that 26W out, and you have been told that it is increased by water vapour feedbacks. but water vapour and clouds are what is taking most of the energy away! ever wonder why tropical water gets warm but no warmer? thunderstorms pump the heat out. if you increased the solar input, thunderstorms would start earlier and more often. if you decreased the solar input, thunderstorms would start later and less often.

to reiterate- you are right in a narrow sense that CO2 causes warming by restricting the outward flow of some wavelengths of IR radiation from the surface. but you are wrong to think that it is an independent factor that does not interact with other factors, or that it can be separated out and individually be measured. the effect of CO2 is lost in the uncertainty of our understanding of water vapour and clouds. remember high school science and math? the precision of your result is only as good as your least precise measurement!

 

[SSDD]

What you are providing evidence for, maybe even proof of, are the limitations to your ability to understand and learn. That is not my problem. Nor am I able to solve your problem. Only you can do that.

So you admit that you have no observed, measured proof that man's activities are causing global warming and are going to try to make your point with a mind experiment. Good. That's a start.

Let's do first things first.

A body in empty space. A radiant heat source adding energy to it. What happens?

The correct answer of course is that it would increase in temperature until it was radiating out the same amount of energy as it was receiving.

Do you agree?

The correct answer is yes, if the body in empty space is a perfect blackbody. If the body you are referring to is earth, then you must first answer a question. Is the earth a perfect blackbody? If not, then you are already off the rails with your premise as you will find that you will have to fudge, twist, misuse, and dishonestly manipulate the laws of physics in an attempt to move your point further.

 

[SSDD]

If you really want to learn from the web everything that you need to to understand AGW, here's a good source.

At this point in time, what I need to understand is that I have asked not only you, but a very large number of people for observed, measured proof that man's CO2 emissions are causing the climate to warm. You, like all the others have failed to provide anything even close to observed, measured proof. You all claim to have proof, but none of you provide it. You have belief, assumptions, hunches, logical fallacies, suppositions, hypotheses, and inferences....and you have computer models based on the same that have failed miserably.

What I am asking for is observed, measured proof that man's CO2 emissions are causing the global climate to warm and if you have such proof, you should be able to state how much warming man's CO2 emissions are causing.

So lets see the observed, measured data.

 

[SSDD]

"Ignor"ance IS bliss sometimes...

Perhaps to you. To me, knowledge is bliss.

Then start by knowing that you are operating on the basis of assumptions as oppsed to hard, observed, measured data that proves AGW.

 

[SSDD]

Describe for us a prediction that's not an opinion. Nobody knows anything about the future except for what's probable. Nothing is for sure.

I predict that if I drop a stone off my deck, it will fall to the ground. That is a prediction based on hard, observed, measurable observation over time. There is no opinion there, simply the repetition of observed and recorded data.

I predict that from my point of view, the sun will appear over the eastern horizon in the morning and will dissappear over the western horizon at the end of the day. Not opinion...the application of hard, observed, measured data applied over time.

I could make a thousand predictions based on the laws of physics that would come to pass and never miss a single one because they would be based on hard, observed, measured data applied over time. Predictions revolving around AGW are not based on hard, observed, measured data over time...they are based on computer models which are running on flawed physics based on assumption, hunches, logical fallacies, suppositions, hypotheses, and inferences...not hard, observed, measurable data.

 

[PMZ]

In other words you can't account for your logic when it's tested, so you decide to grandstand and divert rather than defend your claims.. Got it...

Next sock please, this one's done..

I have not seen anyone tested by you. In fact, I haven't observed anyone trying to debate my science. Just 3ird grade name calling.

That's why your "side" has been so ostracized. Trying to introduce politics into science for your personal benefit. That certainly makes you both a bad scientist and a bad politician.

And unAmerican.

And irresponsible.

And disingenuous.

And ignorant.

I have stated my position simply and clearly. Nobody has disputed it. That's why the business community is moving on it.

