"West Antarctic Ice Sheet's Collapse Triggers Sea Level Warning"

[Crick]

Are you kidding me? I hope that's a bad joke.

 

[mamooth]

Argon is heavier than air, hence the 1% argon in the atmosphere must be all piled up at the bottom, smothering us all by displacing the oxygen. At least by jc's logic, that is.

 

[mamooth]

Isotope ratio proves WHAT exactly in your feeble imagination?

That the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to humans burning fossil fuels. Basic stuff.

Plants like to munch on C12 in preference to C13. Fossil fuels come from plants, hence fossil fuels have a lower C13/C12 ratio than the atmosphere. Burn fossil fuels, the C13/C12 ratio of the atmosphere goes down. We measure that.

That's all the detail you get. This is all online, if you want to look for it, and Crick gave a reference. I'm not spending hours typing equations just because you're too lazy to look.

However, despite your apparent belief that you have deftly deflected the question, it remains clear to all the rest of us that all you did was attempt to duck the question.

Here's your post that I responded to.

To the extent that "Outgoing longwave infrared radiation squeezing down in the greenhouse gas absorption bands" might stem from increased CO2 in the atmosphere, your "thesis" would necessarily depend on the proposition that humans are the leading cause of any increase in atmospheric CO2.

However, manboob, you persist in ignoring the scientific evidence that might otherwise inform you that CO2 increases lag behind increasing atmospheric warmth. Increased atmospheric CO2 might be caused naturally due to causes far removed from the trace amounts humans have added to the atmosphere.

If you keep your eyes tightly shut, like you show a tendency to do, you won't have to confront any of that nasty evidence that you might very well be entirely wrong.

Noticeable in it is the lack of any question, which would make it difficult for me to dodge a question. Apparently, I've dodged a question you didn't ask. Or perhaps it was you getting confused again about what your voices said.

When the seas and oceans get warmer, whether an asshole like you cares to admit reality or not, there is a significant release of CO2.

Unless atmospheric CO2 is rising quickly, in which case the oceans absorb CO2. As we directly measure them doing, but since such data contradicts your cult dogma, you pretend it doesn't exist. The fact that the seas are warming just slows down the absorption a bit.

Learn your limitations. You stink at the basic science. And you're not smart enough to realize you stink, so you declare anyone who isn't as stupid as you has got it all wrong

 

[mamooth]

Hmmm.

Jennifer Marohasy » AGW Falsified: NOAA Long Wave Radiation Data Incompatible with the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming

You got it. A blogger knows the real truth, while all those scientists are in a vast conspiracy to cover it up.

Back in the real world, the blogger was too stupid to realize you can't simply plot raw data, being it doesn't correct for satellite drift, calibration, differing data sets and other factors.

 

[jc456]

Are you kidding me? I hope that's a bad joke.

nope! So you're saying that CO2 is not heavier than air? How then does it go in the ocean first and how does it get to the soil?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Isotope ratio proves WHAT exactly in your feeble imagination?

That the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to humans burning fossil fuels. Basic stuff.

Plants like to munch on C12 in preference to C13. Fossil fuels come from plants, hence fossil fuels have a lower C13/C12 ratio than the atmosphere. Burn fossil fuels, the C13/C12 ratio of the atmosphere goes down. We measure that.

That's all the detail you get. This is all online, if you want to look for it, and Crick gave a reference. I'm not spending hours typing equations just because you're too lazy to look.

However, despite your apparent belief that you have deftly deflected the question, it remains clear to all the rest of us that all you did was attempt to duck the question.

Here's your post that I responded to.

To the extent that "Outgoing longwave infrared radiation squeezing down in the greenhouse gas absorption bands" might stem from increased CO2 in the atmosphere, your "thesis" would necessarily depend on the proposition that humans are the leading cause of any increase in atmospheric CO2.

However, manboob, you persist in ignoring the scientific evidence that might otherwise inform you that CO2 increases lag behind increasing atmospheric warmth. Increased atmospheric CO2 might be caused naturally due to causes far removed from the trace amounts humans have added to the atmosphere.

If you keep your eyes tightly shut, like you show a tendency to do, you won't have to confront any of that nasty evidence that you might very well be entirely wrong.

