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.
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...
There is no question that Slackerman is unable to keep up with even novice science discussions. That's all right, there are many in the same boat. The difference between him and others is that he has no idea of how far he is behind in what's required. Not even a hint.
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
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...
LOL, everytime you open your mouth you say something stupid..
Carbonite... Which one? The explosive? The inorganic anion? The online backup service? Or the fictitious alloy from Star Wars?
Which one moron? DO you even know? Of course not...
Do you have a carbon footprint or a CO2 footprint? Moron tweaker...
You're problem is you would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven. Understand what that means? It means you would rather repeat your stupid claim, than admit you were high and rambling through one of your many tweaks on here...
You are too damn ignorant or too high to know the difference between CO2 and carbon, and certainly too damn ignorant to understand CO2 is created and broken down on this planet constantly. Natural processes within the earths crust and soil, decomposition, burning of various carbon containing matter, oxidization, and many other things, too numerous to count here, all create CO2 or break it down into it's base elements. The only constants in it are the continuation of the processes,and the base elements, Carbon and Oxygen.
CO2 didn't create life on this planet shithead, here Life was created from Carbon, and that life or processes therein created CO2, just as the planet itself created CO2 and still does. Carbon is the constant here not CO2 which is a product thereof...
Now, if you want to pretend you're a scientist, knock yourself out. But at least put a little bit of time and effort into the tale... This is pathetic...
Yeah, like carbonite, right? Carbon, carbonite...
LOL, everytime you open your mouth you say something stupid..
Carbonite... Which one? The explosive? The inorganic anion? The online backup service? Or the fictitious alloy from Star Wars?
Which one moron? DO you even know? Of course not...
Do you have a carbon footprint or a CO2 footprint? Moron tweaker...
You're problem is you would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven. Understand what that means? It means you would rather repeat your stupid claim, than admit you were high and rambling through one of your many tweaks on here...
You are too damn ignorant or too high to know the difference between CO2 and carbon, and certainly too damn ignorant to understand CO2 is created and broken down on this planet constantly. Natural processes within the earths crust and soil, decomposition, burning of various carbon containing matter, oxidization, and many other things, too numerous to count here, all create CO2 or break it down into it's base elements. The only constants in it are the continuation of the processes,and the base elements, Carbon and Oxygen.
CO2 didn't create life on this planet shithead, here Life was created from Carbon, and that life or processes therein created CO2, just as the planet itself created CO2 and still does. Carbon is the constant here not CO2 which is a product thereof...
Now, if you want to pretend you're a scientist, knock yourself out. But at least put a little bit of time and effort into the tale... This is pathetic...
You truly are an idiot, in every sense of the word.
So tell us, Slackerman, which form of carbon is it that plants use inthe carbon cycle? Coal, pencils, diamonds, buckyballs, carbon nanotubes? All of them? Does Miracle Grow have carbon in it to help plants grow big and strong? Do explain your new carbon cycle.
Bet ya squirm away when you can't find it on Wikipedia.
The carbon cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged among the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere of the Earth. Along with the nitrogen cycle and the water cycle, the carbon cycle comprises a sequence of events that are key to making the Earth capable of sustaining life; it describes the movement of carbon as it is recycled and reused throughout the biosphere.
The global carbon budget is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and losses) of carbon between the carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere ↔ biosphere) of the carbon cycle. An examination of the carbon budget of a pool or reservoir can provide information about whether the pool or reservoir is functioning as a source or sink for carbon dioxide. The carbon cycle was initially discovered by Joseph Priestley and Antoine Lavoisier, and popularized by Humphry Davy.[1]
What is the Carbon Cycle?
Carbon is exchanged, or "cycled" among Earth's oceans, atmosphere, ecosystem, and geosphere. All living organisms are built of carbon compounds. It is the fundamental building block of life and an important component of many chemical processes. It is present in the atmosphere primarily as carbon dioxide (CO2), but also as other less abundant but climatically significant gases, such as methane (CH4).
