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

[gslack]

The Cult of Denialism was born in the final years of the 20th century as a political entertainment/campaign stunt. Clinton had been a very successful and popular President and his Vice President, Al Gore, seemed certain to follow him into the White House.

The political line up:

Republican strengths: A popular 24/7/365 propaganda machine through Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Monica Lewinski.
Republican weaknesses: No qualified candidates.
Democrat strengths: Clinton's success and popularity. Gore's environmental vision.
Democrat weaknesses. Clinton's penchant for Monica.

The Republican strategy was simple and obvious. Use the propaganda network to drag Clinton down by his, ahem, weakness. And turn Gore's vision into a sinister plot, both through the manipulation of the public by the propaganda network. In other words, lower the street cred of the strong Democrat team down to below that of the weak Republican team.

It seemed, at first, destined to fail, and, it did by popular vote. However several Supreme Court justices owed their career to Bush Sr so, in the end, we had our first Supreme Court appointed President.

As the country spiraled downward by an inept administration, it became necessary for the GOP to double down on their strategy to get, OMG, Bush re-elected. And they did.

But the Cult of Denialism took on a life of its own. For one thing it is the kind of political challange that invites partisanship. It pits business against the people, rich and poor against the middle class, responsible people against irresponsible, industrialized countries against developing countries, past and present against the future, science against politics, states potentially benefitting from either the "new" climate or the energy infrastructure transformation against those negatively impacted.

All in all, quite a free for all. But, in the end, a necessary adaptation by humanity to a new environment. The very definition of evolution.

All of the real issues now are in the realms of engineering and business and politics in a technological slugfest to determine which solutions fare best in the race up the learning curves. Lots of contenders. Lots of big buck betting. Lots of losers and a few very big winners. The stuff that capitalism thrives on, but government must lead to make sure that it's the big picture that we are pursuing and not just the unstructured whims of the marketplace.

Exciting times. Defining times. The best and worst of human traits in battle for the future.

Fossil fuels had their time on stage and we always knew they were of limited supply. Our relentless quest for more for more and more people is largely based on unlimited inexpensive energy and we are entering the times of more and more costly fossil fuels. More costly to extract, transport and process, and more costly to dispose of their waste.

Times they are a'changing. Relentlessly. Inevitably, progressively. Opportunity and risk abound. Not for the faint hearted.

LOL, drag clinton down by his weakness?

You mean his character flaw don't you? You know the type of thing that allows a man in power to abuse his power especially with those in no position to resist? Yeah, that's not a weakness, it's a lack of character.

He got caught being a lech and that's all there was to it. Sorry but I hold presidents to a higher standard and you should too. The fact other politicians used it to their advantage is par for the course. That's what the rats do on both sides.. Like the Swift Boat Captains for truth, and the voting nonsense that goes on in many black communities. Or the Kennedy vs Nixon election where the dead voted in droves. Both sides are dirty and both sides use dirt to their advantage.

You want to forgive his BS because he's one of your own, fine, but don't try and make it seem like nothing, and don't try and make him a victim.

Further what does that have to do with AGW? Nothing... Now try and stop grandstanding and plagiarizing schmuck..

 

[itfitzme]

The Cult of Denialism was born in the final years of the 20th century as a political entertainment/campaign stunt. Clinton had been a very successful and popular President and his Vice President, Al Gore, seemed certain to follow him into the White House.*

The political line up:

Republican strengths: A popular 24/7/365 propaganda machine through Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Monica Lewinski.*
Republican weaknesses: No qualified candidates.*
Democrat strengths: Clinton's success and popularity. Gore's environmental vision.*
Democrat weaknesses. Clinton's penchant for Monica.

The Republican strategy was simple and obvious. Use the propaganda network to drag Clinton down by his, ahem, weakness. And turn Gore's vision into a sinister plot, both through the manipulation of the public by the propaganda network. In other words, lower the street cred of the strong Democrat team down to below that of the weak Republican team.*

It seemed, at first, destined to fail, and, it did by popular vote. However several Supreme Court justices owed their career to Bush Sr so, in the end, we had our first Supreme Court appointed President.*

As the country spiraled downward by an inept administration, it became necessary for the GOP to double down on their strategy to get, OMG, Bush re-elected. And they did.

But the Cult of Denialism took on a life of its own. For one thing it is the kind of political challange that invites partisanship. It pits business against the people, rich and poor against the middle class, responsible people against irresponsible, industrialized countries against developing countries, past and present against the future, science against politics, states potentially benefitting from either the "new" climate or the energy infrastructure transformation against those negatively impacted.