Dude everyone BUT your big brothers have disputed your claims.. Seriously man time to up your meds...ROFL

I have always realized that there are certain personalities who are comfortable with what's in their heads so elect to never go further. Their choice. My inclination though is to make sure that their self induced ignorance doesn't spread to those capable of more. So, enjoy where you are if that really is the limit to your ability. Just don't pretend that it is anything more, you'll accomplish nothing, because the rest of the world is already down the street.

Be a proud flat earther.

 

[PMZ]

What you are providing evidence for, maybe even proof of, are the limitations to your ability to understand and learn. That is not my problem. Nor am I able to solve your problem. Only you can do that.

So you admit that you have no observed, measured proof that man's activities are causing global warming and are going to try to make your point with a mind experiment. Good. That's a start.

Let's do first things first.

A body in empty space. A radiant heat source adding energy to it. What happens?

The correct answer of course is that it would increase in temperature until it was radiating out the same amount of energy as it was receiving.

Do you agree?

The correct answer is yes, if the body in empty space is a perfect blackbody. If the body you are referring to is earth, then you must first answer a question. Is the earth a perfect blackbody? If not, then you are already off the rails with your premise as you will find that you will have to fudge, twist, misuse, and dishonestly manipulate the laws of physics in an attempt to move your point further.

It has nothing at all to do with black bodies. It applies to all bodies. It applies to all molecules. It applies to all spatial bodies.

 

[PMZ]

Are you working on this chance to embarrass and defeat me??? Please feel free to work with the other 1/10 of your brain PMZ and produce for us both the warming projected SOLELY FROM CO2 and the wild claims made by the IPCC, the model butchers, and all your heroes including Al Gore..

Here's a hint --- Even AL GORE knows that the temp rise due to CO2 alone is not hysterical enough "to play on your FEARS"......

Quit scratching your ass, talk to your sock or clone and do some work...

Let's start with what we apparently agree on.

1) The more greenhouse gas molecules that there are in the atmosphere the more longwave radiation into space is reduced. However there is no effect on the incoming shortwave solar radiation.

2) Any body in a vacuum can only be affected by radiant energy. There are no other thermodynamic effects possible through a vacuum.

3) if a body in a vacuum receives radiant energy, it will rise in temperature until it radiates the same amount of energy away.

Do you agree so far? If not, what is your different understanding for these situations?

you make the same case as konradv. that CO2 makes it more difficult for the surface to shed radiation therefore it must be causing global warming now, and more global warming in the future. I agree with the basic mechanism and so do all of the major skeptics.

so why is there such a heated argument over 'settled science'? because it is only one factor out of many, many factors in the climate system. calculations suggest ~1C per doubling of CO2 if all other factors remain the same. although this calculation is also a model, the parameters are constrained enough to have confidence in the output.

is it the 1C rise from 280-560 ppm that is causing the hysteria? perhaps the second 1C from 560-1120 ppm? no, it is the 3x feedback factor that climate models have built in that are calling for catastrophe. that positive feedback has been found to be wildly exaggerated in the last few years, as could easily be expected because the earth is full of homeostatic negative feedbacks with very few unstable 'tipping point' positive ones.

if you look at Trenberth's energy budget, what do you see? take a good look at the different pathways, both below and above the clouds.

what did you see?

besides the 40W that directly escapes the surface through the 10 micrometer atmospheric window, how much pinballs its way to the top of the clouds? 26W. what takes most of the energy up to the cloudtop and passed the greenhouse effect blockage? thermals and evapotranspiration, 17W +80W.

you are worried about CO2 blocking some of that 26W out, and you have been told that it is increased by water vapour feedbacks. but water vapour and clouds are what is taking most of the energy away! ever wonder why tropical water gets warm but no warmer? thunderstorms pump the heat out. if you increased the solar input, thunderstorms would start earlier and more often. if you decreased the solar input, thunderstorms would start later and less often.

to reiterate- you are right in a narrow sense that CO2 causes warming by restricting the outward flow of some wavelengths of IR radiation from the surface. but you are wrong to think that it is an independent factor that does not interact with other factors, or that it can be separated out and individually be measured. the effect of CO2 is lost in the uncertainty of our understanding of water vapour and clouds. remember high school science and math? the precision of your result is only as good as your least precise measurement!

