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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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..
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?
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.
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.
The only one exposed here for all to see as an abject fool is....you. You try and lecture us on scientific matters but you lack the most simple knowledge. You have no clue about the absolute basics of the scientific method, your scientific vocabulary and acumen is less than most 5th graders I've known.
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 wasnt good for much of the Corn Belt"
"If the drought pattern continues, its damage estimates could be near $200 billion, making it the countrys costliest natural disaster of 2012 and 2013 even more costly than Hurricane Sandy.
Were 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 Services 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.
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.
LOL,let's see... Your CO2 sequestering theory? I outed and showed it to be nonsense. Everytime you try and post anything remotely scientific westwall or SSD embarrass you and show how little you understand of any of it. And now we see you losing an insult match pitifully, and your defense???
LOL what IS your defense exactly? To deny it happened at all? Circle talk? Babble? What is it socko?
can't handle science, can't handle politics, can't handle common sense, and now you can't handle an insult match...ROFL
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..
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.
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 wasnt good for much of the Corn Belt"
"If the drought pattern continues, its damage estimates could be near $200 billion, making it the countrys costliest natural disaster of 2012 and 2013 even more costly than Hurricane Sandy.
Were 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 Services 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"
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.
Draught, schmaught. If you're thirsty, or your dog is, or your land, just turn on the faucet. There's always water there.
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..
"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.. "
There's an exageration. *Yeah, me and my buddy Hansen. Yeah, I was just over at his house this weekend. Yeah, that's it... I hung out with Hansen and then whole Working Group I. *We played pool, drank beer, and swapped stories about CO2... Yeah, that's it. *They're my buddied, compadres,*cohorts. *We like to refer to each other as proxies. *Cuz were all the same...
Beats the hell out of me what the temp/CO2 is.
What does this graph give?
(1+.5)/(380-305)=1.5/75=1/50 degF/CO2ppm
(380-280)/(2010-1940)=1.43CO2/year
So if CO2 is now 400, double to 800, 400/50 = 8
8+1 = 9 deg F
400/1.43 = 280 years
Nope, I get 9 for "doubling CO2" but that'll be 280
years.
It's 2010 and this century is, well it is this century. How about by 2100. *8degF/280y= 1/35 degF/y. *90y/35 y/degF = 2.57 degF. *So now at 1 plus 2.57 and thats *3.57 by 2100, give or take 3 years.
year * CO2 * Temp
2010 *380 * * *1
2013 *400 * * *_
2100 * * * * * *3.57
2293 *900 * * *9
But that's just on a calculator. *It might be better to use PC and better equations. *And I haven't double checked the math.
What's the IPCC get?
What's your best estimate?
Oh, that's right, you can't do math. *All you can do is exaggerate, whine, and complain about your exaggerations.
Oh, btw, carbon dioxide doesn't explode.
The idiot thinks CO is explosive.
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.
"So much of what the warmers demand is just that silly, useless, expensive, restrictive, and counter productive."
Based on what, "I don't like it?" *Oh, yeah, that's right, you think the recession was caused by the lightbulb ban and low flush toilets.
*
Cuz the recession was bad. Restrictions are bad. *So low flush toilets are bad. Ergo, low flush toilets are like the recession. *Makes sense.*
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.
"So much of what the warmers demand is just that silly, useless, expensive, restrictive, and counter productive."
Based on what, "I don't like it?" *Oh, yeah, that's right, you think the recession was caused by the lightbulb ban and low flush toilets.
*
Cuz the recession was bad. Restrictions are bad. *So low flush toilets are bad. Ergo, low flush toilets are like the recession. *Makes sense.*
There's that whistling sound again. . . .
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..
"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.. "
There's an exageration. *Yeah, me and my buddy Hansen. Yeah, I was just over at his house this weekend. Yeah, that's it... I hung out with Hansen and then whole Working Group I. *We played pool, drank beer, and swapped stories about CO2... Yeah, that's it. *They're my buddied, compadres,*cohorts. *We like to refer to each other as proxies. *Cuz were all the same...
Beats the hell out of me what the temp/CO2 is.
What does this graph give?
(1+.5)/(380-305)=1.5/75=1/50 degF/CO2ppm
(380-280)/(2010-1940)=1.43CO2/year
So if CO2 is now 400, double to 800, 400/50 = 8
8+1 = 9 deg F
400/1.43 = 280 years
Nope, I get 9 for "doubling CO2" but that'll be 280
years.
