In summary...

[SSDD]

Boss;

We're not rising rapidly and we're not at 400 ppm yet. I think the latest data shows around 360. 120,000 years ago, the Earth was a completely different planet, our atmosphere was completely different. Man, if he even existed yet, was indeed not industrialized.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
August 2016: 402.25 ppm
August 2015: 398.93 ppm
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Seems you are completely wrong. Took about 20 seconds on google. Perhaps were you not so lazy you wouldn't embarrass yourself so regularly.

Sorry, but you are presenting data at ONE place on the planet. That's not a GLOBAL average.

Try again!

Rocks is a world class cherry picker...if picking cherries ever gets to be an olympic event...he is a sure thing for a gold medal....and gullible....he is about as gullible as anyone I ever spoke to...sees evidence of AGW clearly in places where it doesn't exist just because he is told to see it there...that bit of greenhouse effect dogma that he keeps posting.

 

[Old Rocks]

If that is the case, SSDD, then why are we at 400+ ppm? After all, if the residence time in the atmosphere is about 10 years, then the CO2 from the fossil fuels would mostly be gone by now. The fact is, your sites refer to the cycling of individual CO2 molecules, not the totality of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[Old Rocks]

Boss;

We're not rising rapidly and we're not at 400 ppm yet. I think the latest data shows around 360. 120,000 years ago, the Earth was a completely different planet, our atmosphere was completely different. Man, if he even existed yet, was indeed not industrialized.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
August 2016: 402.25 ppm
August 2015: 398.93 ppm
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Seems you are completely wrong. Took about 20 seconds on google. Perhaps were you not so lazy you wouldn't embarrass yourself so regularly.

Sorry, but you are presenting data at ONE place on the planet. That's not a GLOBAL average.

Try again!

Rocks is a world class cherry picker...if picking cherries ever gets to be an olympic event...he is a sure thing for a gold medal....and gullible....he is about as gullible as anyone I ever spoke to...sees evidence of AGW clearly in places where it doesn't exist just because he is told to see it there...that bit of greenhouse effect dogma that he keeps posting.

Ah yes, from the fellow of the smart photons. LOL

 

[SSDD]

See, Boss, I don't flap yap with zero to back me up. I have followed the increase in CO2 and CH4 for a lot of years.

No, you flap that yap a lot. You've not backed up anything as best I can tell. And what fucking difference does the magic number 400 ppm make anyway? Mother Nature isn't keeping tabs on your arbitrary numbers. It could be that 400 ppm over the course of a billion years is perfectly "normal" for our planet? You don't KNOW this... none of you do... you ASSUME to know a lot of stuff that you don't know.

Over the course of a billion years...a number considerably higher than 1000ppm seems to be normal...

Maybe we're supposed to be warmer? Maybe there's not supposed to be a lot of sea ice? Maybe the coastal sea levels should be higher? Maybe arid deserts are supposed to be lush with vegetation? Maybe your whole entire idea of what is "ideal" is a bunch of self-aggrandizing, self-important nonsense? You have no PROOF you are right, you just want to bully people into believing you are.

Again...looking at the temperature history of the earth, it is clear that the normal temperature of planet earth is considerably warmer than this cold period we find ourselves in....and it would seem that on planet earth, ice is the anomaly...not the norm.

 

[SSDD]

If that is the case, SSDD, then why are we at 400+ ppm? After all, if the residence time in the atmosphere is about 10 years, then the CO2 from the fossil fuels would mostly be gone by now. The fact is, your sites refer to the cycling of individual CO2 molecules, not the totality of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Poor old rocks....an increase in atmospheric CO2 inevitably follows an increase in temperature....and the earth has its own CO2 making machinery?...any idea how much is coming out of vents in the ocean floor?

 

[SSDD]

Boss;

We're not rising rapidly and we're not at 400 ppm yet. I think the latest data shows around 360. 120,000 years ago, the Earth was a completely different planet, our atmosphere was completely different. Man, if he even existed yet, was indeed not industrialized.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
August 2016: 402.25 ppm
August 2015: 398.93 ppm
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Seems you are completely wrong. Took about 20 seconds on google. Perhaps were you not so lazy you wouldn't embarrass yourself so regularly.

Sorry, but you are presenting data at ONE place on the planet. That's not a GLOBAL average.

Try again!

