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

[gslack]

Why don't you CO2, IR, doubling effect believers just do the simple and obvious thing?

Take all your internet "science" and fake degrees in whatever it is you're an expert of today, and create something that harnesses this amazing property of CO2?

Make a CO2 oven, or a CO2 heat engine of some sort. It should be simple, you all claim it's a settled science and it's all fact, so just harness this energy resource...

Make something,one thing, that actually confirms the effects you attribute to CO2 and you have all the proof you will ever need.. SO go forth and create this CO2 miracle machine, I'll wait here...

And a denizen from the otther extreme starts to chirp.

Ian, you are welcome to show this magical property as well. It's been what now 2 years since I asked you to do this and still nothing...

You can think whatever you want of me, but I am not the one who plays ignorant when he can't defend his claim. Nor am I the one who tries to BS his way through here... Fact is you got caught doing both several times here..

So why don't you create this magical CO2 heat doubling device, make a million and shut us up in the process. Then we wouldn't have to watch you fumble trying to defend spencers work.. Still got your little man-crush for him? Best seek help on that..

 

[gslack]

Jon -

So a drop of botulism in a swimming pool is fine, right? It doesn't change the colour of the water at all, does it?

I don't know why people complained about radiocative Caesium near Chernobyl - there were only tiny amounts in the soil and water, and radioactivity occurs naturally in soil right around the world?

co2 is not botulism

get real

CO2 isn't a jug of water water, either.

And you're not a genuine poster, you're sock/troll..

 

[PMZ]

All of the actual doing going on in the world is in the direction of mitigating, not denying, AGW. So the deniers are mostly talking to themselves. I can't imagine how fooling each other is entertaining.

 

[PMZ]

Jon Bezerk -

I think what the best scientists in the world tell us is probably quite real enough.

Water is not poisonous, and is in fact essential to our survival. But drink enough of it fast enough, and we die.

We know that trace elements can influence climate, because we have seen this with the increase (and now decrease) in the ozone hole. Deniers seem to often forget that.

What is critical here is obviously not the fact that CO2 exists as a trace gas, but that the dramatic increase in its quantity alters the very fine balance of the atmopshere.

your comparison is still stupid

co2 is not a poison

If it's all that you have to breath, it's deadly. Of course, that applies to everything but oxygen. Even water.

 

[PMZ]

co2 is not botulism

get real

CO2 isn't a jug of water water, either.

And you're not a genuine poster, you're sock/troll..

What evidence do you offer other than the voices that only you hear?

 

[gslack]

CO2 isn't a jug of water water, either.

And you're not a genuine poster, you're sock/troll..

What evidence do you offer other than the voices that only you hear?

LOL, you just answered a post to ifitzme socko.. Also you don't seem to care that we mix up your names.. You also seem to post identically.. You're both trying to BS yourselves through this... And frankly how many people are perpetuating the sequestered CO2 theory? Only the two of you, and that's not only one hell of a coincidence, but completely stupid as well.. Add all those together with the habitual tendency you two have of kissing each others asses as well as finishing each others debates, and we can call you a sock..

Now sooner or later you two will screw up, or your proxy will get blacklisted, or your mom will make you get a job, and then we will be rid of your sorry trolling asses..

 

[gslack]

All of the actual doing going on in the world is in the direction of mitigating, not denying, AGW. So the deniers are mostly talking to themselves. I can't imagine how fooling each other is entertaining.

LOL, "doing going on"

Is that a scientific term? ROFL

 

[Foxfyre]

I have recently attended a lecture by a local botanist who reported studies showing rapid growth in trees with even a small increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. CO2 levels around volcanoes are high enough to be toxic to plants and wildlife, but unless CO2 levels rise everywhere enough to kill all trees and wildlife--in which case it will be all over for us humans anyway--it is actually good for the plants and does not harm living creatures. Our aspen forests from the mountains of New Mexico all the way into Canada are growing faster than ever with the marginal increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 50 years.

Also aquarium managers, with both fresh and salt waters, know that adding CO2 to the water is very beneficial for aquatic plants and does not harm the fish. Too much and both would die.

But that isn't different from many substances on Earth that are beneficial to us in reasonable amounts, and harmful and sometimes even lethal above a certain level.

All which gives credence to looking more closely at whether we need to control CO2 in the atmosphere or whether we spend our time and resources much more beneficially by learning ways to better utilize that CO2.

