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

[PMZ]

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.

Yes, yes socko, I'm a 5'2" oriental, black guy with the biggest afro you ever saw. I like basketball and slapping forum trolls... Guess which one I prefer right now?? Go on guess...

LOL,in reality I look much like my avatar. I made it myself.. A hobby.. Want to know more? Ask nicely..

Impossible to tell from an avatar but 5' 2" is a definite possibility.

 

[gslack]

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.

Yes, yes socko, I'm a 5'2" oriental, black guy with the biggest afro you ever saw. I like basketball and slapping forum trolls... Guess which one I prefer right now?? Go on guess...

LOL,in reality I look much like my avatar. I made it myself.. A hobby.. Want to know more? Ask nicely..

Impossible to tell from an avatar but 5' 2" is a definite possibility.

Just as your scientific expertise is impossible to tell from your posts..IFITZPMZPOOPIEDOO
sock

 

[PMZ]

Yes, yes socko, I'm a 5'2" oriental, black guy with the biggest afro you ever saw. I like basketball and slapping forum trolls... Guess which one I prefer right now?? Go on guess...

LOL,in reality I look much like my avatar. I made it myself.. A hobby.. Want to know more? Ask nicely..

Impossible to tell from an avatar but 5' 2" is a definite possibility.

Just as your scientific expertise is impossible to tell from your posts..IFITZPMZPOOPIEDOO
sock

Yours however is totally obvious.

 

[gslack]

Impossible to tell from an avatar but 5' 2" is a definite possibility.

Just as your scientific expertise is impossible to tell from your posts..IFITZPMZPOOPIEDOO
sock

Yours however is totally obvious.

Why yes it is rather obvious I'm a data analyst isn't it... You really shouldn't try and out "one-line" people here socko.. It's a battle of wits and you're unarmed...

 

[PMZ]

Just as your scientific expertise is impossible to tell from your posts..IFITZPMZPOOPIEDOO
sock

Yours however is totally obvious.

Why yes it is rather obvious I'm a data analyst isn't it... You really shouldn't try and out "one-line" people here socko.. It's a battle of wits and you're unarmed...

If you analyze the data accurately you'd know how far behind you are. And falling further behind than irrelevant is, well, irrelevant.

 

[gslack]

Yours however is totally obvious.

Why yes it is rather obvious I'm a data analyst isn't it... You really shouldn't try and out "one-line" people here socko.. It's a battle of wits and you're unarmed...

If you analyze the data accurately you'd know how far behind you are. And falling further behind than irrelevant is, well, irrelevant.

And if you had something better than a home-schooled education, and got out of your house and spoke with real people, perhaps you wouldn't seems like such a babbling idiot..

Two of you (or one of you playing two) together and you can't make a coherent statement, or simply a witty response...

Again you're an unarmed man here socko...

 

[itfitzme]

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))

No one except you suggests the Earth is going to explode. You seem to reason through exageration. *A) "AWG say the Earth will explode" b) "The Earth won't explode." c) "Ergo, there is no global warming"

"If its not freacky scary, it doesn't exist"

It's the difference between gross and fine motor skills. *Chimpanzees have gross motor skills. Humans have fine motor skills.

The thinking by exageration really doesn't work well.

 

[gslack]

I think I'll call the IFITZPMZPOOPIEDOO sock waterboy from now on...They babble like the waterboy in the Adam Sandler film..

Me: AGW is pseudo-science!

Waterboy(s) : M, m-m-m, my mmmmm-momma says, that alligators is ornery cause they got all them teeth and no, t-toothbrush...

 

[itfitzme]

Anyways...

Here is an interesting page that presents some math.

Global Warming Mathematics

They are approximations to the non-linear equations used in finite element analysis models.

 

[SSDD]

Empirical means existing. Humans (most) use science to anticipate what is coming in order to mitigate it before it causes damage. If your brakes are going do you wait for the inevitable accident to gather empirical evidence of their demise? Get real.

Get your self a dictionary. Empirical, as the word is used in science means:

"Relying on or derived from observation or experiment"

My brakes provide empirical evidence that they are going to fail. Older vehicles have wear indicators that provide an audio feedback (noise) when your brake pads are getting thin. Newer vehicles have brake pad sensors that tell you that the brake pads are getting thin. My brake fluid resivor provides empirical evidence as to whether I have sufficient brake fluid in my system, and my brake pedal provides empirical evidence as to the soundness of the system every time I apply the brakes.

