In Support of the A in AGW

[Toddsterpatriot]

How can something as small in mass as 400 parts per million warm something that has a total mass billions of time greater than it?

The earths atmosphere is 5.148x1018 kg in weight and they claim something which has 1/1,000,000,000,000 of that weight is capable of warming it uncontrollably..

How can something as small in mass as 400 parts per million warm something that has a total mass billions of time greater than it?

By delaying the escape of heat into space.

 

[Olde Europe]

How can something as small in mass as 400 parts per million warm something that has a total mass billions of time greater than it?

By delaying the escape of heat into space.

Just wait until he figures out that the earth's crust's mass is even slightly bigger than that. Oh, and don't tell him that in the end it's just photons; no weight. Zero. And that trillions of them still weigh nothing at all.

 

[jc456]

How can something as small in mass as 400 parts per million warm something that has a total mass billions of time greater than it?

By delaying the escape of heat into space.

Just wait until he figures out that the earth's crust's mass is even slightly bigger than that. Oh, and don't tell him that in the end it's just photons; no weight. Zero. And that trillions of them still weigh nothing at all.

S0n we've been waiting on the experiment that shows the magic powers of CO2. Any fkn day

 

[Olde Europe]

S0n we've been waiting on the experiment that shows the magic powers of CO2. Any fkn day

"S0n"? Are you trying to come across as condescending, while babbling about "magic powers of CO2"? Shouldn't you be looking for an alchemist, or something?

Whatever, JC, if you were interested in alleviating your ignorance, it would be incumbent upon you to do some research, read, and learn. Apparently, that isn't quite your style, as you'd rather parade your ignorance around thinking, apparently, that would amount to an argument. Rest assured, it does not.

But then, just watch. Or watch. Or watch some more. Or you could read, and learn about the complexity of the research. Or you could simply realize that, during the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall discovered the greenhouse effect (without it, the earth would be a frozen ball of ice), and also how far you really are behind the curve. Here is Tyndall's lecture of 1861, with a detailed description of the experiment he set up along with the measured results. So, you got just about 150 years catching up to do. Get going.

 

[IanC]

has the extra six years of data regressed to the mean and broken the claims of 'highest evah', or not?

do you blame any academic for using a nickname when writing criticism against orthidoxy? Bruno is actually pretty clever. obviously he does not want to get burned at the stake.

Oh, the high drama, "burned at the stake", no less, and pretty crisp, presumably.

And no, six years of anything with cherry-picked start and end dates don't (dis-) prove a thing, particularly not a long-term trend. Of course, you could have read the paper I linked, realized the complex analyses, the methodology clearly described, the theoretical background outlined, the provenance of the data given, and the possible causes discussed (changing ocean currents, mostly), and such, and all that missing from an insultingly stupid WUWT blog post. What that oh-so-very smart "Bruno" did was so enormously original, the denialist blabbosphere did that for more than a decade, blabbing about the high temperatures in 1998 (el nino!), and detecting flat or even falling temperatures. That is, they exploit a system in which the noise in the data, because of national variation, is an order of magnitude bigger than the trend, in order to hoodwink the gullible. Clever, and so originial!

Next...

with the satellites proclaiming that the oceans are rising faster than the coasts it is interesting to inspect Hawaii

... to counter a detected Sea Level Rise Hot Spot at parts of the U.S.'s Atlantic cost, you come up with a comparison with Hawaii. Hawaii...

... however, seems a bit removed from the Atlantic coast, or rather in another ocean. But hey, you could have read the paper I linked, and figured that out all on your own.

????

if adding six more years of data wrecks the claim of highest acceleration evah, then the claim was false due to cherrypicking in the first place.

my comment on Hawaii was about the NOAA release of american tide gauge data. your pretty little map certainly makes my point clear. if coastal areas show 2mm/yr sea level rise, and satellite measurements out at sea show 3mm/yr rise, then what should Hawaii be considered as? how does the Pacific Ocean know to stop rising so fast around a little island chain stuck in the middle? should we believe the measured rise in Hawaii, or the calculated rise based on assumptions by the satellites?

 

[Olde Europe]

????

if adding six more years of data wrecks the claim of highest acceleration evah, then the claim was false due to cherrypicking in the first place.

my comment on Hawaii was about the NOAA release of american tide gauge data. your pretty little map certainly makes my point clear. if coastal areas show 2mm/yr sea level rise, and satellite measurements out at sea show 3mm/yr rise, then what should Hawaii be considered as? how does the Pacific Ocean know to stop rising so fast around a little island chain stuck in the middle? should we believe the measured rise in Hawaii, or the calculated rise based on assumptions by the satellites?