All in all, quite a free for all. But, in the end, a necessary adaptation by humanity to a new environment. The very definition of evolution.*

All of the real issues now are in the realms of engineering and business and politics in a technological slugfest to determine which solutions fare best in the race up the learning curves. Lots of contenders. Lots of big buck betting. Lots of losers and a few very big winners. The stuff that capitalism thrives on, but government must lead to make sure that it's the big picture that we are pursuing and not just the unstructured whims of the marketplace.*

Exciting times. Defining times. The best and worst of human traits in battle for the future.*

Fossil fuels had their time on stage and we always knew they were of limited supply. Our relentless quest for more for more and more people is largely based on unlimited inexpensive energy and we are entering the times of more and more costly fossil fuels. More costly to extract, transport and process, and more costly to dispose of their waste.*

Times they are a'changing. Relentlessly. Inevitably, progressively. Opportunity and risk abound. Not for the faint hearted.

LOL, drag clinton down by his weakness?

You mean his character flaw don't you? You know the type of thing that allows a man in power to abuse his power especially with those in no position to resist? Yeah, that's not a weakness, it's a lack of character.

He got caught being a lech and that's all there was to it. Sorry but I hold presidents to a higher standard and you should too. The fact other politicians used it to their advantage is par for the course. That's what the rats do on both sides.. Like the Swift Boat Captains for truth, and the voting nonsense that goes on in many black communities. Or the Kennedy vs Nixon election where the dead voted in droves. Both sides are dirty and both sides use dirt to their advantage.

You want to forgive his BS because he's one of your own, fine, but don't try and make it seem like nothing, and don't try and make him a victim.

Further what does that have to do with AGW? Nothing... Now try and stop grandstanding and plagiarizing schmuck..

Yeah, if only he had done something usefull, like reduce the deficit.

 

[flacaltenn]

The problem of course is it's wrong.

Which part do you think is wrong? *The real measurements of temperature and CO2? *Or the well defined, and real, statistics of least square fitting in linear regression?

How would you fit a line correlating two sets of data?

Or is "it's wrong" from the "Westwall Handbook of Science for Dummies, by Dummies", axiom number 1?

Well I see you finally found a VALID instance to mention regression -- Dr. Regressive...
((... even a blind squirrel.... )) Congrats on that.. One out of 21 aint bad..

If I tell ya why taking a simple line thru that graph doesn't tell what the CO2/Temp relationship really is -- would ya listen?

Actually you posted the answer to why you can't do that in some of that IPCC crap you randomly toss up here. YOU just don't know it.. Because you had no idea what you were posting..

 

[Wroberson]

I'm sorry. I'm not a fan of the CO2 theory. All it took was one Alaskan volcano and a decent meteor strike in Russia to stop summer here north of I-80. Not only that we have record rain total for the 1st half of 2013.

There was a warm spike, the highest estimated temps within the past 4500 years, in 1100 BC when the Jews were fleeing the Pharohs in Egypt in their Gas guzzling Hummers and high deck U-Hauls.

Then another warm spot when the Romans were in charge between 4BC and 600AD as they were burning oil, gas and other fossil fuels as if there was no tomorrow.

Then the last heat spike around 1300 AD when the Church was burning witches throughout Europe.

Each of these warm shifts were reverse through volcanic eruptions. From Vesuvius to Krakatoa, to Pinatubo.

This chart shows that throughout the existence of man, the climate goes through cycles driven by volcanic activity and inactivity. You'll never convince me otherwise. It's gettin' colder and add the fact that we are about to start heading toward Solar Minimum after a very weak solar maximum, I am telling you to be ready for an even colder than normal decade.

I would put more heat into all the pavement than CO2.

The chart also contains the original author of the comments made above. I was just trying to improve it a little.

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

 

[gslack]

The Cult of Denialism was born in the final years of the 20th century as a political entertainment/campaign stunt. Clinton had been a very successful and popular President and his Vice President, Al Gore, seemed certain to follow him into the White House.*

The political line up:

Republican strengths: A popular 24/7/365 propaganda machine through Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Monica Lewinski.*
Republican weaknesses: No qualified candidates.*
Democrat strengths: Clinton's success and popularity. Gore's environmental vision.*
Democrat weaknesses. Clinton's penchant for Monica.