 

[itfitzme]

And you're not a genuine poster, you're sock/troll..

What evidence do you offer other than the voices that only you hear?

LOL, you just *answered a post to ifitzme socko.. Also you don't seem to care that we mix up your names.. You also seem to post identically.. You're both trying to BS yourselves through this... And frankly how many people are perpetuating the sequestered CO2 theory? Only the two of you, and that's not only one hell of a coincidence, but completely stupid as well.. Add all those together with the habitual tendency you two have of kissing each others asses as well as finishing each others debates, and we can call you a sock..

Now sooner or later you two will screw up, or your proxy will get blacklisted, or your mom will make you get a job, and then we will be rid of your sorry trolling asses..

How you coming along with your hypothesis that plants need diamomds and pencil lead to grow? *Are you including carbon nano-tubes, fibers and Bucky*balls too?

Got any suppporting evidence yet?**

Like, have you found some of it in your garden? *Here are pictures, so you can identiffy them.

You can see those with the naked eye. You'll need a magnifying glass for these.

 

[westwall]

What evidence do you offer other than the voices that only you hear?

LOL, you just *answered a post to ifitzme socko.. Also you don't seem to care that we mix up your names.. You also seem to post identically.. You're both trying to BS yourselves through this... And frankly how many people are perpetuating the sequestered CO2 theory? Only the two of you, and that's not only one hell of a coincidence, but completely stupid as well.. Add all those together with the habitual tendency you two have of kissing each others asses as well as finishing each others debates, and we can call you a sock..

Now sooner or later you two will screw up, or your proxy will get blacklisted, or your mom will make you get a job, and then we will be rid of your sorry trolling asses..

How you coming along with your hypothesis that plants need diamomds and pencil lead to grow? *Are you including carbon nano-tubes, fibers and Bucky*balls too?

Got any suppporting evidence yet?**

Like, have you found some of it in your garden? *Here are pictures, so you can identiffy them.

You can see those with the naked eye. You'll need a magnifying glass for these.

Coherence isn't one of your strong points is it!

 

[itfitzme]

I have recently attended a lecture by a local botanist who reported studies showing rapid growth in trees with even a small increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. * CO2 levels around volcanoes are high enough to be toxic to plants and wildlife, but unless CO2 levels rise everywhere enough to kill all trees and wildlife--in which case it will be all over for us humans anyway--it is actually good for the plants and does not harm living creatures. *Our aspen forests from the mountains of New Mexico all the way into Canada are growing faster than ever with the marginal increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 50 years.

Also aquarium managers, with both fresh and salt waters, know that adding CO2 to the water is very beneficial for aquatic plants and does not harm the fish. * Too much and both would die.

But that isn't different from many substances on Earth that are beneficial to us in reasonable amounts, and harmful and sometimes even lethal above a certain level.

All which gives credence to looking more closely at whether we need to control CO2 in the atmosphere or whether we spend our time and resources much more beneficially by learning ways to better utilize that CO2.

You may have missed this link, which has been kindly provided.

"*In nature (and in agricultural ecosystems) , plant productivity is affected by many things: light, water, temperature, nutrients, CO2, pathogens….The experiments that show enhanced plant productivity under enriched CO2 are usually conducted under conditions that are ideal for plant growth -- i.e., temperature, water and nutrients are not limiting. In these circumstances, growth IS CO2-limited. That is, plants may respond with increased productivity to enriched CO2 if something else isn't limiting at current levels. "

ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF PREDICTED CLIMATE CHANGES

And that makes sense. Outdoors isn't an equarium.

Currently, the limiting factor in the Sierras is water.*

"SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST, Calif. — In parts of California’s Sierra Nevada, marshy meadows are going dry, wildflowers are blooming earlier and glaciers are melting into ice fields.

Scientists also are predicting the optimal temperature zone for giant sequoias will rise hundreds and hundreds of feet, leaving trees at risk of dying over the next 100 years."

"SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST:Should giant sequoias be watered? Scientists ponder impacts of climate change across Sierra.

Biologists point out that the rate of climate change, due to temperature, is shifting faster than the species can adapt. Plants have little mobility and no guarantee that the shifted zone is even habitable. *Insects, birds, and other mobile creatures are forced to shift out of their habitat, of which they depend, and into habitats that are not sustainable for them. *The differential in mobility between species, in a single environment, is forced to spread out, litterally facturing the ecological interdependence.