You could have stopped right after the question marks, and would not have made any less sense.

Six years of additional data wreck nothing. And you still haven't read the paper I linked; otherwise you'd know that the authors tested their findings using different time frames to exclude the very error of cherry picking. On the other had, using data from December 2009 to April 2015 certainly looks like cherry-picked beginning and end dates. In other words, the silly WUWT article does exactly that which it accuses the paper's authors of doing, while the latter carefully avoid exactly that.

As to the last paragraph... As you gave no sources ("WUWT" isn't a source, other than one of bemusement on my, and self-humiliation on your, side) I can only speculate on the reasons for the discrepancy (if, in fact, one exists). The easiest, Hawaii being of volcanic origin, Hawaiian soil may rise 1mm per year, which would distort the tide gauge data, but not the ocean-level data gathered by satellites. I wouldn't know, though, but your little quip about "does the Pacific Ocean know to stop rising" is just another instance of your laughing at your own ignorance and incomprehension.

 

[Old Rocks]

no urinals in the girl's washrooms. how do you pee in front of someone if you are in a stall?

You know what's funny about that? Mostly (according to anecdotal evidence) the overlap of the two groups believing transgender people / climate scientists do the darnedest of things. It really ain't fair to rain facts on their parades of putrid fantasies.

Im having a hard time following your comparison.

transgender people have a potential to do something obnoxious but are very seldom seen doing it.

climate scientists have the potential to make mistakes and exaggerate wildly in the name of the 'Noble Cause' and are seen to be doing just that on a daily basis.

so what is your point, exactly?

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Ian, there are those old enough to remember when people like you said exactly that about this article in 1981. It was characterized as wildly alarmist. Now we are seeing all of the predictions happening, and we are not yet 20 years into the 21 century. What fools like you called alarmist then, turned out to be far too conservative.

The last two years and this year have put an end to the 'pause' that never was. And we are seeing even more affects in the Arctic, land and sea, that will have major affect on the rest of the globe.

 

[Old Rocks]

Asbury H. Sallenger Jr, Kara S. Doran & Peter A. Howd, Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America, Nature Climate Change 2, 884–888 (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1597

This was one of the many examples of bad science misinterpreting the sea level oscillations by cherry picking the time window.

As 6 more years of data have been collected, let see if the hotspots are now the “hottest on record” or if they have cooled down.

The logic of Sallenger & co. was based on the comparison of the rate of rise of sea levels over the first and second half of time windows of 60, 50 and 40 years, i.e. the comparison of the rate of rise over the first and the last 30, 25 and 20 years respectively of these 60, 50 and 40 years windows.

This did not make any sense to me, as if you do have sinusoidal oscillations of periodicity 60 years, positive and negative phases of 30 years, and you select the end of the time widows at the end of one positive phase, this way you will always have “positive acceleration” even if there is none, and everybody knew about periods and phasing of the natural oscillations.

has the extra six years of data regressed to the mean and broken the claims of 'highest evah', or not?

do you blame any academic for using a nickname when writing criticism against orthidoxy? Bruno is actually pretty clever. obviously he does not want to get burned at the stake.

And you know that he is an academic, how? More than likely he is another fake like Monkten.

 

[jc456]

no urinals in the girl's washrooms. how do you pee in front of someone if you are in a stall?

You know what's funny about that? Mostly (according to anecdotal evidence) the overlap of the two groups believing transgender people / climate scientists do the darnedest of things. It really ain't fair to rain facts on their parades of putrid fantasies.

Im having a hard time following your comparison.

transgender people have a potential to do something obnoxious but are very seldom seen doing it.

climate scientists have the potential to make mistakes and exaggerate wildly in the name of the 'Noble Cause' and are seen to be doing just that on a daily basis.

so what is your point, exactly?

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Ian, there are those old enough to remember when people like you said exactly that about this article in 1981. It was characterized as wildly alarmist. Now we are seeing all of the predictions happening, and we are not yet 20 years into the 21 century. What fools like you called alarmist then, turned out to be far too conservative.

The last two years and this year have put an end to the 'pause' that never was. And we are seeing even more affects in the Arctic, land and sea, that will have major affect on the rest of the globe.

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

link to experiment showing CO2 as bad. Any day bubba boy.

I call

 

[Old Rocks]

How can something as small in mass as 400 parts per million warm something that has a total mass billions of time greater than it?

By delaying the escape of heat into space.