It's 2010 and this century is, well it is this century. How about by 2100. *8degF/280y= 1/35 degF/y. *90y/35 y/degF = 2.57 degF. *So now at 1 plus 2.57 and thats *3.57 by 2100, give or take 3 years.
year * CO2 * Temp
2010 *380 * * *1
2013 *400 * * *_
2100 * * * * * *3.57
2293 *900 * * *9
But that's just on a calculator. *It might be better to use PC and better equations. *And I haven't double checked the math.
What's the IPCC get?
What's your best estimate?
Oh, that's right, you can't do math. *All you can do is exaggerate, whine, and complain about your exaggerations.
Oh, btw, carbon dioxide doesn't explode.
The idiot thinks CO is explosive.
Your math sucks as usual.. CO2 forcing function is logarithmic. We'll save that big word for next week. Each additional contribution of CO2 causes smaller warming factors.*
Already told you that a doubling of CO2 ALONE without feedbacks and imagined monsters under the bed --- from 250ppm to 500ppm would result in 1.1DegC. All those other projections from the IPCC?? Based on WIDELY RANGING and SPECULATIVE theory about climate sensitivity and how much CO2 will be emitted.*
Can't tell who's on first without a program dude. But it's really as simple as that...
BTW: *Thanks for telling everyone how dumb you are about this topic.. Guess the comment about Arctic Calthrates went right thru that void between your ears. The theory there is melting of frozen METHANE under the Arctic shelf. TRILLIONS of sq ft of it.*
It IS a GWGas.. And it DOES explode..
Guess a hundred posts from now -- you might have a passing aquaintance with that theory you support.
*Chilling stupidity.
*Thanks for playing.. Next !!!
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..
"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.. "
There's an exageration. *Yeah, me and my buddy Hansen. Yeah, I was just over at his house this weekend. Yeah, that's it... I hung out with Hansen and then whole Working Group I. *We played pool, drank beer, and swapped stories about CO2... Yeah, that's it. *They're my buddied, compadres,*cohorts. *We like to refer to each other as proxies. *Cuz were all the same...
Beats the hell out of me what the temp/CO2 is.
What does this graph give?
(1+.5)/(380-305)=1.5/75=1/50 degF/CO2ppm
(380-280)/(2010-1940)=1.43CO2/year
So if CO2 is now 400, double to 800, 400/50 = 8
8+1 = 9 deg F
400/1.43 = 280 years
Nope, I get 9 for "doubling CO2" but that'll be 280
years.
It's 2010 and this century is, well it is this century. How about by 2100. *8degF/280y= 1/35 degF/y. *90y/35 y/degF = 2.57 degF. *So now at 1 plus 2.57 and thats *3.57 by 2100, give or take 3 years.
year * CO2 * Temp
2010 *380 * * *1
2013 *400 * * *_
2100 * * * * * *3.57
2293 *900 * * *9
But that's just on a calculator. *It might be better to use PC and better equations. *And I haven't double checked the math.
What's the IPCC get?
What's your best estimate?
Oh, that's right, you can't do math. *All you can do is exaggerate, whine, and complain about your exaggerations.
Oh, btw, carbon dioxide doesn't explode.
The idiot thinks CO is explosive.
Your math sucks as usual.. CO2 forcing function is logarithmic. We'll save that big word for next week. Each additional contribution of CO2 causes smaller warming factors.*
Already told you that a doubling of CO2 ALONE without feedbacks and imagined monsters under the bed --- from 250ppm to 500ppm would result in 1.1DegC. All those other projections from the IPCC?? Based on WIDELY RANGING and SPECULATIVE theory about climate sensitivity and how much CO2 will be emitted.*
Can't tell who's on first without a program dude. But it's really as simple as that...
BTW: *Thanks for telling everyone how dumb you are about this topic.. Guess the comment about Arctic Calthrates went right thru that void between your ears. The theory there is melting of frozen METHANE under the Arctic shelf. TRILLIONS of sq ft of it.*
It IS a GWGas.. And it DOES explode..
Guess a hundred posts from now -- you might have a passing aquaintance with that theory you support.
*Chilling stupidity.
*Thanks for playing.. Next !!!
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?