The Republican strategy was simple and obvious. Use the propaganda network to drag Clinton down by his, ahem, weakness. And turn Gore's vision into a sinister plot, both through the manipulation of the public by the propaganda network. In other words, lower the street cred of the strong Democrat team down to below that of the weak Republican team.*

It seemed, at first, destined to fail, and, it did by popular vote. However several Supreme Court justices owed their career to Bush Sr so, in the end, we had our first Supreme Court appointed President.*

As the country spiraled downward by an inept administration, it became necessary for the GOP to double down on their strategy to get, OMG, Bush re-elected. And they did.

But the Cult of Denialism took on a life of its own. For one thing it is the kind of political challange that invites partisanship. It pits business against the people, rich and poor against the middle class, responsible people against irresponsible, industrialized countries against developing countries, past and present against the future, science against politics, states potentially benefitting from either the "new" climate or the energy infrastructure transformation against those negatively impacted.

All in all, quite a free for all. But, in the end, a necessary adaptation by humanity to a new environment. The very definition of evolution.*

All of the real issues now are in the realms of engineering and business and politics in a technological slugfest to determine which solutions fare best in the race up the learning curves. Lots of contenders. Lots of big buck betting. Lots of losers and a few very big winners. The stuff that capitalism thrives on, but government must lead to make sure that it's the big picture that we are pursuing and not just the unstructured whims of the marketplace.*

Exciting times. Defining times. The best and worst of human traits in battle for the future.*

Fossil fuels had their time on stage and we always knew they were of limited supply. Our relentless quest for more for more and more people is largely based on unlimited inexpensive energy and we are entering the times of more and more costly fossil fuels. More costly to extract, transport and process, and more costly to dispose of their waste.*

Times they are a'changing. Relentlessly. Inevitably, progressively. Opportunity and risk abound. Not for the faint hearted.

LOL, drag clinton down by his weakness?

You mean his character flaw don't you? You know the type of thing that allows a man in power to abuse his power especially with those in no position to resist? Yeah, that's not a weakness, it's a lack of character.

He got caught being a lech and that's all there was to it. Sorry but I hold presidents to a higher standard and you should too. The fact other politicians used it to their advantage is par for the course. That's what the rats do on both sides.. Like the Swift Boat Captains for truth, and the voting nonsense that goes on in many black communities. Or the Kennedy vs Nixon election where the dead voted in droves. Both sides are dirty and both sides use dirt to their advantage.

You want to forgive his BS because he's one of your own, fine, but don't try and make it seem like nothing, and don't try and make him a victim.

Further what does that have to do with AGW? Nothing... Now try and stop grandstanding and plagiarizing schmuck..

Yeah, if only he had done something usefull, like reduce the deficit.

LOL,love that bit of progressive liberal BS..The reality is he cut spending and raised taxes and big shock,he had a surplus of funds. And what did he pay off with that surplus of funds? Did it go to pay down the debt? NO... All it did was give him some kind of BS to feed the ignorant people like yourselves who don't understand the difference between deficit and debt. Debt is how much we owe banks and so forth, deficit is how much we have vs how much we have to pay for. Raising taxes on the upper tier that actually pays taxes, not like you barking moonbats who don't pay shit anyway, and cutting spending by large scale closings of military bases across the board, coupled with the changeover to a reserve strong military instead of a active duty strong one, and we had a surplus of funds. Meaning the amount we had to pay for was lessened and the amount we had coming in from taxes was increased..

It's not rocket science and he's not a genius, he just told you idiots what you wanted to hear and took advantage of the relatively uneventful times... No body took out the twin towers yet, the dot com bubble hadn't burst yet, and the real estate bubble was still strong..

Get a grip and drop the liberal talking points already.

 

[IanC]

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 *800 * * *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 CO2 is explosive.

I realize I am wasting my time talking to you, but others read these comments as well.

your first graph is misleading. CO2 and temps are measured differently, the scales on the y axis are arbitrarily chosen to visually imply maximum correlation. any other scales, or any other arbitrarily chosen offset would lessen the visual impact.

next, your math is interesting but just about every scientist and organization agree that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic rather than linear, although for approximations that cover only one or two doublings that may be somewhat OK. the IPCC says that CO2 is 5-26% of the greenhouse effect, whatever that means. and the greenhouse effect is responsible for 33C of warming. I believe I saw a MODTRAN (CO2 climate model) printout that showed 5ppm CO2 equivalent to the first 1C of warming. 5,10,20,40,80,160,320,640. we are in the 7th doubling therefore CO2 should be accounting for 6+ times (1-1.2C per doubling) = roughly 7 or 8 degrees C. does this agree with models of the greenhouse effect? (5-26%) x 33C = 2-8C, so it does fit but at the high end so we could reasonably expect less effect but not likely more.

a reasonable question to ask at this point would be, "why do you believe MODTRAN but not the GCMs?" MODTRAN deals strictly with radiative physics, CO2 and water, and the atmosphere cut up into more layers than GCMs. it is not trying to be all things, and the inputs are much more straight forward.