Just wait until he figures out that the earth's crust's mass is even slightly bigger than that. Oh, and don't tell him that in the end it's just photons; no weight. Zero. And that trillions of them still weigh nothing at all.

S0n we've been waiting on the experiment that shows the magic powers of CO2. Any fkn day

Damn, you have repeatedly been shown the intitial experiment, and all of those that followed. You are just too fucking stupid to understand the meaning of emission and absorption lines in the spectrum.

no urinals in the girl's washrooms. how do you pee in front of someone if you are in a stall?

You know what's funny about that? Mostly (according to anecdotal evidence) the overlap of the two groups believing transgender people / climate scientists do the darnedest of things. It really ain't fair to rain facts on their parades of putrid fantasies.

Im having a hard time following your comparison.

transgender people have a potential to do something obnoxious but are very seldom seen doing it.

climate scientists have the potential to make mistakes and exaggerate wildly in the name of the 'Noble Cause' and are seen to be doing just that on a daily basis.

so what is your point, exactly?

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Ian, there are those old enough to remember when people like you said exactly that about this article in 1981. It was characterized as wildly alarmist. Now we are seeing all of the predictions happening, and we are not yet 20 years into the 21 century. What fools like you called alarmist then, turned out to be far too conservative.

The last two years and this year have put an end to the 'pause' that never was. And we are seeing even more affects in the Arctic, land and sea, that will have major affect on the rest of the globe.

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

link to experiment showing CO2 as bad. Any day bubba boy.

I call

In other words, you once again display your massive ignorance and stupidity. Olde gave you the link to Tyndall's work, and all you have to do is google Arrhenius, and his work in 1896. You are totally a hundred or more years behind time.

 

[jc456]

How can something as small in mass as 400 parts per million warm something that has a total mass billions of time greater than it?

By delaying the escape of heat into space.

Just wait until he figures out that the earth's crust's mass is even slightly bigger than that. Oh, and don't tell him that in the end it's just photons; no weight. Zero. And that trillions of them still weigh nothing at all.

S0n we've been waiting on the experiment that shows the magic powers of CO2. Any fkn day

Damn, you have repeatedly been shown the intitial experiment, and all of those that followed. You are just too fucking stupid to understand the meaning of emission and absorption lines in the spectrum.

no urinals in the girl's washrooms. how do you pee in front of someone if you are in a stall?

You know what's funny about that? Mostly (according to anecdotal evidence) the overlap of the two groups believing transgender people / climate scientists do the darnedest of things. It really ain't fair to rain facts on their parades of putrid fantasies.

Im having a hard time following your comparison.

transgender people have a potential to do something obnoxious but are very seldom seen doing it.

climate scientists have the potential to make mistakes and exaggerate wildly in the name of the 'Noble Cause' and are seen to be doing just that on a daily basis.

so what is your point, exactly?

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Ian, there are those old enough to remember when people like you said exactly that about this article in 1981. It was characterized as wildly alarmist. Now we are seeing all of the predictions happening, and we are not yet 20 years into the 21 century. What fools like you called alarmist then, turned out to be far too conservative.

The last two years and this year have put an end to the 'pause' that never was. And we are seeing even more affects in the Arctic, land and sea, that will have major affect on the rest of the globe.

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

link to experiment showing CO2 as bad. Any day bubba boy.

I call

In other words, you once again display your massive ignorance and stupidity. Olde gave you the link to Tyndall's work, and all you have to do is google Arrhenius, and his work in 1896. You are totally a hundred or more years behind time.

so you have nothing. As expected. Dude you can make claim all you want hourly for all I care about you did this and you did that, but note unequivocally, you have not, nor has anyone here ever presented an experiment that shows the evil of CO2.

What is the temperature of 20 PPM of CO2 then rocks? Since it's been done tell us. GAWD, I'm all fkn in. Let's see it.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The Media Is Ignoring The Most Important Part Of Stephen Hawking’s Comments On Trump

A lot of people consider astrophysicist Stephen Hawking to be the smartest man in the world. His research and theories have explained some of the deepest mysteries of time and space.

So it’s understandable why, on Tuesday, people sort of freaked out when Hawking said there was one thing he could not explain: The popularity of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

“I can’t,” Hawking responded, when asked to explain Trump’s rise as part of an exclusive interview with British news station ITV News. “He is a demagogue, who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator.”

But here’s the thing: in that same interview, Hawking also said he didn’t believe Trump was the greatest threat facing America, or even the world. The greatest threat, he said, is human-caused climate change.