Sources and Sinks
Because life processes are fueled by carbon compounds which are oxidized to CO2, the latter is exhaled by all animals and plants. Conversely, CO2 is assimilated by plants during photosynthesis to build new carbon compounds. CO2 is produced by the burning of fossil fuels, which derive from the preserved products of ancient photosynthesis. The atmophere exchanges CO2 continuously with the oceans. Regions or processes that predominately produce CO2 are called sources of atmospheric CO2, while those that absorb CO2 are called sinks.
LOL, everytime you open your mouth you say something stupid..
Carbonite... Which one? The explosive? The inorganic anion? The online backup service? Or the fictitious alloy from Star Wars?
Which one moron? DO you even know? Of course not...
Do you have a carbon footprint or a CO2 footprint? Moron tweaker...
You're problem is you would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven. Understand what that means? It means you would rather repeat your stupid claim, than admit you were high and rambling through one of your many tweaks on here...
You are too damn ignorant or too high to know the difference between CO2 and carbon, and certainly too damn ignorant to understand CO2 is created and broken down on this planet constantly. Natural processes within the earths crust and soil, decomposition, burning of various carbon containing matter, oxidization, and many other things, too numerous to count here, all create CO2 or break it down into it's base elements. The only constants in it are the continuation of the processes,and the base elements, Carbon and Oxygen.
CO2 didn't create life on this planet shithead, here Life was created from Carbon, and that life or processes therein created CO2, just as the planet itself created CO2 and still does. Carbon is the constant here not CO2 which is a product thereof...
Now, if you want to pretend you're a scientist, knock yourself out. But at least put a little bit of time and effort into the tale... This is pathetic...
You truly are an idiot, in every sense of the word.
So tell us, Slackerman, which form of carbon is it that plants use inthe carbon cycle? *Coal, pencils, diamonds, buckyballs, carbon nanotubes? All of them? *Does Miracle Grow have carbon in it to help plants grow big and strong? *Do explain your new carbon cycle.
*Bet ya squirm away when you can't find it on Wikipedia.
CARBON numbnuts. There's no "new" carbon cycle, it's the same as it always was. The fact you don't know this shows how full of shit you are...heres a nice picture...Notice the part about "soil carbon" Yeah it's even in the soil silly socko...
A nice article on it...From wikkipedia no less,again shows what you know...
Carbon cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The carbon cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged among the biosphere, pedosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere of the Earth. Along with the nitrogen cycle and the water cycle, the carbon cycle comprises a sequence of events that are key to making the Earth capable of sustaining life; it describes the movement of carbon as it is recycled and reused throughout the biosphere.
The global carbon budget is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and losses) of carbon between the carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere ↔ biosphere) of the carbon cycle. An examination of the carbon budget of a pool or reservoir can provide information about whether the pool or reservoir is functioning as a source or sink for carbon dioxide. The carbon cycle was initially discovered by Joseph Priestley and Antoine Lavoisier, and popularized by Humphry Davy.[1]
Another? Sure...From the NOAA no less...
ESRL Integrating Research and Technology Theme: Carbon Cycle Science
What is the Carbon Cycle?
Carbon is exchanged, or "cycled" among Earth's oceans, atmosphere, ecosystem, and geosphere. All living organisms are built of carbon compounds. It is the fundamental building block of life and an important component of many chemical processes. It is present in the atmosphere primarily as carbon dioxide (CO2), but also as other less abundant but climatically significant gases, such as methane (CH4).
Sources and Sinks
Because life processes are fueled by carbon compounds which are oxidized to CO2, the latter is exhaled by all animals and plants. Conversely, CO2 is assimilated by plants during photosynthesis to build new carbon compounds. CO2 is produced by the burning of fossil fuels, which derive from the preserved products of ancient photosynthesis. The atmophere exchanges CO2 continuously with the oceans. Regions or processes that predominately produce CO2 are called sources of atmospheric CO2, while those that absorb CO2 are called sinks.
LOL, I can literally source and cite links on it all day dumbass...so do you want to explain your theory about CO2 that *doesn't break down, or is it just your tweaker intellect at work talking in circles?
CO2 breaks down into carbon and oxygen respectively. It doesn't wait to be gobbled up by a plant, and if it's not, it doesn't just hang around as CO2 forever. It breaks down,kind of like your scientist BS does everytime you speak..