I dont believe the massive positive feedbacks predicted by GCMs. why? two reasons. the first is because Nature seldom uses unstable positive feedbacks and often uses negative feedbacks which help restore the system after a disruption. the second is because the effects of those positive feedbacks are not present, the hotspot is not there and the data are not following the trajectory projected.

personally I can understand how many people came to convict CO2 on circumstantial evidence in the 90's when every thing was going according to plan. I was not so quick to jump on the bandwagon because I lived through the Coming Ice Age Scare and knew that pretty theories didnt always pan out as planned.

without the large positive feedbacks there is no immediate problem, and certainly no reason to collapse our society in a fruitless effort to stave off a small portion of the imaginary problem with incredibly large sums of wasted cash.

 

[gslack]

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.

I've always wondered how human beings get trained towards feelings of entitlement. Who told you that entitlement, not education, makes you right? There is no evidence of you being right about AGW. There is no evidence of what you claim of my education being right.

And yet you are sure that you have a right to be right. That ignorance is knowledge. That you wanting is more powerful than others doing.

I hate to tell you that there just isn't any evidence of the specialness that you claim. I'm afraid you're going to have to do it the old fashioned way. Earn it.

A devastating blow to the ego, I know.

What education socko? You just made several nonsensical statements, AGAIN...

"There is no evidence of what you claim of my education being right. "-PMZ sock

Now what in the hell does that mean? Dude you just said basically nothing at all.. I know in your mind you may seem like an intelligent, educated man, but your writing here reads like that of a home-schooled half-wit....

"That ignorance is knowledge."-PMZ sock

LOL, really socko? As if your last bit of rambling nonsense wasn't bad enough you have to say something even more asinine... Knowledge the opposite of ignorance.. MORON...

Jesus dude you really need to stop tweaking and pulling these all-night forum spamming sessions.. You get dumber as you get higher...

 

[PMZ]

Apparently the Denial Cult of the Flat Earth Society has expanded their alternative reality to include denying what's going on in the engineering and business world as well as their traditional denial of what's going on in the world of science.

Nobody is acting on their wannabe world denying AGW. Billions in both private and public investment in the necessary changes to our energy infrastructure towards sustainable.

The science is no longer even on the table. Solutions are.

Because their foundation is politics misusing science, they will remain loud and obnoxious until at least 2016 when the politics will be settled once and for all.

 

[PMZ]

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 *800 * * *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 CO2 is explosive.

I realize I am wasting my time talking to you, but others read these comments as well.

your first graph is misleading. CO2 and temps are measured differently, the scales on the y axis are arbitrarily chosen to visually imply maximum correlation. any other scales, or any other arbitrarily chosen offset would lessen the visual impact.

next, your math is interesting but just about every scientist and organization agree that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic rather than linear, although for approximations that cover only one or two doublings that may be somewhat OK. the IPCC says that CO2 is 5-26% of the greenhouse effect, whatever that means. and the greenhouse effect is responsible for 33C of warming. I believe I saw a MODTRAN (CO2 climate model) printout that showed 5ppm CO2 equivalent to the first 1C of warming. 5,10,20,40,80,160,320,640. we are in the 7th doubling therefore CO2 should be accounting for 6+ times (1-1.2C per doubling) = roughly 7 or 8 degrees C. does this agree with models of the greenhouse effect? (5-26%) x 33C = 2-8C, so it does fit but at the high end so we could reasonably expect less effect but not likely more.

a reasonable question to ask at this point would be, "why do you believe MODTRAN but not the GCMs?" MODTRAN deals strictly with radiative physics, CO2 and water, and the atmosphere cut up into more layers than GCMs. it is not trying to be all things, and the inputs are much more straight forward.

I dont believe the massive positive feedbacks predicted by GCMs. why? two reasons. the first is because Nature seldom uses unstable positive feedbacks and often uses negative feedbacks which help restore the system after a disruption. the second is because the effects of those positive feedbacks are not present, the hotspot is not there and the data are not following the trajectory projected.

personally I can understand how many people came to convict CO2 on circumstantial evidence in the 90's when every thing was going according to plan. I was not so quick to jump on the bandwagon because I lived through the Coming Ice Age Scare and knew that pretty theories didnt always pan out as planned.

without the large positive feedbacks there is no immediate problem, and certainly no reason to collapse our society in a fruitless effort to stave off a small portion of the imaginary problem with incredibly large sums of wasted cash.