“A more immediate danger is runaway climate change,” Hawking said. “A rise in ocean temperature would melt the ice-caps, and cause a release of large amounts of carbon dioxide from the ocean floor. Both effects could make our climate like that of Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees.”

The Media Is Ignoring The Most Important Part Of Stephen Hawking’s Comments On Trump

 

[Old Rocks]

How can something as small in mass as 400 parts per million warm something that has a total mass billions of time greater than it?

By delaying the escape of heat into space.

Just wait until he figures out that the earth's crust's mass is even slightly bigger than that. Oh, and don't tell him that in the end it's just photons; no weight. Zero. And that trillions of them still weigh nothing at all.

S0n we've been waiting on the experiment that shows the magic powers of CO2. Any fkn day

Damn, you have repeatedly been shown the intitial experiment, and all of those that followed. You are just too fucking stupid to understand the meaning of emission and absorption lines in the spectrum.

You know what's funny about that? Mostly (according to anecdotal evidence) the overlap of the two groups believing transgender people / climate scientists do the darnedest of things. It really ain't fair to rain facts on their parades of putrid fantasies.

Im having a hard time following your comparison.

transgender people have a potential to do something obnoxious but are very seldom seen doing it.

climate scientists have the potential to make mistakes and exaggerate wildly in the name of the 'Noble Cause' and are seen to be doing just that on a daily basis.

so what is your point, exactly?

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Ian, there are those old enough to remember when people like you said exactly that about this article in 1981. It was characterized as wildly alarmist. Now we are seeing all of the predictions happening, and we are not yet 20 years into the 21 century. What fools like you called alarmist then, turned out to be far too conservative.

The last two years and this year have put an end to the 'pause' that never was. And we are seeing even more affects in the Arctic, land and sea, that will have major affect on the rest of the globe.

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

link to experiment showing CO2 as bad. Any day bubba boy.

I call

In other words, you once again display your massive ignorance and stupidity. Olde gave you the link to Tyndall's work, and all you have to do is google Arrhenius, and his work in 1896. You are totally a hundred or more years behind time.

so you have nothing. As expected. Dude you can make claim all you want hourly for all I care about you did this and you did that, but note unequivocally, you have not, nor has anyone here ever presented an experiment that shows the evil of CO2.

What is the temperature of 20 PPM of CO2 then rocks? Since it's been done tell us. GAWD, I'm all fkn in. Let's see it.

You have been shown repeatedly the evidence, and the men that developed it in their original articles. You are a liar and troll, not worth responding to any further.

 

[jc456]

How can something as small in mass as 400 parts per million warm something that has a total mass billions of time greater than it?

By delaying the escape of heat into space.

Just wait until he figures out that the earth's crust's mass is even slightly bigger than that. Oh, and don't tell him that in the end it's just photons; no weight. Zero. And that trillions of them still weigh nothing at all.

S0n we've been waiting on the experiment that shows the magic powers of CO2. Any fkn day

Damn, you have repeatedly been shown the intitial experiment, and all of those that followed. You are just too fucking stupid to understand the meaning of emission and absorption lines in the spectrum.

Im having a hard time following your comparison.

transgender people have a potential to do something obnoxious but are very seldom seen doing it.

climate scientists have the potential to make mistakes and exaggerate wildly in the name of the 'Noble Cause' and are seen to be doing just that on a daily basis.

so what is your point, exactly?

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Ian, there are those old enough to remember when people like you said exactly that about this article in 1981. It was characterized as wildly alarmist. Now we are seeing all of the predictions happening, and we are not yet 20 years into the 21 century. What fools like you called alarmist then, turned out to be far too conservative.

The last two years and this year have put an end to the 'pause' that never was. And we are seeing even more affects in the Arctic, land and sea, that will have major affect on the rest of the globe.

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

link to experiment showing CO2 as bad. Any day bubba boy.

I call

In other words, you once again display your massive ignorance and stupidity. Olde gave you the link to Tyndall's work, and all you have to do is google Arrhenius, and his work in 1896. You are totally a hundred or more years behind time.

so you have nothing. As expected. Dude you can make claim all you want hourly for all I care about you did this and you did that, but note unequivocally, you have not, nor has anyone here ever presented an experiment that shows the evil of CO2.

What is the temperature of 20 PPM of CO2 then rocks? Since it's been done tell us. GAWD, I'm all fkn in. Let's see it.

You have been shown repeatedly the evidence, and the men that developed it in their original articles. You are a liar and troll, not worth responding to any further.

then why can't you answer what the temperature of 20 PPM of CO2 is? wow, dude it was a question in a five line response. And you missed it.