Fake scientists, seems like it's the norm here anymore... Do any "scientists" have jobs or are they all trolling web forums? LOL
So we have come back around to the lack of comprehension of what a model is?
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;
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.
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.
Science, to folks with inadequate science education, is an enigma. They can't imagine the scientific method, so they assume that it is nothing more than politics. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
But it's possible to be aware of areas where each of us are more or less expert in. And to figure out, for those fields we are personally not expert in, who actually knows more, and who, less.
That's the rub for deniers. They have no concept of credibility. They have no tools to distinguish between scientists and politicians. They believe that whoever claims what they want to be true, is closest to right.
Ego trumps humility.
So we have come back around to the lack of comprehension of what a model is?
You will pardon me but condesension from an idiot doesn't bother me and is actually sort of pitiful. I not only understand what a model is, but can detect whether a model works or it doesn't. There are, of course, models that work. They work because they are based on hard, empirical evidence and as such, are able to reproduce what happens in the real world. Climate models, are not and don't work for exactly that reason.
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)
Yep, and can you now describe the hard, empirical evidence upon which they are based?
Yes I do; and it is based on hard, real world empirical proof that the roads will lead to where I intend to go. The roads I intend to follow do in fact pass by the geographical locations I intend to go and if one. or more is experiencing a blockage due to traffic or maintenance, the alternates are also proven to go where they go based on hard, undeniable, unequivocal, emprical, real world proof that if followed, they will take me where I want to go.
Where is the hard, undeniable, unequivocal, empirical real world proof that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause global climate change?
In the most reudementary, and juvenile sense of the word. If you believe a drawing to be a model, then it is entirely clear why you are unable to grasp that climate models are failures.
Yes, and have you ever followed the results of those models from day to day and week to week? Have you ever actually counted the number of successes vs failures in the projections of those models? Weather is easy compared to climate and yet, weather models fail on a routine basis. The failure rate of weather models causes me to take thier predictions with a grain of salt and never make hard plans based on their predictions more than 24 hours out and even then with the knowledge that they may well be wrong. Therefore, when you make the claim that climate models which are trying to model a far more complex system based on even less actual data, and far more assumption than weather models are accurate, I simply must laugh in your face.
Tell me, if they are all based on finite element analyse and physics models, why is there such a wide variance in their output? If I model a chemical reaction for example, based on real world chemical properties I will get an output that will match what really happens...and if I write 100 models based on that same set of physics, then they will all give me the same output. If the climate models are based on real world physics, why is their output so varied? Real world physics is predictable and repeatable..why then so many answers from so many models if they are based on what happens in the real world?
Actually they are a joke and the very fact that their output is so varied is evidence that the modellers do not have a very good grasp of what is actually happening in the global climate. That being the case, why should model output be taken with anything more than a grain of salt and a knowing smile?
Precisely your problem. You are all over the place and unable to provide the specific proof that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in a temperature increase. You have been asked specifically how much of the fraction of a degree of temperature rise in the past 100 years is due to man's CO2 output and are unable to give an answer and specific examples? You have been asked how much of the claimed global temperature increase is due to factors like the heat island effect and you are unable to give an answer and specific examples. You have been asked why so many alterations have been made to the surface temperature record and you have been unable to give an answer or specific examples.
I am not making the claim that CO2 is the control knob for the global climate and therefore am not required to give any specific examples. I am required to ask specific questions and form my position based on the answers to those questions. Your inability to give specific answers, and back up your point with actual proof suggests that your position is not well grounded in reality and till my questions can be answered specifically, and backed up with actual proof, I must remain skeptical of your position.
My posts are questions that you can not answer....simple as that.
Which is precisely why you are all over the board posting this and that when you could simply provide the proof to support your position if it existed. How many times have you been asked for one bit of hard data to support the claim that x amount of increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration will result in x temperature increase? Clearly you can't provide that information so you run here and there posting this and that in an obvious attempt to cover the fact that you can't provide the proof that you have been asked for.