"I dont believe the massive positive feedbacks predicted by GCMs. why? two reasons. the first is because Nature seldom uses unstable positive feedbacks and often uses negative feedbacks which help restore the system after a disruption. the second is because the effects of those positive feedbacks are not present, the hotspot is not there and the data are not following the trajectory projected."

If there was anything substantive about your denial it would be representable by data supporting theory. In the absence of any of that, it's merely what you wish was true.

 

[PMZ]

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 *800 * * *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 CO2 is explosive.

I realize I am wasting my time talking to you, but others read these comments as well.

your first graph is misleading. CO2 and temps are measured differently, the scales on the y axis are arbitrarily chosen to visually imply maximum correlation. any other scales, or any other arbitrarily chosen offset would lessen the visual impact.

next, your math is interesting but just about every scientist and organization agree that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic rather than linear, although for approximations that cover only one or two doublings that may be somewhat OK. the IPCC says that CO2 is 5-26% of the greenhouse effect, whatever that means. and the greenhouse effect is responsible for 33C of warming. I believe I saw a MODTRAN (CO2 climate model) printout that showed 5ppm CO2 equivalent to the first 1C of warming. 5,10,20,40,80,160,320,640. we are in the 7th doubling therefore CO2 should be accounting for 6+ times (1-1.2C per doubling) = roughly 7 or 8 degrees C. does this agree with models of the greenhouse effect? (5-26%) x 33C = 2-8C, so it does fit but at the high end so we could reasonably expect less effect but not likely more.

a reasonable question to ask at this point would be, "why do you believe MODTRAN but not the GCMs?" MODTRAN deals strictly with radiative physics, CO2 and water, and the atmosphere cut up into more layers than GCMs. it is not trying to be all things, and the inputs are much more straight forward.

I dont believe the massive positive feedbacks predicted by GCMs. why? two reasons. the first is because Nature seldom uses unstable positive feedbacks and often uses negative feedbacks which help restore the system after a disruption. the second is because the effects of those positive feedbacks are not present, the hotspot is not there and the data are not following the trajectory projected.

personally I can understand how many people came to convict CO2 on circumstantial evidence in the 90's when every thing was going according to plan. I was not so quick to jump on the bandwagon because I lived through the Coming Ice Age Scare and knew that pretty theories didnt always pan out as planned.

without the large positive feedbacks there is no immediate problem, and certainly no reason to collapse our society in a fruitless effort to stave off a small portion of the imaginary problem with incredibly large sums of wasted cash.

"without the large positive feedbacks there is no immediate problem"

Our goose would be cooked if there was an immediate critical problem, as there is no immediate solution. Planning is the act of preparing for the projected future in order to minimize the cost of getting and being there.

What argument could there possibly be against doing exactly that?

 

[PMZ]

The problem of course is it's wrong.

Which part do you think is wrong? *The real measurements of temperature and CO2? *Or the well defined, and real, statistics of least square fitting in linear regression?

How would you fit a line correlating two sets of data?

Or is "it's wrong" from the "Westwall Handbook of Science for Dummies, by Dummies", axiom number 1?

You're a believer in the sequestered CO2 hypothesis crapped out of your butt, so it's wrong... Ya can't fake knowledge after getting busted faking knowledge so many times fraud..

Where do you think oil, coal and natural gas came from. The fossil fuel fairy?

 

[itfitzme]

I'm sorry. *I'm not a fan of the CO2 theory. *All it took was one Alaskan volcano and a decent meteor strike in Russia to stop summer here north of I-80. *Not only that we have record rain total for the 1st half of 2013.

There was a warm spike, the highest estimated temps within the past 4500 years, in 1100 BC when the Jews were fleeing the Pharohs in Egypt in their Gas guzzling Hummers and high deck U-Hauls.

Then another warm spot when the Romans were in charge between 4BC and 600AD as they were burning oil, gas and other fossil fuels as if there was no tomorrow.

Then the last heat spike around 1300 AD when the Church was burning witches throughout Europe.

Each of these warm shifts were reverse through volcanic eruptions. *From Vesuvius to Krakatoa, to Pinatubo.

This chart shows that throughout the existence of man, the climate goes through cycles driven by volcanic activity and inactivity. *You'll never convince me otherwise. *It's gettin' colder and add the fact that we are about to start heading toward Solar Minimum after a very weak solar maximum, I am telling you to be ready for an even colder than normal decade.