So yes, I wait for empirical evidence that my brakes are going before I work on them. Do you go around spending money on automotive systems that are not showing actual signs of wear and tear?

 

[SSDD]

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.

They don't reflect at all. They absorb and emit. If you believe they reflect, then you really are an idiot. There aren't many topics that you can google and get next to nothing back on but the "reflective" qualities of CO2 molecules are one of them. Only a true scientific illiterate would suggest that CO2 molecules "reflect" anything. Congratulations.

 

[itfitzme]

The Palmer Drought Severity Index seems to be the prefered measure.

Websites generally focus on local climate.

A Wyoming historical graph is

 

[flacaltenn]

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))

No one except you suggests the Earth is going to explode. You seem to reason through exageration. *A) "AWG say the Earth will explode" b) "The Earth won't explode." c) "Ergo, there is no global warming"

"If its not freacky scary, it doesn't exist"

It's the difference between gross and fine motor skills. *Chimpanzees have gross motor skills. Humans have fine motor skills.

The thinking by exageration really doesn't work well.

So why are you exaggerating how frail and "sensitive" the climate system is? You don't think that blowing up 1.1DegC for doubling CO2 to 6degC this century this century isn't exaggeration? You don't think putting Miami under water or Malaria in Kansas isn't exaggeration? Actually -- some of your cohorts are literally WAITING for the explosion..

GoldiRocks wakes up daily to see if the Arctic is still cool. and if his frozen GHGas calthrates have thawed yet. He DOES expect the end result to be a gigantic fuel-air bomb going off. Maybe he'll even give you a date..

 

[itfitzme]

Empirical means existing. Humans (most) use science to anticipate what is coming in order to mitigate it before it causes damage. If your brakes are going do you wait for the inevitable accident to gather empirical evidence of their demise? Get real.

Get your self a dictionary. *Empirical, as the word is used in science means:

"Relying on or derived from observation or experiment"

My brakes provide empirical evidence that they are going to fail. * Older vehicles have wear indicators that provide an audio feedback (noise) when your brake pads are getting thin. *Newer vehicles have brake pad sensors that tell you that the brake pads are getting thin. *My brake fluid resivor provides empirical evidence as to whether I have sufficient brake fluid in my system, and my brake pedal provides empirical evidence as to the soundness of the system every time I apply the brakes.

So yes, I wait for empirical evidence that my brakes are going before I work on them. *Do you go around spending money on automotive systems that are not showing actual signs of wear and tear?

Well then, here are the wear indicators

TEMPERATURE

SEA LEVEL

ICE VOLUME

CO2

HEAT CONTENT

Now were just watching for the brakes to fail. *Or do we think that the squeeling stopped because the brakes just got better by themselves?

What do you need, a dead horse on your lawn?

 

[Foxfyre]

Empirical means existing. Humans (most) use science to anticipate what is coming in order to mitigate it before it causes damage. If your brakes are going do you wait for the inevitable accident to gather empirical evidence of their demise? Get real.

Get your self a dictionary. Empirical, as the word is used in science means:

"Relying on or derived from observation or experiment"

My brakes provide empirical evidence that they are going to fail. Older vehicles have wear indicators that provide an audio feedback (noise) when your brake pads are getting thin. Newer vehicles have brake pad sensors that tell you that the brake pads are getting thin. My brake fluid resivor provides empirical evidence as to whether I have sufficient brake fluid in my system, and my brake pedal provides empirical evidence as to the soundness of the system every time I apply the brakes.

So yes, I wait for empirical evidence that my brakes are going before I work on them. Do you go around spending money on automotive systems that are not showing actual signs of wear and tear?

In his world he changes brake pads before they show wear, just in case. He replaces his tail lights once a week because they might go out sometime in the future. He has the repair shop change the air in his tires because you never can tell when it might be bad. And he then parks his car because there is a chance he could have an accident if he drives it. He goes broke and misses out on many of the good things in life, but by golly he is prepared for the worst despite the fact that there is no empirical evidence that doing any of that will help anything at all.