I am asking questions that you can not answer and in your frustration at being unable to answer, and your embarassment at being caught out as a fraud, you project your inadequacy on me. Yes, you have an inadequate science education. If you had an adequate education, you would be asking the same questions as I am. You would be asking the very questions that you know your opposition can not answer and wondering why they hold their position when they can't answer those very questions.
And it is possible, by asking questions to know which areas others are NOT expert in. You have provided a great deal of information regarding what you don't know in the questions you have not been able to answer and the gyrations you have engaged in in an attempt to deflect attention from your inabilty to answer those very questions.
That's the rub for deniers. They have no concept of credibility. They have no tools to distinguish between scientists and politicians. They believe that whoever claims what they want to be true, is closest to right.
The rub is that you start talking crediblity when you can't answer the specific questions, and requests for proof that have been put to you. Since you can't answer, your credibility is in question and again, you project your issues onto me.
Ego trumps humility.
So why not practice what you preach and admit that you can not answer the specific questions or provide the requested proof?
First I have no trouble standing behind any of my words but some of those that you attribute to me aren't mine.
Second, SS, on many DDs you show up here asking questions that are the scientific equivalent of "how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood"?
We'll never know the degree to which that stems from limited education vs über loyalty to Rush's Cult of Science Deniers, and it really doesn't matter.
On many of those DDs, others, but especially Itfitzme, takes the time to lay out decades of research and data and theory that clearly shows the evidence supporting the conclusion that it is unaffordable to ignore AGW and the least expensive path to the future is to get away from changing the world's climate rather than pay for the consequences of the present path.
Doers are betting billions on the research, data and theories that Itfitzme has revealed to you and others. Yet you only continue your efforts on behalf of Rush and the other woodchucks of the world.
His patience with your education greatly exceeds mine. I am pragmatic rather than a dedicated teacher. In my estimation you and the rest of the cult have rendered yourself irrelevent to any further discussion, and there are, therefore, infinitely more useful things to do than pull your string that starts the woodchuck rhyme.
I personally doubt that you'll ever catch up, but that's merely one opinion. I don't plan on any involvement either way.
You will pardon me but condesension from an idiot doesn't bother me and is actually sort of pitiful. *I not only understand what a model is, but can detect whether a model works or it doesn't. *There are, of course, models that work. *They work because they are based on hard,i empirical evidence and as such, are able to reproduce what happens in the real world. *Climate models, are not and don't work for exactly that reason.
SSDD said: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??"
You will pardon me but condesension from an idiot doesn't bother me and is actually sort of pitiful.
SSDD said:There are, of course, models that work. *They work because they are based on hard, empirical evidence and as such, are able to reproduce what happens in the real world. *Climate models, are not and don't work for exactly that reason.
SSDD said:Precisely your problem. You are all over the place and unable to provide the specific proof that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in a temperature increase. You have been asked specifically how much of the fraction of a degree of temperature rise in the past 100 years is due to man's CO2 output and are unable to give an answer and specific examples? You have been asked how much of the claimed global temperature increase is due to factors like the heat island effect and you are unable to give an answer and specific examples. You have been asked why so many alterations have been made to the surface temperature record and you have been unable to give an answer or specific examples.
I am not making the claim that CO2 is the control knob for the global climate and therefore am not required to give any specific examples. I am required to ask specific questions and form my position based on the answers to those questions. Your inability to give specific answers, and back up your point with actual proof suggests that your position is not well grounded in reality and till my questions can be answered specifically, and backed up with actual proof, I must remain skeptical of your position.
Clearly, your inability to distinguish between myself and PMZ makes my point. Your head is a failed model.
You say nothing about what model, the precision and accuracy of the models.**You simply assume some unstated context. *And as there are no failed models, then there is no way for anyone to guess what you are talking about.
A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that ensembles of climate models used by the IPCC to predict future climate change "may lead to overly confident climate predictions." The authors find that many models share the same computer code, have the same limitations, and "tend to be fairly similar," resulting in confirmation bias.