And while CO2 can increase growth, growth is not dependent on CO2 alone. *There are limiting factors beyond simple CO2 fertilization.

Season length is changed, and plants have developed internal timing mechanisms that assure they develop in sync with their environmemt.

Lastly, and not least is that otherwise habitable areas are subject to extreme drought conditions. Other areas are subject to precipitation in excess of what the organisms have adapted to.

In short, the rate of climate change is faster than the plants amd animals are able to adapt. *On the balance, biologists have determined that the problems are greater than the benefits.

The "We shouldn't do anything" is entirely misdirected. *Climate change is because we are doing something, changing the climate. *We need to stop doing something. *

"We" don't need to look more closely. "We" already have. *And the rate of change is too fast for "We" to wait around for "you".*

And as so many deniers are so big on "we don't know for sure", the biology issue should fit very well with it. Biology is more complex than climate. *So that is definitively where the "We don't know with absolute certainty" logically leads to "Then stop changing the climate."

 

[PMZ]

I have recently attended a lecture by a local botanist who reported studies showing rapid growth in trees with even a small increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. CO2 levels around volcanoes are high enough to be toxic to plants and wildlife, but unless CO2 levels rise everywhere enough to kill all trees and wildlife--in which case it will be all over for us humans anyway--it is actually good for the plants and does not harm living creatures. Our aspen forests from the mountains of New Mexico all the way into Canada are growing faster than ever with the marginal increase of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 50 years.

Also aquarium managers, with both fresh and salt waters, know that adding CO2 to the water is very beneficial for aquatic plants and does not harm the fish. Too much and both would die.

But that isn't different from many substances on Earth that are beneficial to us in reasonable amounts, and harmful and sometimes even lethal above a certain level.

All which gives credence to looking more closely at whether we need to control CO2 in the atmosphere or whether we spend our time and resources much more beneficially by learning ways to better utilize that CO2.

It's just too bad that it's a greenhouse gas.

 

[PMZ]

All of the actual doing going on in the world is in the direction of mitigating, not denying, AGW. So the deniers are mostly talking to themselves. I can't imagine how fooling each other is entertaining.

LOL, "doing going on"

Is that a scientific term? ROFL

It's actually a sensible fragment of my sentence in English. That apparently is not your first language.

 

[SSDD]

Predicting based on what? Models??? Failing models??

Exactly how much is a prediction worth if the basis for that prediction is models that have demonstrably failed??

 

[PMZ]

And you're not a genuine poster, you're sock/troll..

What evidence do you offer other than the voices that only you hear?

LOL, you just answered a post to ifitzme socko.. Also you don't seem to care that we mix up your names.. You also seem to post identically.. You're both trying to BS yourselves through this... And frankly how many people are perpetuating the sequestered CO2 theory? Only the two of you, and that's not only one hell of a coincidence, but completely stupid as well.. Add all those together with the habitual tendency you two have of kissing each others asses as well as finishing each others debates, and we can call you a sock..

Now sooner or later you two will screw up, or your proxy will get blacklisted, or your mom will make you get a job, and then we will be rid of your sorry trolling asses..

You are extraordinarily prone to confusion tonight.

 

[PMZ]

Predicting based on what? Models??? Failing models??

Exactly how much is a prediction worth if the basis for that prediction is models that have demonstrably failed??

Give us evidence of their failure.

 

[itfitzme]

Predicting based on what? *Models??? * Failing models??

Exactly how much is a prediction worth if the basis for that prediction is models that have demonstrably failed??

So we have come back around to the lack of comprehension of what a model is?

"Predicting based on what? Models???" is, by far, one of the stupidest meaningless utterance that repeatedly infects this board. All it demonstrates is the ignorance of the person making it. It is slightly less general than saying "stuff" and "things".

You might just as well say, "Predictions based on what? Stuff?"

These are models;

F=Σ(mi*ai)

yi = a+ b*xi+εi

m*(d^/dx^2)(x(t))=-∇V*x(t)

Profit = (1-tax_rate)((price-unit_cost)*qty-interest)


Everytime you get in the car, to drive to the store, you use a mental model to get there.

This is a model,

This is a model;

Every time you turn on the Weather Channel, to find out if it will be hot this comimg week, you are using a model.