Rocks is a world class cherry picker...if picking cherries ever gets to be an olympic event...he is a sure thing for a gold medal....and gullible....he is about as gullible as anyone I ever spoke to...sees evidence of AGW clearly in places where it doesn't exist just because he is told to see it there...that bit of greenhouse effect dogma that he keeps posting.

Ah yes, from the fellow of the smart photons. LOL

Guess you think energy must be smart in order to follow a temperature gradient in a solid material as well so that it doesn't back conduct towards the warmer area.

 

[IanC]

there is more CO2 in the air than there was before. much of the increase is from burning fossil fuels etc. some of it is natural, as is expected in a warming world.

you cannot compare past levels of CO2/temperature to today because the increase in CO2 is not due (totally) to natural equilibriums.

artificially high CO2 levels do not mean that we will have the same temps as in the past for the same concentration. while CO2 is both a symptom and a cause, we do not know what the proportions are. I certainly believe CO2 has a warming influence but I think IPCC consensus science has wildly exaggerated it. the effect of CO2 is swamped by the water cycle, whose effects are uncertain.

 

[SSDD]

there is more CO2 in the air than there was before. much of the increase is from burning fossil fuels etc. some of it is natural, as is expected in a warming world.

you cannot compare past levels of CO2/temperature to today because the increase in CO2 is not due (totally) to natural equilibriums.

artificially high CO2 levels do not mean that we will have the same temps as in the past for the same concentration. while CO2 is both a symptom and a cause, we do not know what the proportions are. I certainly believe CO2 has a warming influence but I think IPCC consensus science has wildly exaggerated it. the effect of CO2 is swamped by the water cycle, whose effects are uncertain.

So now you are claiming that Xppm of manmade CO2 is somehow different from Xppm of natural CO2?...is that because manmade CO2 has some magical properties ?

 

[IanC]

Boss;

We're not rising rapidly and we're not at 400 ppm yet. I think the latest data shows around 360. 120,000 years ago, the Earth was a completely different planet, our atmosphere was completely different. Man, if he even existed yet, was indeed not industrialized.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
August 2016: 402.25 ppm
August 2015: 398.93 ppm
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Seems you are completely wrong. Took about 20 seconds on google. Perhaps were you not so lazy you wouldn't embarrass yourself so regularly.

Sorry, but you are presenting data at ONE place on the planet. That's not a GLOBAL average.

Try again!

Rocks is a world class cherry picker...if picking cherries ever gets to be an olympic event...he is a sure thing for a gold medal....and gullible....he is about as gullible as anyone I ever spoke to...sees evidence of AGW clearly in places where it doesn't exist just because he is told to see it there...that bit of greenhouse effect dogma that he keeps posting.

Ah yes, from the fellow of the smart photons. LOL

Guess you think energy must be smart in order to follow a temperature gradient in a solid material as well so that it doesn't back conduct towards the warmer area.

conduction is mediated via matter, radiation is mediated via photons. the rules for matter are different than for light. any amount of light can occupy the same space at the same time going in different directions. not so for matter.

 

[jc456]

Now dear little cocksuck, you have shown that you don't do minimal research before you post garbage. Why should I not be condescending towards you? After all, I am not an academic, just an old millwright that knows the basics of doing research. You want respect, earn it. Thus far, you have not. You are like one of those college educated managers that thinks a degree in business management makes him an expert in maintenance, yet does not know the difference between a volt and an amp. That does not even know how to convert metric to english measurement. And, yes, the people in maintenance can get away with telling such people to fuck off. Because a good maintenance person, millwright, electrician, or automation, is harder to come by than some asshole with a management degree.

wow, what a paragraph, it says absolutely nothing toward the OP. So why don't you actually answer what was asked? Supply the stations for the readings. Boss told you that wasn't global. You have no comeback data to say you do. Why not? Isn't that how a debate functions?

 

[SSDD]

Boss;

We're not rising rapidly and we're not at 400 ppm yet. I think the latest data shows around 360. 120,000 years ago, the Earth was a completely different planet, our atmosphere was completely different. Man, if he even existed yet, was indeed not industrialized.
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
August 2016: 402.25 ppm
August 2015: 398.93 ppm
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Seems you are completely wrong. Took about 20 seconds on google. Perhaps were you not so lazy you wouldn't embarrass yourself so regularly.