I would put more heat into all the pavement than CO2.

The chart also contains the original author of the comments made above. I was just trying to improve it a little.

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

"We, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, believe that the warming and even the cooling of global temperatures are the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more. However, Mankind’s activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect,’ are making conditions ‘worse’ and this will ultimately enhance the Earth’s warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades."

Link Here: Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

So it's a combination of natural cycles and burning of fossil fuels, at least according to*Cliff Harris and Randy Mann.

 

[itfitzme]

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 *800 * * *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 CO2 is explosive.

I realize I am wasting my time talking to you, but others read these comments as well.

your first graph is misleading. CO2 and temps are measured differently, the scales on the y axis are arbitrarily chosen to visually imply maximum correlation. any other scales, or any other arbitrarily chosen offset would lessen the visual impact.*

next, your math is interesting but just about every scientist and organization agree that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic rather than linear, although for approximations that cover only one or two doublings that may be somewhat OK. the IPCC says that CO2 is 5-26% of the greenhouse effect, whatever that means. and the greenhouse effect is responsible for 33C of warming. I believe I saw a MODTRAN (CO2 climate model) printout that showed 5ppm CO2 equivalent to the first 1C of warming. 5,10,20,40,80,160,320,640. we are in the 7th doubling therefore CO2 should be accounting for 6+ times (1-1.2C per doubling) = roughly 7 or 8 degrees C. * *does this agree with models of the greenhouse effect? (5-26%) x 33C = 2-8C, so it does fit but at the high end so we could reasonably expect less effect but not likely more.

a reasonable question to ask at this point would be, "why do you believe MODTRAN but not the GCMs?" MODTRAN deals strictly with radiative physics, CO2 and water, and the atmosphere cut up into more layers than GCMs. it is not trying to be all things, and the inputs are much more straight forward.

I dont believe the massive positive feedbacks predicted by GCMs. why? two reasons. the first is because Nature seldom uses unstable positive feedbacks and often uses negative feedbacks which help restore the system after a disruption. the second is because the effects of those positive feedbacks are not present, the hotspot is not there and the data are not following the trajectory projected.

personally I can understand how many people came to convict CO2 on circumstantial evidence in the 90's when every thing was going according to plan. I was not so quick to jump on the bandwagon because I lived through the Coming Ice Age Scare and knew that pretty theories didnt always pan out as planned.*

without the large positive feedbacks there is no immediate problem, and certainly no reason to collapse our society in a fruitless effort to stave off a small portion of the imaginary problem with incredibly large sums of wasted cash.

So you complaining about scaling on the graph? *That's meaningless in terms of doing a regression. Scaling simply effects the presentation. *And, the appropriate way of scaling is to have the line extend the full expanse of the graph. Otherwise, it's just wasted space.

Right there says enough to demonstrate that you really don't know. *Anyone with basic and solid understanding of presenting and dealing with data knows the difference between presentation of data and correlation. *Scaling has zero effect of the mathematical correlation.

I'm sure you've seen lots of different treatments of determining the correlation between CO2 and temps. * * * *And, perhaps, beneath the CO2 and temp are additional processes like H2O, methane, etc. *CO2 drives temps which further drive H2O. *Burning of fossil fuel releases both CO2 and methane in some proportion. *That's all fine and dandy. *

But it doesn't change;*

Anom = a*+ b * CO2, it modifies it.

I just eyeballed it and did a basic, and 100% correct, calculation to get about 1/50 deg F/CO2 ppm. *A more refined calculation, done in Excel, is

It gets .00922 degC/CO2.

It is simply a least squares linear regression on the real CO2 measure and real temp anomoly. *Real, real, real.

Oh, and it's not a "computer model simulation".*

I can guarantee that everyone with a PhD, studying climate change, did exactly what I did, first thing. *It's the easy one. *And everything they did afterwards, they compare to that, to check that their more refined theory and calculation were at least as good. *

If some computer model generated logarithmic formulation doesn't yield -3.08*+ 0.00922 * CO2(ppm), over the observed and measured range, then it is wrong. Every theory, formula, model, and simulation must agree with the real observed data.

The reason you are "I realize I am wasting my time talking to you" is because you are ignoring the simple reality, right in front of our face.

In the scatter plot of temp anomoly v CO2, where is the logarithmic relationship? *If it was logarithmic, it would curve. *Does it look like a curve to you?

We don't get to ignore reality and then call it science.

 

[PMZ]

"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 *800 * * *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 CO2 is explosive.