"so why is there such a heated argument over 'settled science'?"

There isn't among scientists. Just among politicians. Because you choose to spend all of your time in skeptics bars, it may seem so to you, but there really is no argument among scientists.

All of the remaining modeling and data collecting to be done is in quantifying the impacts from AGW to understand the costs of various rates of progress in solving the problem.

Accomplishing the reduction in the variability of those costs among the various models has been, is, and will be a tough challange and, given peak oil, may never be completed to everyone's satisfaction. Given that there are so many other reasons to end the fossil fuel era ASAP, the present variability may just be good enough.

While AGW is a fact, what's not certain are what costs would be avoided if we stopped our production of co2 completely today. Given the time constants due to earth's thermal inertia and all of the feedback loops it could be decades before we've had to deal with all of the impact of the current co2 load.

 

[SSDD]

It has nothing at all to do with black bodies. It applies to all bodies. It applies to all molecules. It applies to all spatial bodies.

Perhaps you should learn the difference between a blackbody and graybodies of varying degrees.

 

[SSDD]

"so why is there such a heated argument over 'settled science'?"

There isn't among scientists. Just among politicians. Because you choose to spend all of your time in skeptics bars, it may seem so to you, but there really is no argument among scientists.

The science is only "settled" among a very small group of climate scientists.

All of the remaining modeling and data collecting to be done is in quantifying the impacts from AGW to understand the costs of various rates of progress in solving the problem.

Hardly. None of that matters till they can actually produce a model that has some predictive power in regards to the climate. Thus far, they are abject failures in large part due to the flawed physics and unfounded assumptions programmed into them.

While AGW is a fact,

AGW is not fact. It is an assumption. If it were fact, then you would be able to produce hard, observed, measured evidence of it and say precisely how much warming is due to man's CO2 emissions. By now it is obvious that you can't. It may be fact that you believe in AGW, but AGW itself is not fact.

 

[PMZ]

If you really want to learn from the web everything that you need to to understand AGW, here's a good source.

At this point in time, what I need to understand is that I have asked not only you, but a very large number of people for observed, measured proof that man's CO2 emissions are causing the climate to warm. You, like all the others have failed to provide anything even close to observed, measured proof. You all claim to have proof, but none of you provide it. You have belief, assumptions, hunches, logical fallacies, suppositions, hypotheses, and inferences....and you have computer models based on the same that have failed miserably.

What I am asking for is observed, measured proof that man's CO2 emissions are causing the global climate to warm and if you have such proof, you should be able to state how much warming man's CO2 emissions are causing.

So lets see the observed, measured data.

What's been provided to you as data, theory, and observation to support AGW is nearly infinitely more evidence than you and others have provided to deny it.

There is no science that denies it.

The only question is, where are we in response to what we've already dumped into the atmosphere over the last 100 years?

 

[PMZ]

"so why is there such a heated argument over 'settled science'?"

There isn't among scientists. Just among politicians. Because you choose to spend all of your time in skeptics bars, it may seem so to you, but there really is no argument among scientists.

The science is only "settled" among a very small group of climate scientists.

All of the remaining modeling and data collecting to be done is in quantifying the impacts from AGW to understand the costs of various rates of progress in solving the problem.

Hardly. None of that matters till they can actually produce a model that has some predictive power in regards to the climate. Thus far, they are abject failures in large part due to the flawed physics and unfounded assumptions programmed into them.

While AGW is a fact,

AGW is not fact. It is an assumption. If it were fact, then you would be able to produce hard, observed, measured evidence of it and say precisely how much warming is due to man's CO2 emissions. By now it is obvious that you can't. It may be fact that you believe in AGW, but AGW itself is not fact.

AGW is a fact to everyone who understands the science. That obviously excludes you.

What's left is to calculate the consequences of the fact of it, at the current and future levels of it, to civilization.