Sorry, but you are presenting data at ONE place on the planet. That's not a GLOBAL average.

Try again!

Rocks is a world class cherry picker...if picking cherries ever gets to be an olympic event...he is a sure thing for a gold medal....and gullible....he is about as gullible as anyone I ever spoke to...sees evidence of AGW clearly in places where it doesn't exist just because he is told to see it there...that bit of greenhouse effect dogma that he keeps posting.

Ah yes, from the fellow of the smart photons. LOL

Guess you think energy must be smart in order to follow a temperature gradient in a solid material as well so that it doesn't back conduct towards the warmer area.

conduction is mediated via matter, radiation is mediated via photons. the rules for matter are different than for light. any amount of light can occupy the same space at the same time going in different directions. not so for matter.

And if from a photon's point of view, it is zero distance and zero time from either the cooler area or the warmer area, exactly why would the energy not simply move to the cooler area as the 2nd law dictates? You seem to agree that some force compels energy to conduct along a temperature gradient from warm to cool...unless of course, you believe that there is such a thing as back conduction....do you? If a force can compel energy to move through matter along a temperature gradient, why do you suppose radiation is not the same...especially since there is essentially no difference insofar as time and distance to the cooler region is concerned between radiation and conduction...and convection for that matter.

 

[SSDD]

Now dear little cocksuck, you have shown that you don't do minimal research before you post garbage. Why should I not be condescending towards you? After all, I am not an academic, just an old millwright that knows the basics of doing research. You want respect, earn it. Thus far, you have not. You are like one of those college educated managers that thinks a degree in business management makes him an expert in maintenance, yet does not know the difference between a volt and an amp. That does not even know how to convert metric to english measurement. And, yes, the people in maintenance can get away with telling such people to fuck off. Because a good maintenance person, millwright, electrician, or automation, is harder to come by than some asshole with a management degree.

wow, what a paragraph, it says absolutely nothing toward the OP. So why don't you actually answer what was asked? Supply the stations for the readings. Boss told you that wasn't global. You have no comeback data to say you do. Why not? Isn't that how a debate functions?

No answer...you know rocks...gets his panties in a wad when his dogma is questioned and he has no ready bit of dogma with which to fire back....

 

[IanC]

there is more CO2 in the air than there was before. much of the increase is from burning fossil fuels etc. some of it is natural, as is expected in a warming world.

you cannot compare past levels of CO2/temperature to today because the increase in CO2 is not due (totally) to natural equilibriums.

artificially high CO2 levels do not mean that we will have the same temps as in the past for the same concentration. while CO2 is both a symptom and a cause, we do not know what the proportions are. I certainly believe CO2 has a warming influence but I think IPCC consensus science has wildly exaggerated it. the effect of CO2 is swamped by the water cycle, whose effects are uncertain.

So now you are claiming that Xppm of manmade CO2 is somehow different from Xppm of natural CO2?...is that because manmade CO2 has some magical properties ?

You should try reading for comprehension. CO2 levels from natural sources imply a different set of conditions than artificially increased CO2 levels that we are experiencing.

And yes, there is a slight difference between artificially produced CO2 and natural.

 

[SSDD]

You should try reading for comprehension. CO2 levels from natural sources imply a different set of conditions than artificially increased CO2 levels that we are experiencing.

Tell me ian,,,what percentage of the atmospheric CO2 do you really think we are responsible for?

And yes, there is a slight difference between artificially produced CO2 and natural.

So you are saying that man made CO2 is more magic than natural CO2? Is IR perhaps more attracted to man made CO2 than it is to natural CO2?...maybe IR becomes addicted to manmade CO2 and must get to it no matter what the cost? Come on Ian...how much further out there can you get?

 

[IanC]

Sorry, but you are presenting data at ONE place on the planet. That's not a GLOBAL average.

Try again!

Rocks is a world class cherry picker...if picking cherries ever gets to be an olympic event...he is a sure thing for a gold medal....and gullible....he is about as gullible as anyone I ever spoke to...sees evidence of AGW clearly in places where it doesn't exist just because he is told to see it there...that bit of greenhouse effect dogma that he keeps posting.

Ah yes, from the fellow of the smart photons. LOL

Guess you think energy must be smart in order to follow a temperature gradient in a solid material as well so that it doesn't back conduct towards the warmer area.

conduction is mediated via matter, radiation is mediated via photons. the rules for matter are different than for light. any amount of light can occupy the same space at the same time going in different directions. not so for matter.

