The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps

[mamooth]

Successful launch of the OCO-2 (Orbiting Carbon Observatory) satellite last night. So far, all systems performing as expected.

What does it mean? I would say it will be another nail in the coffin of "but the CO2 is natural!" claims, but that's not correct. That coffin is so thoroughly nail-studded that there just isn't any more room for another nail.

In general, more and better data is disastrous for denier positions. Hence, deniers will need to find some new creative excuses to deny the new data. It's best to be prepared, so you deniers should start working on those excuses now. You've got maybe 6 months before the data starts coming, since the system tests, calibrations and orbital adjustments take a good deal of time.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Successful launch of the OCO-2 (Orbiting Carbon Observatory) satellite last night. So far, all systems performing as expected.

What does it mean? I would say it will be another nail in the coffin of "but the CO2 is natural!" claims, but that's not correct. That coffin is so thoroughly nail-studded that there just isn't any more room for another nail.

In general, more and better data is disastrous for denier positions. Hence, deniers will need to find some new creative excuses to deny the new data. It's best to be prepared, so you deniers should start working on those excuses now. You've got maybe 6 months before the data starts coming, since the system tests, calibrations and orbital adjustments take a good deal of time.

But they can't afford to conduct even one experiment that shows weather or not a 120PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperature

 

[jc456]

Successful launch of the OCO-2 (Orbiting Carbon Observatory) satellite last night. So far, all systems performing as expected.

What does it mean? I would say it will be another nail in the coffin of "but the CO2 is natural!" claims, but that's not correct. That coffin is so thoroughly nail-studded that there just isn't any more room for another nail.

In general, more and better data is disastrous for denier positions. Hence, deniers will need to find some new creative excuses to deny the new data. It's best to be prepared, so you deniers should start working on those excuses now. You've got maybe 6 months before the data starts coming, since the system tests, calibrations and orbital adjustments take a good deal of time.

So what? Without evidence that shows that CO2 drives temperature, that you can't, who flippin cares how much CO2 is in the atmopshere.

 

[elektra]

Successful launch of the OCO-2 (Orbiting Carbon Observatory) satellite last night. So far, all systems performing as expected.

What does it mean? I would say it will be another nail in the coffin of "but the CO2 is natural!" claims, but that's not correct. That coffin is so thoroughly nail-studded that there just isn't any more room for another nail.

In general, more and better data is disastrous for denier positions. Hence, deniers will need to find some new creative excuses to deny the new data. It's best to be prepared, so you deniers should start working on those excuses now. You've got maybe 6 months before the data starts coming, since the system tests, calibrations and orbital adjustments take a good deal of time.

Nice rant, too bad you do not have the intelligence to make sense of what you learned. Maybe you could link to a press release and pass that off as your superior intellect.

 

[mamooth]

So much bitterness. It appears even the poor addled deniers understand, on at least some level, how their cult is collapsing under the weight of the data.

 

[jc456]

So much bitterness. It appears even the poor addled deniers understand, on at least some level, how their cult is collapsing under the weight of the data.

Since the message is out there that there is no proof, what bitterness there is will only be from your side since you can't provide it! Speak of bitter, the lack of that experiment proves our point. listen and you'll hear the pac man music. BTW, you make me laugh!

 

[orogenicman]

what is your definition of global warming?

Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a cause. It is a symptom, a result of 150+ years of cumulative human industrial and consumer emission of greenhouse gases. It can be mitigated without destroying economies. Yes old habits die hard. Particularly with respect to political chicanery. But we can ill afford to allow it to continue unchecked.

Answer one question is the heat absorbed in CO2 hotter than the sun?

Do you have a relevant question you care to ask?

 

[westwall]

So much bitterness. It appears even the poor addled deniers understand, on at least some level, how their cult is collapsing under the weight of the data.

Models aren't "data" idiot.

 

[Kosh]

Successful launch of the OCO-2 (Orbiting Carbon Observatory) satellite last night. So far, all systems performing as expected.

What does it mean? I would say it will be another nail in the coffin of "but the CO2 is natural!" claims, but that's not correct. That coffin is so thoroughly nail-studded that there just isn't any more room for another nail.

In general, more and better data is disastrous for denier positions. Hence, deniers will need to find some new creative excuses to deny the new data. It's best to be prepared, so you deniers should start working on those excuses now. You've got maybe 6 months before the data starts coming, since the system tests, calibrations and orbital adjustments take a good deal of time.

More proof that the AGW religion is all about money!

Still will not prove that CO2 drives climate.

If we had spent those trillions on what does drive climate we would be better for it now.

 

[Crick]

Models aren't "data" idiot.

They aren't? Are you SURE about that? Really SURE? Think real hard. Try it one more time.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Models aren't "data" idiot.

They aren't? Are you SURE about that? Really SURE? Think real hard. Try it one more time.

One is a Model, the other is Data

See the difference

 

[Crick]

DATA
1.
a plural of datum.
2.
( used with a plural verb ) individual facts, statistics, or items of information: These data represent the results of our analyses. Data are entered by terminal for immediate processing by the computer.
3.
( used with a singular verb ) a body of facts; information: Additional data is available from the president of the firm.