Noticeable in it is the lack of any question, which would make it difficult for me to dodge a question. Apparently, I've dodged a question you didn't ask. Or perhaps it was you getting confused again about what your voices said.

When the seas and oceans get warmer, whether an asshole like you cares to admit reality or not, there is a significant release of CO2.

Unless atmospheric CO2 is rising quickly, in which case the oceans absorb CO2. As we directly measure them doing, but since such data contradicts your cult dogma, you pretend it doesn't exist. The fact that the seas are warming just slows down the absorption a bit.

Learn your limitations. You stink at the basic science. And you're not smart enough to realize you stink, so you declare anyone who isn't as stupid as you has got it all wrong

YOu, little boy, are the one who stinks in basic (as well, of course, in advanced) science.

You cite silly blog type shit much of which you cannot even fathom.

You pretend to know that which real scientists freely admit they do not yet know and cannot yet know. They are proposing things based on "facts" as they understand them to be. Which is a separate problem when your fellow AGW Faithers fudge some data, a cardinal sin in actual science. But at least THEIR proposals (theories) are grounded in the actual precepts of the scientific method.

Unlike you, they do not just spout off about what other people say. They can, if they are true scientists, accept the prospect that they might be wrong. They do not run screaming, as you do, from the very prospect of falsifiability.

And for all your vainglorious muttering, silly boy, the FACT remains crystal clear that YOU have no way of answering ANY of the rather fundamental questions that real scientists wouldn't shy away from like you do.

They (not you) would ACCEPT the challenge and some basic facts.

Ice ages occurred prior to human industry. The ice also RECEDED prior to human industry. THEY (not you) would therefore not shirk the undeniable conclusion: such climatic changes can occur without human causation. With that as a GIVEN, they might wonder if humans are capable of causing (or contributing to) such grand climate changes. That is a fair question. But accepting that it can happen and has happened without human causation IS necessary if one is truly trying to seek scientific knowledge about the multifaceted and inter-related causes of climate change.

You are quite vain. You actually WANT to believe that we humans are even slightly capable of CAUSING climate change. Ok. Anything's possible. But the "evidence" imbeciles like YOU point to is: "See??? We have added maybe a couple of hundred parts per billion to the carbon dioxide load in our atmosphere!" Yeah. Ok. That MIGHT even be true. And?

What ACTUALLY follows from that factoid, genius?

Let's get real. You can spout your untested and unproven theory all day every day, but you have not yet EVER supported it.

You are a fraudulent little huckster.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Before I die, I hope to see the entire western ice sheet of Antarctica slide into the ocean.

 

[flacaltenn]

Isotope ration C13/C14 is NOT definitive for proving anthro origins. Particularly because of converted Methane (oxidation). Also because the markers for the 2 elements statistically overlap. Plenty of ancient carbon entering the atmos naturally. The ocean is FILLED with ancient CO2.

 

[Crick]

Odd, then, that the isotopic AND the simple bookkeeping analyses both come up with the same answer and that answer happens to be almost precisely what is required to take us from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.

But, if you disagree, what do you think has happened to all the fossil fuels we've burned?

 

[flacaltenn]

Odd, then, that the isotopic AND the simple bookkeeping analyses both come up with the same answer and that answer happens to be almost precisely what is required to take us from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.

But, if you disagree, what do you think has happened to all the fossil fuels we've burned?

Yeah -- I'll stand with I said.. Almost 50% of the CO2 charged to man comes from AGRICULTURE and LAND USE changes, not fossil fuels.. And of the Anthro CO2, about 1/3 is ABSORBED on land or sea. THAT'S what happens to it. So if you are fixated on fossil fuels, what man has released from that source is about 1/2 X 2/3 or 1/3 into the atmos..

Termites come close to that amount... If you count their methane emissions as well..
Since the oceans alone toss 10 times that amount YEARLY into the atmos, it would be damn hard to fingerprint that to man..

Besides, it's highly likely that a doubling of CO2 into the Atmos will never result in more than 1.5degC in GH warming. We are short of the 1st industrial age doubling and the NEXT doubling doesn't occur til we hit 1120ppm.. When do suppose THAT will happen CrickHam?

