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.
One virus, that you can't see, measure or weigh can kill you. Doesn't seem fair, does it? Size should be everything. Doesn't seem fair that a few hundred parts per million of CO2 could cause draught and tornadoes and superstorms either.
What is Mother Nature thinking? Aren't humans entitled?
Well there you go, 0.6 watts per square meter, over an entire planet, is "scary". It's the difference between defining reality based on how you already feel and defining how you feel based on reality.
An amount of energy so small that it can't be measured?....if the claim is true in the first place...may be scary to a hysterical old granny like you, but not to rational thinking people.
Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration?
'Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown,' said Reuters. But warming is speeding up, and scientists can explain it
"Oceans, such as the Pacific pictured here from space, are absorbing much of the warming the planet is currently experiencing.
The rate of heat building up on Earth over the past decade is equivalent to detonating about 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second. Take a moment to visualize 4 atomic bomb detonations happening every single second. That's the global warming that we're frequently told isn't happening."
Edited for Fair Use link added.Why is Reuters puzzled by global warming's acceleration? | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | guardian.co.uk
You guys prove that you don't have a clue when you gobble up that sort of pap and repeat it as if it meant something. *4 Hiroshima bombs per second? *Wow. *And that impresses you?*
I guess you are unaware that the energy from the sun reaching the earth is roughly equal to 1950 Hiroshima bombs per second. *4 more causes you to quake in your boots? *
Hansen already played the Hiroshima bomb game and it blew up in his face. *Guess cook didn't get the memo...or simply assumed that the people hansen scared with his bomb talk would get scared all over again by his. *Here is the math, if you care to see how pitifully idiotic such a scare tactic is.
Lets do the numbers. First, lets convert the extra heat into an iconic image people can understand that isnt quite as scary: the incandescent light bulb (not the twisty kind). Willis Eschenbach calculated:
*
1 ton of TNT = 4.184e+9 joules (J) source
*
Hiroshima bomb = 15 kilotons of TNT = 6.28e+13 joules (ibid)
*
Hansen says increase in forcing is 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day, which comes to 2.51e+19 joules/day.
*
A watt is a joule per second, so that works out to a constant additional global forcing of 2.91e+14 watts.
*
Normally, we look at forcings in watts per square metre (W/m2). Total forcing (solar plus longwave) averaged around the globe 24/7 is about 500 watts per square metre.
*
To convert Hansens figures to a per-square-metre value, the global surface area is 5.11e+14 square metres which means that Hansens dreaded 400,000 Hiroshima bombs per day works out to 0.6 watts per square metre in other words, Hansen wants us to be very afraid because of a claimed imbalance of six tenths of a watt per square metre in a system where the downwelling radiation is half a kilowatt per square metre we cannot even measure the radiation to that kind of accuracy.
*
So imagine the output of a 0.6 watt light bulb, 1/100th the power of a common household 60 watt light bulb.
*
Could you even see it?
*
And, more importantly, can that 0.6 watt of energy imbalance even be accurately measured on a global basis?
If you beleive the math is wrong, by all means point out any errors.
Well there you go, 0.6 watts per square meter, over an entire planet, is "scary". It's the difference between defining reality based on how you already feel and defining how you feel based on reality.
One is called learning, the other psychosis.
You guys prove that you don't have a clue when you gobble up that sort of pap and repeat it as if it meant something. *4 Hiroshima bombs per second? *Wow. *And that impresses you?*
I guess you are unaware that the energy from the sun reaching the earth is roughly equal to 1950 Hiroshima bombs per second. *4 more causes you to quake in your boots? *
Hansen already played the Hiroshima bomb game and it blew up in his face. *Guess cook didn't get the memo...or simply assumed that the people hansen scared with his bomb talk would get scared all over again by his. *Here is the math, if you care to see how pitifully idiotic such a scare tactic is.
If you beleive the math is wrong, by all means point out any errors.
Well there you go, 0.6 watts per square meter, over an entire planet, is "scary". It's the difference between defining reality based on how you already feel and defining how you feel based on reality.
One is called learning, the other psychosis.
0.6W/m2 is scary?? Then why isn't 1W/m2 increased radiation from the sun since 18th century scary? 0.6W/m2 is about a single LED per MeterSq. Heck -- that's not even acceptable Christmas lighting.. I've got fireflys on my land brighter than that...*
And THAT'S whats gonna cause apocalyptic disease and bugs and hurricanes?
Well there you go, 0.6 watts per square meter, over an entire planet, is "scary". It's the difference between defining reality based on how you already feel and defining how you feel based on reality.
One is called learning, the other psychosis.
0.6W/m2 is scary?? Then why isn't 1W/m2 increased radiation from the sun since 18th century scary? 0.6W/m2 is about a single LED per MeterSq. Heck -- that's not even acceptable Christmas lighting.. I've got fireflys on my land brighter than that...*
And THAT'S whats gonna cause apocalyptic disease and bugs and hurricanes?
Yeah, what's a few micrograms of coumadin, in a 170kg person. *Geez. *It's only one part per 60 parts per billion. *That couldn't possibly kill a person.