A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research in essence reveals climate models are not capable of reproducing the observed climate of the past century, much less the future. According to the paper, "few models reproduce the strong observed warming trend from 1918 to 1940," there are "large differences" in the forcings and feedbacks used in various models and that some of these are "unrealistic." In other words, the key inputs and assumptions of the models are not known with reasonable certainty - ergo GIGO. The paper also finds that predicting the range of "future climate change by weighting these models based on their 20th century [performance] is not possible." Translation: climate models are little more than very expensive computer fantasy games that cannot predict the future nor even replicate the past.
A paper published today in Climate of Past finds a 50% consensus by climate models on the response of Arctic sea ice to changes in solar radiation during the mid-Holocene. According to the authors, "Approximately one half of the models simulate a decrease in winter sea-ice extent and one half simulates an increase."
A new paper published in the Journal of Climate finds there has been "little to no improvement" in simulating clouds by state-of-the-art climate models. The authors note the "poor performance of current global climate models in simulating realistic [clouds]," and that the models show "quite large biases...as well as a remarkable degree of variation" with the differences between models remaining "large."
A paper published in the technical newsletter of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment finds that climate models suppress the negative feedback from low clouds, which serve to cool the Earth by reflection of incoming sunlight. The paper notes that cloud feedbacks in computer models are not only uncertain in magnitude, but even in sign (positive or negative). As climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer has pointed out, a mere 1 to 2% natural variation in cloud cover can alone account for whether there is global warming or global cooling, despite any alleged effects of CO2.
A new paper published in Global and Planetary Change finds that IPCC climate models are unable to reproduce either the El Nino Southern Oscillation [ENSO] or the Indian summer monsoon, the two most influential natural weather patterns on Earth, both of which have large effects upon global climate. The authors therefore caution that, given these large uncertainties of natural variation, current models cannot be relied upon to project future global warming from greenhouse gases.
Clearly you have no real experience with models. *
Because anyone that has spent time doing balistic tests, designing a sensitive circuit, or making temperature measurement knows that;
F=ma,*
which includes such wonders as*
x=x0+v0*x+a0*x^2,*
E=m/(2^v^2), and*
p=mv
as well as
V=Σ(Ri*Ii)
always miss the mark of absolute precision because of friction and thermal noise. *The history of physics is a history of finding a simpified model, that accurately represents the physical process, then further refining the theory to explain the noise. *
And if you don't know this, do some ballistic calculations for your favorite rifle. Take it to the firing range, mount it, and fire 30 rounds into a target set at the rifle's maximum range. *I guarantee that the target will show a random spread as distance. And that error increases as the distance to the target increases and muzzle velocity decreases. I guarantee you won't be able to predicted the precise location of every round.*By your accounting, not only will the ballistics models be a complete failure, so will every gun you own.
(gslack is fixated on socks, westwall is apparently one of his socks, and he constantly confuses me with PMZ. So SSDD's similar confusion, seems highly suspicious. Either that or they are all similarly stupid. So, perhaps they should all be referred to you as SSDD/gslack/westwall now. *Funny thing about generalization, you really don't know for sure.)
In the mean time, your lack of ability to accept the obvious fact that temp anomoly correlates to CO2;*the fact that CO2 is demonstated to absorb IR radiation; and that, combined these stand as sufficient evidence to predict that further CO2 increase will result in further temp increase within the boundaries of statistical confidence levels, is your own problem. *No one appointed you as designer of the scientific process. *That is something *you learn from science, or go on your merry way, banging your head against doors.
And I've learned that anything you post serves as a negatively correlated predictor of the accuracy and precision of climate science.
SSDD said:Precisely your problem. You are all over the place and unable to provide the specific proof that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in a temperature increase. You have been asked specifically how much of the fraction of a degree of temperature rise in the past 100 years is due to man's CO2 output and are unable to give an answer and specific examples? You have been asked how much of the claimed global temperature increase is due to factors like the heat island effect and you are unable to give an answer and specific examples. You have been asked why so many alterations have been made to the surface temperature record and you have been unable to give an answer or specific examples.
I am not making the claim that CO2 is the control knob for the global climate and therefore am not required to give any specific examples. I am required to ask specific questions and form my position based on the answers to those questions. Your inability to give specific answers, and back up your point with actual proof suggests that your position is not well grounded in reality and till my questions can be answered specifically, and backed up with actual proof, I must remain skeptical of your position.