I realize I am wasting my time talking to you, but others read these comments as well.

your first graph is misleading. CO2 and temps are measured differently, the scales on the y axis are arbitrarily chosen to visually imply maximum correlation. any other scales, or any other arbitrarily chosen offset would lessen the visual impact.*

next, your math is interesting but just about every scientist and organization agree that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic rather than linear, although for approximations that cover only one or two doublings that may be somewhat OK. the IPCC says that CO2 is 5-26% of the greenhouse effect, whatever that means. and the greenhouse effect is responsible for 33C of warming. I believe I saw a MODTRAN (CO2 climate model) printout that showed 5ppm CO2 equivalent to the first 1C of warming. 5,10,20,40,80,160,320,640. we are in the 7th doubling therefore CO2 should be accounting for 6+ times (1-1.2C per doubling) = roughly 7 or 8 degrees C. * *does this agree with models of the greenhouse effect? (5-26%) x 33C = 2-8C, so it does fit but at the high end so we could reasonably expect less effect but not likely more.

a reasonable question to ask at this point would be, "why do you believe MODTRAN but not the GCMs?" MODTRAN deals strictly with radiative physics, CO2 and water, and the atmosphere cut up into more layers than GCMs. it is not trying to be all things, and the inputs are much more straight forward.

I dont believe the massive positive feedbacks predicted by GCMs. why? two reasons. the first is because Nature seldom uses unstable positive feedbacks and often uses negative feedbacks which help restore the system after a disruption. the second is because the effects of those positive feedbacks are not present, the hotspot is not there and the data are not following the trajectory projected.

personally I can understand how many people came to convict CO2 on circumstantial evidence in the 90's when every thing was going according to plan. I was not so quick to jump on the bandwagon because I lived through the Coming Ice Age Scare and knew that pretty theories didnt always pan out as planned.*

without the large positive feedbacks there is no immediate problem, and certainly no reason to collapse our society in a fruitless effort to stave off a small portion of the imaginary problem with incredibly large sums of wasted cash.

So you complaining about scaling on the graph? *That's meaningless in terms of doing a regression. Scaling simply effects the presentation. *And, the appropriate way of scaling is to have the line extend the full expanse of the graph. Otherwise, it's just wasted space.

Right there says enough to demonstrate that you really don't know. *Anyone with basic and solid understanding of presenting and dealing with data knows the difference between presentation of data and correlation. *Scaling has zero effect of the mathematical correlation.

I'm sure you've seen lots of different treatments of determining the correlation between CO2 and temps. * * * *And, perhaps, beneath the CO2 and temp are additional processes like H2O, methane, etc. *CO2 drives temps which further drive H2O. *Burning of fossil fuel releases both CO2 and methane in some proportion. *That's all fine and dandy. *

But it doesn't change;*

Anom = a*+ b * CO2, it modifies it.

I just eyeballed it and did a basic, and 100% correct, calculation to get about 1/50 deg F/CO2 ppm. *A more refined calculation, done in Excel, is

It gets .00922 degC/CO2.

It is simply a least squares linear regression on the real CO2 measure and real temp anomoly. *Real, real, real.

Oh, and it's not a "computer model simulation".*

I can guarantee that everyone with a PhD, studying climate change, did exactly what I did, first thing. *It's the easy one. *And everything they did afterwards, they compare to that, to check that their more refined theory and calculation were at least as good. *

If some computer model generated logarithmic formulation doesn't yield -3.08*+ 0.00922 * CO2(ppm), over the observed and measured range, then it is wrong. Every theory, formula, model, and simulation must agree with the real observed data.

The reason you are "I realize I am wasting my time talking to you" is because you are ignoring the simple reality, right in front of our face.

In the scatter plot of temp anomoly v CO2, where is the logarithmic relationship? *If it was logarithmic, it would curve. *Does it look like a curve to you?

We don't get to ignore reality and then call it science.

It would be nice if we could keep CO2 concentration constant, or a step function change, for a decade or two in order to see how the dynamics of adaptation look, but I guess we're stuck with a concentration that's not only ever increasing but the rate of increase is continuously increasing too.

 

[itfitzme]

Perspective

Nineteen Arizona firefighters were killed.

Hotshots killed included a father-to-be and sons who followed their dads into firefighting

"PRESCOTT, Ariz. — Nineteen members of the Granite Mountain Hotshots, based in Prescott, Ariz., were killed Sunday evening when a windblown wildfire overcame them north of Phoenix. It was the deadliest single day for U.S. firefighters since Sept. 11. Fourteen of the victims were in their 20s. Here are the stories of some of those who died:

....