 

[Crick]

Termite emissions have not increased and are not fossil.

Ocean emissions have only increased as the ocean's temperature has increased and fossil-age carbons have been subducted. The turnover of dissolved gases is quite quick on a geological time scale. The complete circulation turnover from the MOC is no more than a few centuries tops.

Agriculture and land use changes have had a mixed effect on CO2. Replacing a meadow with a soybean field does not make a huge change in CO2 absorption. Replacing one with a parking lot or with a hundred miles of interstate will.

What's your point? For what portion of the 120 ppm increase since 1780 do you believe humans are responsible and on what research/data do you base that belief?

 

[flacaltenn]

Termite emissions have not increased and are not fossil.

Ocean emissions have only increased as the ocean's temperature has increased and fossil-age carbons have been subducted. The turnover of dissolved gases is quite quick on a geological time scale. The complete circulation turnover from the MOC is no more than a few centuries tops.

Agriculture and land use changes have had a mixed effect on CO2. Replacing a meadow with a soybean field does not make a huge change in CO2 absorption. Replacing one with a parking lot or with a hundred miles of interstate will.

What's your point? For what portion of the 120 ppm increase since 1780 do you believe humans are responsible and on what research/data do you base that belief?

1) The GH does not care about origin. Therefore termite farts are just as valid.

2) Don't care about the 120ppm increase -- Just arguing about what is charged to man and putting it in perspective.

3) The effect when we reach 560ppm will have totaled LESS than 1.5degC..

4) You never answer my questions. Just like Abe used not do..

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Termite emissions have not increased and are not fossil.

Ocean emissions have only increased as the ocean's temperature has increased and fossil-age carbons have been subducted. The turnover of dissolved gases is quite quick on a geological time scale. The complete circulation turnover from the MOC is no more than a few centuries tops.

Agriculture and land use changes have had a mixed effect on CO2. Replacing a meadow with a soybean field does not make a huge change in CO2 absorption. Replacing one with a parking lot or with a hundred miles of interstate will.

What's your point? For what portion of the 120 ppm increase since 1780 do you believe humans are responsible and on what research/data do you base that belief?

1) The GH does not care about origin. Therefore termite farts are just as valid.

2) Don't care about the 120ppm increase -- Just arguing about what is charged to man and putting it in perspective.

3) The effect when we reach 560ppm will have totaled LESS than 1.5degC..

4) You never answer my questions. Just like Abe used not do..

PrickAbe can't answer your questions. He, instead, runs to find if some blog says what he thinks is a good sounding answer. He skims it. He fails to even begin to properly understand it. Then he paraphrases it to the best of his limited abilities

UNLESS he thinks that providing an honest answer might get him into deeper waters.
In that latter case, of course, he just runs away and changes the subject.

His M.O. may be plodding and cowardly, but at least it's shallow and pathetic.

 

[Crick]

1) The GH does not care about origin. Therefore termite farts are just as valid.

What, pray tell, is "GH"? Good Housekeeping? Termite emissions have not increased and termite emissions are not fossil based so they have not been involved in the increase and will not throw off the isotopic analysis.

2) Don't care about the 120ppm increase -- Just arguing about what is charged to man and putting it in perspective.

That's a fairly pathetic manner to avoid answering the fundamental question under discussion.

3) The effect when we reach 560ppm will have totaled LESS than 1.5degC..

Says the Crowned Prince of Non-Linear Response

4) You never answer my questions. Just like Abe used not do.

I have just reviewed this thread and the only question I can find you to have posted to me was when I thought CO2 levels would hit 1120 ppm. I failed to answer that question for the following reasons:

1) The question in its context is obviously rhetorical. I'm not stupid enough to answer rhetorical questions unless I see some other point to be made.
2) The answer to that question, as I certainly hope you know, would depend grossly on which emissions scenario you wanted to select.
3) I'm not a climate scientist. If I wanted to provide some form of answer to that question, I would go look it up in AR5. You can do that yourself. I most certainly don't put in unneeded effort to answer rhetorical questions about which you couldn't give a rat's ass in any case.

 

[Crick]

PrickAbe can't answer your questions.