DATUM
1.
a single piece of information, as a fact, statistic, or code; an item of data.
2.
Philosophy .
a.
any fact assumed to be a matter of direct observation.
b.
any proposition assumed or given, from which conclusions may be drawn.
3.
Also called sense datum. Epistemology. the object of knowledge as presented to the mind. Compare ideatum.
4.
Surveying, Civil Engineering . any level surface, line, or point used as a reference in measuring elevations.
5.
Surveying . a basis for horizontal control surveys, consisting of the longitude and latitude of a certain point, the azimuth of a certain line from this point, and two constants used in defining the terrestrial spheroid.

DATA
1. a series of observations, measurements, or facts; information
2. computing Also called: information the information operated on by a computer program

DATUM
1. a single piece of information; fact
2. See also sense datum a proposition taken for granted, often in order to construct some theoretical framework upon it; a given

COMPUTER DICTIONARY

data definition
data, data processing, jargon
/day't*/ (Or "raw data") Numbers, characters, images, or other method of recording, in a form which can be assessed by a human or (especially) input into a computer, stored and processed there, or transmitted on some digital channel. Computers nearly always represent data in binary.
Data on its own has no meaning, only when interpreted by some kind of data processing system does it take on meaning and become information.
For example, the binary data 01110101 might represent the integer 117 or the ASCII lower case U character or the blue component of a pixel in some video. Which of these it represents is determined by the way it is processed (added, printed, displayed, etc.). Even these numbers, characters or pixels however are still not really information until their context is known, e.g. my bank balance is £117, there are two Us in "vacuum", you have blue eyes.

Climate models perform start out with measured climate parameters and process them using known physical laws, physical processes and climatological functions. They are often regularly updated with more direct measurements and observations as their runs progress. If you think they are not data, you will be wanting to throw out most of human science as it also was determined by physics-based calculations performed on measurements.

 

[elektra]

So much bitterness. It appears even the poor addled deniers understand, on at least some level, how their cult is collapsing under the weight of the data.

yes, your continued use of second hand links to press releases is such compelling data it led us to bitterness.

Do you deny, mamoot, that you use nothing but press releases?

Don't bother to quote or respond, I am just here to show how all you got is the denigration of those who will not accept a press release as a fact.

How about a nice link to another press release, you are really good at that.

 

[westwall]

Models aren't "data" idiot.

They aren't? Are you SURE about that? Really SURE? Think real hard. Try it one more time.

No....I'm not "sure" about that. I'm POSITIVE! The fact that you're not only demonstrates the poor understanding of science and the scientific method that you all suffer from.

 

[Crick]

No, it demonstrates your dishonesty.

Data is any information that anyone finds of value. Model outputs are data and to assert otherwise is asinine ignorance.

Climate model outputs are processed real world data. They are not fantasies. They are not fabrications. If you're looking for an accurate place to apply terms such as those, you should look at ignorant denier blog rants about climate models. Like yours. JUST like yours.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, it demonstrates your dishonesty.

Data is any information that anyone finds of value. Model outputs are data and to assert otherwise is asinine ignorance.

Climate model outputs are processed real world data. They are not fantasies. They are not fabrications. If you're looking for an accurate place to apply terms such as those, you should look at ignorant denier blog rants about climate models. Like yours. JUST like yours.

So I can use the same data to show a correlation between Progressive leadership and AGW

Our warmest years were when we had our most Progressive presidents. Hence Progressives cause AGW

Can I get an Amen (consensus)

 

[jc456]

No, it demonstrates your dishonesty.

Data is any information that anyone finds of value. Model outputs are data and to assert otherwise is asinine ignorance.

Climate model outputs are processed real world data. They are not fantasies. They are not fabrications. If you're looking for an accurate place to apply terms such as those, you should look at ignorant denier blog rants about climate models. Like yours. JUST like yours.

So I can use the same data to show a correlation between Progressive leadership and AGW

Our warmest years were when we had our most Progressive presidents. Hence Progressives cause AGW

Can I get an Amen (consensus)

Amen!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, it demonstrates your dishonesty.

Data is any information that anyone finds of value. Model outputs are data and to assert otherwise is asinine ignorance.

Climate model outputs are processed real world data. They are not fantasies. They are not fabrications. If you're looking for an accurate place to apply terms such as those, you should look at ignorant denier blog rants about climate models. Like yours. JUST like yours.

So I can use the same data to show a correlation between Progressive leadership and AGW

Our warmest years were when we had our most Progressive presidents. Hence Progressives cause AGW

Can I get an Amen (consensus)

Amen!!

I have peer reviewed the above and fit it 100% Accurate

We have Consensus!

The Science is Settled!

Progressives cause Global Climate Warming Disruption

 

[elektra]

No, it demonstrates your dishonesty.

Data is any information that anyone finds of value. Model outputs are data and to assert otherwise is asinine ignorance.

Climate model outputs are processed real world data. They are not fantasies. They are not fabrications. If you're looking for an accurate place to apply terms such as those, you should look at ignorant denier blog rants about climate models. Like yours. JUST like yours.

Climate model outputs are processed real world data, yep, that is true.

The Real World Data states that there is no AGW, but once its processed it becomes a nice piece of Activists propaganda the fools use to scream, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling".

 

[Crick]

Where the fuck do you get the idea that the real world data says there's no AGW?

Here's some real world data that says you need to think again (or perhaps for the first time):