So much of what the warmers demand is just that silly, useless, expensive, restrictive, and counter productive.

 

[itfitzme]

Drought is the potentially costliest impact of global climate change.

Drought damage could top $200 billion

"The current drought pattern may be the costliest U.S. natural disaster of 2012 and 2013, according to experts with Harris-Mann Climatology. The long-range weather, commodity and stock forecasting service released their annual summer outlook last week, and the news wasn’t good for much of the Corn Belt"

"If the drought pattern continues, its damage estimates could be near $200 billion, making it the country’s costliest natural disaster of 2012 and 2013– even more costly than Hurricane Sandy.
“We’re still in a pattern of wild weather ‘extremes,’ the worst in more than 1,000 years, since the days of Leif Ericsson. For example, 2012 was the warmest year ever for the U.S., but on January 22, 2013, there was a record for the most ice and snow across the Northern Hemisphere continent,” Harris added."

Thankfully;

"The National Weather Service’s U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook, updated on May 16, shows drought improving or leaving much of the central Plains and areas east of the Mississippi River."

Unfortunately,

"The National Weather Service Outlook also sees a dry and hot summer, though the Southwest is the target for the driest and hottest forecast of the summer"

Temperature Outlook

Precipitation Outlook

We can only dream that global warming has stopped. *Unfortunately, a 10-13 year hiatus in rising global mean temperatures doesn't significantly impact the odds from a century long trend.

 

[westwall]

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))

No one except you suggests the Earth is going to explode. You seem to reason through exageration. *A) "AWG say the Earth will explode" b) "The Earth won't explode." c) "Ergo, there is no global warming"

"If its not freacky scary, it doesn't exist"

It's the difference between gross and fine motor skills. *Chimpanzees have gross motor skills. Humans have fine motor skills.

The thinking by exageration really doesn't work well.

If your whole message weren't based purely on hyperbole you might have had a point. As it's not, you have none.

 

[westwall]

Empirical means existing. Humans (most) use science to anticipate what is coming in order to mitigate it before it causes damage. If your brakes are going do you wait for the inevitable accident to gather empirical evidence of their demise? Get real.

Get your self a dictionary. Empirical, as the word is used in science means:

"Relying on or derived from observation or experiment"

My brakes provide empirical evidence that they are going to fail. Older vehicles have wear indicators that provide an audio feedback (noise) when your brake pads are getting thin. Newer vehicles have brake pad sensors that tell you that the brake pads are getting thin. My brake fluid resivor provides empirical evidence as to whether I have sufficient brake fluid in my system, and my brake pedal provides empirical evidence as to the soundness of the system every time I apply the brakes.

So yes, I wait for empirical evidence that my brakes are going before I work on them. Do you go around spending money on automotive systems that are not showing actual signs of wear and tear?

It is very illustrative that these clowns don't even know the BASICS. They say we're anti-science when it is them who don't know the first thing about science! Not even fundamental definitions! Too funny!

 

[PMZ]

Why yes it is rather obvious I'm a data analyst isn't it... You really shouldn't try and out "one-line" people here socko.. It's a battle of wits and you're unarmed...

If you analyze the data accurately you'd know how far behind you are. And falling further behind than irrelevant is, well, irrelevant.

And if you had something better than a home-schooled education, and got out of your house and spoke with real people, perhaps you wouldn't seems like such a babbling idiot..

Two of you (or one of you playing two) together and you can't make a coherent statement, or simply a witty response...

Again you're an unarmed man here socko...

Limpnoodle, I don't know who convinced you that the uneducated are entitled to the truth, but I'm here to expose that lie for all to see. You had the same chance as the rest of us to learn and you wasted it thinking that you could somehow fake it through life. You've been exposed. Here. You're firing blanks.

What you've demonstrated is that ignorance can be incurable.

 

[PMZ]

I think I'll call the IFITZPMZPOOPIEDOO sock waterboy from now on...They babble like the waterboy in the Adam Sandler film..

Me: AGW is pseudo-science!

Waterboy(s) : M, m-m-m, my mmmmm-momma says, that alligators is ornery cause they got all them teeth and no, t-toothbrush...

Here's brilliance personified. A monumental contribution to the annals of mankind. Or is it from the anals of mankind.