And if from a photon's point of view, it is zero distance and zero time from either the cooler area or the warmer area, exactly why would the energy not simply move to the cooler area as the 2nd law dictates? You seem to agree that some force compels energy to conduct along a temperature gradient from warm to cool...unless of course, you believe that there is such a thing as back conduction....do you? If a force can compel energy to move through matter along a temperature gradient, why do you suppose radiation is not the same...especially since there is essentially no difference insofar as time and distance to the cooler region is concerned between radiation and conduction...and convection for that matter.

Conduction is not the same as radiation. Matter is not the same as light.

 

[SSDD]

Rocks is a world class cherry picker...if picking cherries ever gets to be an olympic event...he is a sure thing for a gold medal....and gullible....he is about as gullible as anyone I ever spoke to...sees evidence of AGW clearly in places where it doesn't exist just because he is told to see it there...that bit of greenhouse effect dogma that he keeps posting.

Ah yes, from the fellow of the smart photons. LOL

Guess you think energy must be smart in order to follow a temperature gradient in a solid material as well so that it doesn't back conduct towards the warmer area.

conduction is mediated via matter, radiation is mediated via photons. the rules for matter are different than for light. any amount of light can occupy the same space at the same time going in different directions. not so for matter.

And if from a photon's point of view, it is zero distance and zero time from either the cooler area or the warmer area, exactly why would the energy not simply move to the cooler area as the 2nd law dictates? You seem to agree that some force compels energy to conduct along a temperature gradient from warm to cool...unless of course, you believe that there is such a thing as back conduction....do you? If a force can compel energy to move through matter along a temperature gradient, why do you suppose radiation is not the same...especially since there is essentially no difference insofar as time and distance to the cooler region is concerned between radiation and conduction...and convection for that matter.

Conduction is not the same as radiation. Matter is not the same as light.

When time and distance = zero...how is it different? Energy is energy.

 

[IanC]

I still remember the awe I had as a young teenager when I read about actual proof of time dilation from near light speeds.

Cosmic rays pepper the atmosphere with ultra high speed protons and alpha particles. They then collide with a molecule and send a spray of newly formed particles and radiation usually only seen in particle accelerators. One type has a very short lifespan and shouldn't survive long enough to make it to the surface even at near light speeds. But they do. And the only explanation is time dilation due to relativistic speed. Amazing!

We live in the world of matter and even light has a speed limit. We can only guess at the world of light speed but we can observe and measure light in our reference frame. The observations and measurements don't match up with SSDD's peculiar version of physics.

 

[jc456]

Rocks is a world class cherry picker...if picking cherries ever gets to be an olympic event...he is a sure thing for a gold medal....and gullible....he is about as gullible as anyone I ever spoke to...sees evidence of AGW clearly in places where it doesn't exist just because he is told to see it there...that bit of greenhouse effect dogma that he keeps posting.

Ah yes, from the fellow of the smart photons. LOL

Guess you think energy must be smart in order to follow a temperature gradient in a solid material as well so that it doesn't back conduct towards the warmer area.

conduction is mediated via matter, radiation is mediated via photons. the rules for matter are different than for light. any amount of light can occupy the same space at the same time going in different directions. not so for matter.

And if from a photon's point of view, it is zero distance and zero time from either the cooler area or the warmer area, exactly why would the energy not simply move to the cooler area as the 2nd law dictates? You seem to agree that some force compels energy to conduct along a temperature gradient from warm to cool...unless of course, you believe that there is such a thing as back conduction....do you? If a force can compel energy to move through matter along a temperature gradient, why do you suppose radiation is not the same...especially since there is essentially no difference insofar as time and distance to the cooler region is concerned between radiation and conduction...and convection for that matter.

Conduction is not the same as radiation. Matter is not the same as light.

Conduction is not the same as radiation.

Why not?

 

[IanC]

An experiment to show photons don't react to other photons except in the presence of matter.

Magnets will typically polarize a beam of light. A vacuum tube was set up with an emitter at on end and a detector at the other. If the magnet is close to either the emitter OR the detector then the light becomes polarized. If the magnet is placed in between, away from emitter or detector, then nothing happens. The light does not polarize.

 

[jc456]

doesn't the magnet contain matter?