Yeah, scale is a bit of a problem for you. *Especially in the context of sensitive systems.
Well there you go, 0.6 watts per square meter, over an entire planet, is "scary". It's the difference between defining reality based on how you already feel and defining how you feel based on reality.
One is called learning, the other psychosis.
0.6W/m2 is scary?? Then why isn't 1W/m2 increased radiation from the sun since 18th century scary? 0.6W/m2 is about a single LED per MeterSq. Heck -- that's not even acceptable Christmas lighting.. I've got fireflys on my land brighter than that...*
And THAT'S whats gonna cause apocalyptic disease and bugs and hurricanes?
Yeah, what's a few micrograms of coumadin, in a 170kg person. *Geez. *It's only one part per 60 parts per billion. *That couldn't possibly kill a person.
Yeah, scale is a bit of a problem for you. *Especially in the context of sensitive systems.
Are you still waiting for them to identify exactly which CO2 molecules reflect the IR?
0.6W/m2 is scary?? Then why isn't 1W/m2 increased radiation from the sun since 18th century scary? 0.6W/m2 is about a single LED per MeterSq. Heck -- that's not even acceptable Christmas lighting.. I've got fireflys on my land brighter than that...
And THAT'S whats gonna cause apocalyptic disease and bugs and hurricanes?
Yeah, what's a few micrograms of coumadin, in a 170kg person. *Geez. *It's only one part per 60 parts per billion. *That couldn't possibly kill a person.
Yeah, scale is a bit of a problem for you. *Especially in the context of sensitive systems.
Nice bit of plagiarism socko... no link, no source, no attribution? Way to show your ethical side...
Slackerman Limpnoodle III, tell the class what " means. Then explains what adults use Google for.
Not citing or attributing a source is plagiarism dumbass socko. And it's against board rules. It's not anyone else's job to cite his sources for him, or google them up, it's his job.. Or why not just cut the BS and call it your job, after all that's the reality of it all isn't it socko...
He has repeatedly posted that and no link or attribution in it. Not even a proper title or author name, or a written statement as to it's source or where he got it. In every sense it is plagiarism, and the fact he gave no author name we can assume his intent was to imply it was his own work...
The fact is it came from the Gaurdian UK just as I said it did, which I TOOK THE TIME TO LOOK FOR IT MYSELF... He's a plagiarist and that pretty much means you are too..
Not citing or attributing a source is plagiarism dumbass socko. And it's against board rules. It's not anyone else's job to cite his sources for him, or google them up, it's his job.. Or why not just cut the BS and call it your job, after all that's the reality of it all isn't it socko...
He has repeatedly posted that and no link or attribution in it. Not even a proper title or author name, or a written statement as to it's source or where he got it. In every sense it is plagiarism, and the fact he gave no author name we can assume his intent was to imply it was his own work...
The fact is it came from the Gaurdian UK just as I said it did, which I TOOK THE TIME TO LOOK FOR IT MYSELF... He's a plagiarist and that pretty much means you are too..
Cuz nothing says, "No climate change" like "You plagiarised."
Does it ever strike you that you have really wierd fixations that have nothing to do with the actual natural processes like temperature, CO2, acidification, drought, huricanes, wildfires, plant and animal extinctions, farming and agriculture, etc.?
Last I checked, NASA and the IPCC don't use PMZ in their climate models.
It's like how you can tell that a girl likes you because she hits you a lot. Everyone figures that out in grade school.
You may be struggling with latent homosexual feelings.
(As they say, PMZ, he's got a hard@^ for you. You must remind him of his daddy. Yuck!!)
EDIT: Could be an elder sibling or neighbor, you never know with these things
Not citing or attributing a source is plagiarism dumbass socko. And it's against board rules. It's not anyone else's job to cite his sources for him, or google them up, it's his job.. Or why not just cut the BS and call it your job, after all that's the reality of it all isn't it socko...
He has repeatedly posted that and no link or attribution in it. Not even a proper title or author name, or a written statement as to it's source or where he got it. In every sense it is plagiarism, and the fact he gave no author name we can assume his intent was to imply it was his own work...
The fact is it came from the Gaurdian UK just as I said it did, which I TOOK THE TIME TO LOOK FOR IT MYSELF... He's a plagiarist and that pretty much means you are too..
Cuz nothing says, "No climate change" like "You plagiarised."
Does it ever strike you that you have really wierd fixations that have nothing to do with the actual natural processes like temperature, CO2, acidification, drought, huricanes, wildfires, plant and animal extinctions, farming and agriculture, etc.?
Last I checked, NASA and the IPCC don't use PMZ in their climate models.
It's like how you can tell that a girl likes you because she hits you a lot. Everyone figures that out in grade school.
You may be struggling with latent homosexual feelings.
(As they say, PMZ, he's got a hard@^ for you. You must remind him of his daddy. Yuck!!)
EDIT: Could be an elder sibling or neighbor, you never know with these things
Willis Eschenbach has way too much empty time on his hands.
Enough to show your hiroshima bomb scare tactic for the idiotic hysterics it actually is.