You are not required to do anything. *You seem to have appointed yourself some wierd role.
Nor am I required to do anything, another perception of some wierd role you imagine you have.
I posted the contact number and email address for the IPCC. *If you have some issue with the quality of their work, you can take it up with them. *The contact info for your congressman and for the Whitehouse is also readily available online as well. *
And if you find your failure to achieve the authority figure status that you so desperately desire, you can find the number for a qualified mental health professional, in your area, online.
In the mean time, your lack of ability to accept the obvious fact that temp anomoly correlates to CO2;*the fact that CO2 is demonstated to absorb IR radiation; and that, combined these stand as sufficient evidence to predict that further CO2 increase will result in further temp increase within the boundaries of statistical confidence levels, is your own problem. *No one appointed you as designer of the scientific process. *That is something *you learn from science, or go on your merry way, banging your head against doors.
Especially given the bs level of "*You have been asked specifically how much of the fraction of a degree of temperature rise in the past 100 years is due to man's CO2 output and are unable to give an answer and specific examples? ", which is entirely contrary to facts.
And I've learned that anything you post serves as a negatively correlated predictor of the accuracy and precision of climate science.
You truly are an idiot, in every sense of the word.
So tell us, Slackerman, which form of carbon is it that plants use inthe carbon cycle? *Coal, pencils, diamonds, buckyballs, carbon nanotubes? All of them? *Does Miracle Grow have carbon in it to help plants grow big and strong? *Do explain your new carbon cycle.
*Bet ya squirm away when you can't find it on Wikipedia.
CARBON numbnuts. There's no "new" carbon cycle, it's the same as it always was. The fact you don't know this shows how full of shit you are...heres a nice picture...Notice the part about "soil carbon" Yeah it's even in the soil silly socko...
A nice article on it...From wikkipedia no less,again shows what you know...
Carbon cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Another? Sure...From the NOAA no less...
ESRL Integrating Research and Technology Theme: Carbon Cycle Science
What is the Carbon Cycle?
Carbon is exchanged, or "cycled" among Earth's oceans, atmosphere, ecosystem, and geosphere. All living organisms are built of carbon compounds. It is the fundamental building block of life and an important component of many chemical processes. It is present in the atmosphere primarily as carbon dioxide (CO2), but also as other less abundant but climatically significant gases, such as methane (CH4).
Sources and Sinks
Because life processes are fueled by carbon compounds which are oxidized to CO2, the latter is exhaled by all animals and plants. Conversely, CO2 is assimilated by plants during photosynthesis to build new carbon compounds. CO2 is produced by the burning of fossil fuels, which derive from the preserved products of ancient photosynthesis. The atmophere exchanges CO2 continuously with the oceans. Regions or processes that predominately produce CO2 are called sources of atmospheric CO2, while those that absorb CO2 are called sinks.
LOL, I can literally source and cite links on it all day dumbass...so do you want to explain your theory about CO2 that *doesn't break down, or is it just your tweaker intellect at work talking in circles?
CO2 breaks down into carbon and oxygen respectively. It doesn't wait to be gobbled up by a plant, and if it's not, it doesn't just hang around as CO2 forever. It breaks down,kind of like your scientist BS does everytime you speak..
Fake scientists, seems like it's the norm here anymore... Do any "scientists" have jobs or are they all trolling web forums? LOL
Oh, so now you've changed you mind about it, the carbon comes from the CO2, exactly like you said it didn't.
Brilliant.
So how does the CO2 break down, by magic? It just breaks up into oxygen and coal, diamomds, and pencil lead? Is that it? Soil carbon is diamonds, coal and pencil lead?
So what is soil carbon, and how does it get there? The soil doesn't just gobble it up, diphead.
Surly you can find soil carbon on Wikipedia too.
So, according to gslack, the soil gobbles up CO2, magically breaks it up into oxygen and soil carbon, like coal, pencil lead, diamonds, fullerenes, and nano-tubes. *Plants then drink up the carbon through their roots. *That, the carbon cycle.
He's getting warmer.
I'l give you a hint, Slacknuts.
What is photosynthesis?