 

[Wuwei]

You have been shown repeatedly the evidence, and the men that developed it in their original articles. You are a liar and troll, not worth responding to any further.

It's about time you recognized him as a troll and not worth while.

 

[Olde Europe]

You have been shown repeatedly the evidence, and the men that developed it in their original articles. You are a liar and troll, not worth responding to any further.

It's about time you recognized him as a troll and not worth while.

There are folks who fit that bill better than JC does, or so I find. He hasn't had much by way of a science education, otherwise a question such as...

"why can't you answer what the temperature of 20 PPM of CO2 is?"​

... which doesn't make a lick of sense (posted not just once, but twice), would be inexplicable. So, I'd cut him some slack, even though he seems to compensate for his incomprehension and insecurity by deploying a rather silly kind of bluster. I find that mostly harmless, and really not worth the acrimony. You proceed as you please, of course, but...

 

[Wuwei]

You have been shown repeatedly the evidence, and the men that developed it in their original articles. You are a liar and troll, not worth responding to any further.

It's about time you recognized him as a troll and not worth while.

There are folks who fit that bill better than JC does, or so I find. He hasn't had much by way of a science education, otherwise a question such as...

"why can't you answer what the temperature of 20 PPM of CO2 is?"​

... which doesn't make a lick of sense (posted not just once, but twice), would be inexplicable. So, I'd cut him some slack, even though he seems to compensate for his incomprehension and insecurity by deploying a rather silly kind of bluster. I find that mostly harmless, and really not worth the acrimony. You proceed as you please, of course, but...

You are too kind. It seems to me he likes to toy with people that are trying to help him understand the issues. Yeah, the "temperature of 20PPM" is one of his wackier posts, but I've seen a lot of others where he has no idea of the science concepts he is bandying about.

 

[Crick]

It is his shorthand for his far more oft-repeated demand to see "laboratory proof" of what temperature increase a 120 ppm increase (280 to 400) in CO2 will cause.

JC, does your laboratory have a layered atmosphere with a density gradient matching the Earth's and topped with a vacuum black body? Does it have an ocean? Does it have continents? Cirrus clouds? Cumulus clouds? Nimbus clouds? Is it mixed in the infinitely complex manner in which the Earth's atmosphere is mixed? Does it have a Coriolis effect? Does it have day and night? Do YOU know how to simulate or model all those various effects in a laboratory setting?

 

[jc456]

You have been shown repeatedly the evidence, and the men that developed it in their original articles. You are a liar and troll, not worth responding to any further.

It's about time you recognized him as a troll and not worth while.

There are folks who fit that bill better than JC does, or so I find. He hasn't had much by way of a science education, otherwise a question such as...

"why can't you answer what the temperature of 20 PPM of CO2 is?"​

... which doesn't make a lick of sense (posted not just once, but twice), would be inexplicable. So, I'd cut him some slack, even though he seems to compensate for his incomprehension and insecurity by deploying a rather silly kind of bluster. I find that mostly harmless, and really not worth the acrimony. You proceed as you please, of course, but...

hey here, I'll post it again, how warm is 20 PPM of CO2? And, what does it do to the convection process that makes more thunderstorms and hurricanes? Let's see those experiments bubba. You think I don't monitor you all in here. yep, I do. I will respond to your nonsense and junk data as often as I can. See your researchers don't have a clue. Nor do you. you just post on a message board as some senior member of Scientific America. hahahahahaahahahhhhahhhahaahahaha how's your fking day been anyway?

 

[jc456]

You have been shown repeatedly the evidence, and the men that developed it in their original articles. You are a liar and troll, not worth responding to any further.

It's about time you recognized him as a troll and not worth while.

There are folks who fit that bill better than JC does, or so I find. He hasn't had much by way of a science education, otherwise a question such as...

"why can't you answer what the temperature of 20 PPM of CO2 is?"​

... which doesn't make a lick of sense (posted not just once, but twice), would be inexplicable. So, I'd cut him some slack, even though he seems to compensate for his incomprehension and insecurity by deploying a rather silly kind of bluster. I find that mostly harmless, and really not worth the acrimony. You proceed as you please, of course, but...

You are too kind. It seems to me he likes to toy with people that are trying to help him understand the issues. Yeah, the "temperature of 20PPM" is one of his wackier posts, but I've seen a lot of others where he has no idea of the science concepts he is bandying about.

yep like magic back radiation. Which you can't prove.