— Anthony Rose, 23

— Eric Marsh, 43

— Robert Caldwell, 23

— Clayton Whitted , 28

— Dustin Deford, 24

— Sean Misner, 26

— Garret Zuppiger, 27

— Travis Carter, 31

— GrantMcKee, 21

— Travis Turbyfill, 27

— JesseSteed, 36

— Wade Parker, 22

— Joe Thurston, 32

— John Percin, 24"

Washington Post

LA Times

 

[gslack]

Which part do you think is wrong? *The real measurements of temperature and CO2? *Or the well defined, and real, statistics of least square fitting in linear regression?

How would you fit a line correlating two sets of data?

Or is "it's wrong" from the "Westwall Handbook of Science for Dummies, by Dummies", axiom number 1?

You're a believer in the sequestered CO2 hypothesis crapped out of your butt, so it's wrong... Ya can't fake knowledge after getting busted faking knowledge so many times fraud..

Where do you think oil, coal and natural gas came from. The fossil fuel fairy?

LOL, now you are expanding your sequestered CO2 theory? So now fossil fuels come from CO2? ROFL, you're the biggest posturing buffoon on this entire forum..

You pulled a BS theory out of your maladjusted, juvenile head, that has absolutely no basis in reality, your pals know it, yet you keep repeating it and they defend it.. And you wonder why we call you clones?

Tweaker, it's an ignorant and silly claim, not borne out of science but out of your silly head. Please point to ANY scientific paper that supports your make-believe theory..

I'll be here from time to time to see what you can produce...

 

[itfitzme]

You're a believer in the sequestered CO2 hypothesis crapped out of your butt, so it's wrong... Ya can't fake knowledge after getting busted faking knowledge so many times fraud..

Where do you think oil, coal and natural gas came from. The fossil fuel fairy?

LOL, now you are expanding your sequestered CO2 theory? So now fossil fuels come from CO2? *ROFL, you're the biggest posturing buffoon on this entire forum..

You pulled a BS theory out of your maladjusted, juvenile head, that has absolutely no basis in reality, your pals know it, yet you keep repeating it and they defend it.. And you wonder why we call you clones?

Tweaker, it's an ignorant and silly claim, not borne out of science but out of your silly head. Please point to ANY scientific paper that supports your make-believe theory..

I'll be here from time to time to see what you can produce...

We like your pencil lead diamonds in fertilizer theory much better. Yeah, that's it. *The carbon comes from diamonds and pencils in the soil.

Brilliant.

 

[PMZ]

You're a believer in the sequestered CO2 hypothesis crapped out of your butt, so it's wrong... Ya can't fake knowledge after getting busted faking knowledge so many times fraud..

Where do you think oil, coal and natural gas came from. The fossil fuel fairy?

LOL, now you are expanding your sequestered CO2 theory? So now fossil fuels come from CO2? ROFL, you're the biggest posturing buffoon on this entire forum..

You pulled a BS theory out of your maladjusted, juvenile head, that has absolutely no basis in reality, your pals know it, yet you keep repeating it and they defend it.. And you wonder why we call you clones?

Tweaker, it's an ignorant and silly claim, not borne out of science but out of your silly head. Please point to ANY scientific paper that supports your make-believe theory..

I'll be here from time to time to see what you can produce...

If you don't understand the chemistry connecting CO2, the nourishment and growth of biomass, and the transformation of biomass into fossil fuels, you are in no way qualified to post here. That understanding is table stakes. I'm not surprised that that understanding eludes you. I am surprised that you don't even know what you need to know and don't.

Assuming that you ever went to school here, you represent an indictment of the US education system.

 

[PMZ]

Where do you think oil, coal and natural gas came from. The fossil fuel fairy?

LOL, now you are expanding your sequestered CO2 theory? So now fossil fuels come from CO2? *ROFL, you're the biggest posturing buffoon on this entire forum..

You pulled a BS theory out of your maladjusted, juvenile head, that has absolutely no basis in reality, your pals know it, yet you keep repeating it and they defend it.. And you wonder why we call you clones?

Tweaker, it's an ignorant and silly claim, not borne out of science but out of your silly head. Please point to ANY scientific paper that supports your make-believe theory..


I'll be here from time to time to see what you can produce...

We like your pencil lead diamonds in fertilizer theory much better. Yeah, that's it. *The carbon comes from diamonds and pencils in the soil.

Brilliant.

As we post, he is mulling over the possibility of the fossil fuel fairy. It could explain a lot.

 

[PMZ]

Perfect!

The Carbon Cycle