And this is the output of a number of complex computer models, based on finite element analysis and physics models, compared to the real world measurents.

And for a model of a system as complex as the global climate, it is exceptional in its accuracy and precision.

Writing that is specific and detailed are intelligent.

Vague, abstract, and generalized single statements are the result of a lack of intelligent thought. They are the result of a lazy mind or an intent to be misleading by not backing up one's point with proof and specific examples.

Your posts are a model, and miserably poor at that. Everything that represents something else is a model, including your own failed model of climate models. And of all models, I have experienced, your utterances are the worst, vague, inaccurate, and imprecise.



Garage At Post Office Square
CAD/CAM/CAE/PLM Services 2D, 3D, Drafting, Design, Solid Modeling, Design Analysis | Gill Incorporated - Design Solutions
Pinegrove Townhomes | Pinegrove Drive, off Hwy. 15, Myrtle Beach SC 29577
The climate models - HK Climate

 

[gslack]

What evidence do you offer other than the voices that only you hear?

LOL, you just answered a post to ifitzme socko.. Also you don't seem to care that we mix up your names.. You also seem to post identically.. You're both trying to BS yourselves through this... And frankly how many people are perpetuating the sequestered CO2 theory? Only the two of you, and that's not only one hell of a coincidence, but completely stupid as well.. Add all those together with the habitual tendency you two have of kissing each others asses as well as finishing each others debates, and we can call you a sock..

Now sooner or later you two will screw up, or your proxy will get blacklisted, or your mom will make you get a job, and then we will be rid of your sorry trolling asses..

You are extraordinarily prone to confusion tonight.

Really socko? You're the one answering posts to ifitzme like you are ifitzme.. Why don't we just call you PMIFITZME... Would it matter? You'd still answer to it obviously, and the two of you are as interchangeable as Saigon and mammoth.

 

[gslack]

What evidence do you offer other than the voices that only you hear?

LOL, you just *answered a post to ifitzme socko.. Also you don't seem to care that we mix up your names.. You also seem to post identically.. You're both trying to BS yourselves through this... And frankly how many people are perpetuating the sequestered CO2 theory? Only the two of you, and that's not only one hell of a coincidence, but completely stupid as well.. Add all those together with the habitual tendency you two have of kissing each others asses as well as finishing each others debates, and we can call you a sock..

Now sooner or later you two will screw up, or your proxy will get blacklisted, or your mom will make you get a job, and then we will be rid of your sorry trolling asses..

How you coming along with your hypothesis that plants need diamomds and pencil lead to grow? *Are you including carbon nano-tubes, fibers and Bucky*balls too?

Got any suppporting evidence yet?**

Like, have you found some of it in your garden? *Here are pictures, so you can identiffy them.

You can see those with the naked eye. You'll need a magnifying glass for these.

Can you show where I made that claim socko? You keep on claiming I said it, yet you can't point to where or when... But we can point to many posts where you claimed life came from CO2..

LOL, carbon based life shit-head. Not CO2-based life. A carbon cycle numbnuts... Fake-ass wannabe scientist troll...ROFL

 

[itfitzme]

LOL, you just *answered a post to ifitzme socko.. Also you don't seem to care that we mix up your names.. You also seem to post identically.. You're both trying to BS yourselves through this... And frankly how many people are perpetuating the sequestered CO2 theory? Only the two of you, and that's not only one hell of a coincidence, but completely stupid as well.. Add all those together with the habitual tendency you two have of kissing each others asses as well as finishing each others debates, and we can call you a sock..

Now sooner or later you two will screw up, or your proxy will get blacklisted, or your mom will make you get a job, and then we will be rid of your sorry trolling asses..

How you coming along with your hypothesis that plants need diamomds and pencil lead to grow? *Are you including carbon nano-tubes, fibers and Bucky*balls too?

Got any suppporting evidence yet?**

Like, have you found some of it in your garden? *Here are pictures, so you can identiffy them.

You can see those with the naked eye. You'll need a magnifying glass for these.

Can you show where I made that claim socko? You keep on claiming I said it, yet you can't point to where or when... But we can point to many posts where you claimed life came from CO2..

LOL, carbon based life shit-head. Not CO2-based life. A carbon cycle numbnuts... Fake-ass wannabe scientist troll...ROFL

Yeah, like carbonite, right? Carbon, carbonite...