"PrickAbe". Wow. You guys are clever and your wit is BITING. I'll be agonizing over that one for... gosh, microseconds.

He, instead, runs to find if some blog says what he thinks is a good sounding answer.

No, I don't. I far more often find peer reviewed studies. They provide good-sounding answers because they provide good answers.

He skims it. He fails to even begin to properly understand it. Then he paraphrases it to the best of his limited abilities

I never got into all that Dunning-Kreuger (Kruger?) stuff, but I can see where they get it.

UNLESS he thinks that providing an honest answer might get him into deeper waters.
In that latter case, of course, he just runs away and changes the subject.

I think you will find that I have admitted my mistakes more often here than any other poster on this board. I make a point of doing so and it has been commented on by my opponents. When was the last time you admitted that you had made a mistake.? If you're having any difficulty identifying a candidate instance I can help.

His M.O. may be plodding and cowardly, but at least it's shallow and pathetic.

As far as I can tell lately, the value inherent in debating you on anything doesn't actually rise above the level required to make the typing worthwhile. Though maybe it's good for fending off the arthritis.

 

[Crick]

Are you kidding me? I hope that's a bad joke.

nope! So you're saying that CO2 is not heavier than air? How then does it go in the ocean first and how does it get to the soil?

Do you think all the CO2 in the atmosphere is sitting down here on the ground? Do you believe that the various gases that make up the Earth's atmosphere are all sorted like a layer cake by their varying densities? Is that what you actually think?

Let me repeat you:

So you're saying that CO2 is not heavier than air? How then does it go in the ocean first and how does it get to the soil?

Wow... not a joke? Really?

 

[flacaltenn]

1) The GH does not care about origin. Therefore termite farts are just as valid.

What, pray tell, is "GH"? Good Housekeeping? Termite emissions have not increased and termite emissions are not fossil based so they have not been involved in the increase and will not throw off the isotopic analysis.

2) Don't care about the 120ppm increase -- Just arguing about what is charged to man and putting it in perspective.

That's a fairly pathetic manner to avoid answering the fundamental question under discussion.

3) The effect when we reach 560ppm will have totaled LESS than 1.5degC..

Says the Crowned Prince of Non-Linear Response

4) You never answer my questions. Just like Abe used not do.

I have just reviewed this thread and the only question I can find you to have posted to me was when I thought CO2 levels would hit 1120 ppm. I failed to answer that question for the following reasons:

1) The question in its context is obviously rhetorical. I'm not stupid enough to answer rhetorical questions unless I see some other point to be made.
2) The answer to that question, as I certainly hope you know, would depend grossly on which emissions scenario you wanted to select.
3) I'm not a climate scientist. If I wanted to provide some form of answer to that question, I would go look it up in AR5. You can do that yourself. I most certainly don't put in unneeded effort to answer rhetorical questions about which you couldn't give a rat's ass in any case.

3500 posts in this forum Crickham and you STILL don't understand the concept and math of CO2 doubling? 280ppm PRE-Industrial level. Doubling at 560ppm at some future date? And the next doubling after that would be _________ ppm.. Take a wild ass guess or ask the IPCC. When does that happen? To within a couple decades...

And GH ?? As in GHouse?? Are you on drugs or are you really denser than Abe3?

 

[jc456]

Are you kidding me? I hope that's a bad joke.

nope! So you're saying that CO2 is not heavier than air? How then does it go in the ocean first and how does it get to the soil?

Do you think all the CO2 in the atmosphere is sitting down here on the ground? Do you believe that the various gases that make up the Earth's atmosphere are all sorted like a layer cake by their varying densities? Is that what you actually think?

Let me repeat you:

So you're saying that CO2 is not heavier than air? How then does it go in the ocean first and how does it get to the soil?

Wow... not a joke? Really?

Just another question unanswered. You're like 100 for 100. Mumbo Jumbo Wiki---

 

[PredFan]

When is it going to happen already! I'm tired of waiting for my beachfront property.

 

[PredFan]

Notice how they are talking centuries here? By the time they are proven wrong, everyone who heard it will be dead. Meanwhile with the help of the democrat party, the US will be sent back to the Stone Age, while China and Russia prosper.