Not citing or attributing a source is plagiarism dumbass socko. And it's against board rules. It's not anyone else's job to cite his sources for him, or google them up, it's his job.. Or why not just cut the BS and call it your job, after all that's the reality of it all isn't it socko...
He has repeatedly posted that and no link or attribution in it. Not even a proper title or author name, or a written statement as to it's source or where he got it. In every sense it is plagiarism, and the fact he gave no author name we can assume his intent was to imply it was his own work...
The fact is it came from the Gaurdian UK just as I said it did, which I TOOK THE TIME TO LOOK FOR IT MYSELF... He's a plagiarist and that pretty much means you are too..
Cuz nothing says, "No climate change" like "You plagiarised."
Does it ever strike you that you have really wierd fixations that have nothing to do with the actual natural processes like temperature, CO2, acidification, drought, huricanes, wildfires, plant and animal extinctions, farming and agriculture, etc.?
Last I checked, NASA and the IPCC don't use PMZ in their climate models.
It's like how you can tell that a girl likes you because she hits you a lot. Everyone figures that out in grade school.
You may be struggling with latent homosexual feelings.
(As they say, PMZ, he's got a hard@^ for you. You must remind him of his daddy. Yuck!!)
EDIT: Could be an elder sibling or neighbor, you never know with these things
I think that Slackerman Limpnoodle III is like a 5' 2" kid who likes basketball. Way out of his element. But, the cult has told him that he's entitled, so let the cult have him.
One virus, that you can't see, measure or weigh can kill you. Doesn't seem fair, does it? Size should be everything. Doesn't seem fair that a few hundred parts per million of CO2 could cause draught and tornadoes and superstorms either.
What is Mother Nature thinking? Aren't humans entitled?
Your virs analogy doesn't work any better than any of your others. You suck at analogy. A virus that can kill you is a fact...proveable via observation and empirical data. Show me the empirical data proving the claim of AGW. Show me the empirical data that 0.6 watts is even measurable in the incoming solar flux...much less capable of causing climate change.
Show some actual data besides your incessant unsupported claims.
0.6W/m2 is scary?? Then why isn't 1W/m2 increased radiation from the sun since 18th century scary? 0.6W/m2 is about a single LED per MeterSq. Heck -- that's not even acceptable Christmas lighting.. I've got fireflys on my land brighter than that...*
And THAT'S whats gonna cause apocalyptic disease and bugs and hurricanes?
Yeah, what's a few micrograms of coumadin, in a 170kg person. *Geez. *It's only one part per 60 parts per billion. *That couldn't possibly kill a person.
Yeah, scale is a bit of a problem for you. *Especially in the context of sensitive systems.
WestWall beat me to this. I'd rep him if I could. But your comment about "sensitive systems" is really the CRUX of the diff between you and me.. See -- (other than SSDD) we KNOW that a doubling of CO2 into the atmos is only gonna result in a 1degC change (without feedbacks). That's accepted science.. The REST of the AGW garbage relies on speculation and conjecture about how the EARTH HANDLES that stimulus..
To believe what YOU BELIEVE -- you have to think that the earth is SOOOO Fragile that a 1degC change is gonna AMPLIFY (thru feedbacks) into a 6DegC change over just this century.
That's the whole argument in a nutshell. You see CO2 as the minute hair trigger that explodes the planet.. I don't. You think the earth climate is that fragile.. I don't. Can we quit now? Because that is really the core of the argument.
((And it answers the original OP question as well))
Are you still waiting for them to identify exactly which CO2 molecules reflect the IR?
CO2 molecules don't "reflect" anything. They absorb and emit. Entirely different things. And absorption and emission does not prove that the molecule can cause warming.
Are you still waiting for them to identify exactly which CO2 molecules reflect the IR?
CO2 molecules don't "reflect" anything. They absorb and emit. Entirely different things. And absorption and emission does not prove that the molecule can cause warming.
To the degree that they do reflect rather than absorb, they are twice as effective as returning energy towards its source. And they certainly do reflect more or less depending on wavelength.
Yeah, what's a few micrograms of coumadin, in a 170kg person. *Geez. *It's only one part per 60 parts per billion. *That couldn't possibly kill a person.
Yeah, scale is a bit of a problem for you. *Especially in the context of sensitive systems.
Coumadin is proven dangerous via empirical, experimental evidence. Lets see the empirical experimental evidence that proves that CO2 can even be responsible for the .6 watts per square meter, much less that it is dangerous to all life on earth.
You really suck at analogy. Just because one thing is dangerous in small amounts does not mean that all things are dangerous in small amounts. If you can provide some hard evidence that small amounts of CO2 are dangerous, then lets see it.
CO2 molecules don't "reflect" anything. They absorb and emit. Entirely different things. And absorption and emission does not prove that the molecule can cause warming.
To the degree that they do reflect rather than absorb, they are twice as effective as returning energy towards its source. And they certainly do reflect more or less depending on wavelength.
And exactly what other wavelengths effect warming the atmosphere? LOL, dude you get dumber and dumber.. Ya ignorant fool, longwave IR is what does the deed you claim, can't even learn your own theory jesus man..
