The obvious problem, you pathetic idiot, is that we now have a planet with 8 billion PEOPLE.
What a pitiful example of a "thinking" animal you are.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
EPA chief admits climate change is real — but ‘the real issue is how much we contribu
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
The obvious problem, you pathetic idiot, is that we now have a planet with 8 billion PEOPLE.
What a pitiful example of a "thinking" animal you are.
Would you care to explain why there was a 30 year warming period between 1910-1940 when CO2 was only around 300ppmv? You tried to maintain that it was a localised event even though it lasted 30 years and was observed in places as far apart as Alaska and Spitsbergen?
Sent from my iPhone 10S
No thanks. But thank you for asking.
Did that extra C come from more cow farts, do you suppose?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You can't even get that right, it is 7 billion!!The obvious problem, you pathetic idiot, is that we now have a planet with 8 billion PEOPLE.
What a pitiful example of a "thinking" animal you are.
Sent from my iPhone 10S
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yes that's how I feel about you!!You really are dense aren't you? Here's the obvious truth, dumbfuck.
THERE WERE NO PEOPLE
No cities to be submerged. No massive human migration. No disturbance to socio-economic institutions. No massive famine and disease. No wars as a result.
NO PEOPLE, you fucking moron.
I feel like I'm talking to a 4 year old.
Sent from my iPhone 10S
You can't even get that right, it is 7 billion!!
Sent from my iPhone 10S
lol
^This, folks, is called desperate diversion. Pathetic
Yes that's how I feel about you!!
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Still trying to get you to think about where all that extra C came from. Your equation, dbag. Don't want to talk about it?
Would you prefer just to go on about a "trace plant food" and defend the sciencetards you seem to be on the same page with?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yes that's how I feel about you!!You really are dense aren't you? Here's the obvious truth, dumbfuck.
THERE WERE NO PEOPLE
No cities to be submerged. No massive human migration. No disturbance to socio-economic institutions. No massive famine and disease. No wars as a result.
NO PEOPLE, you fucking moron.
I feel like I'm talking to a 4 year old.
You are an incredibly stupid person, but I can see why you would decline to answer the question.No thanks. But thank you for asking.
Did that extra C come from more cow farts, do you suppose?
There was a 30 year warming period between 1910 and 1940 followed by a cooling period up to 1975. The warming occurred with CO2 concentration at around 300ppmv, only 20ppmv above the level at the start of the Industrial Age in the late 18th century.
Sent from my iPhone 10S
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Holy fuck you are truly incorrigible. I correct you on an erroneous fact and you call that a diversion. Simple enough really, stop spouting shit and you won't get called out.lol
^This, folks, is called desperate diversion. Pathetic
Sent from my iPhone 10S
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Still trying to get you to think about where all that extra C came from. Your equation, dbag. Don't want to talk about it?
Would you prefer just to go on about a "trace plant food" and defend the sciencetards you seem to be on the same page with?
It's not my equation it comes from IPCC AR5. It's not my fault that you are so stupid, blame your parents.
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Holy fuck you are truly incorrigible. I correct you on an erroneous fact and you call that a diversion. Simple enough really, stop spouting shit and you won't get called out.
Sent from my iPhone 10S
If it makes you feel better, crybaby, I can change that 8 billion to 7.4 billion. Now tell me how that changes the content of the post.
You really are a desperate motherfucker.
Why do you wish to avoid discussing the formula that you posted from your cut-and-paste? Are the connotations of that uncomfortable for you? Probably so, as it appears you are a closet AGW. lol
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
It's not a trace anything fool, it is essential to all life on Earth.Still trying to get you to think about where all that extra C came from. Your equation, dbag. Don't want to talk about it?
Would you prefer just to go on about a "trace plant food" and defend the sciencetards you seem to be on the same page with?
Sent from my iPhone 10S
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Why do you persist in asking stupid questions? I only decline to answer because I love watching snowflakes go apeshit, so please don't stop!If it makes you feel better, crybaby, I can change that 8 billion to 7.4 billion. Now tell me how that changes the content of the post.
You really are a desperate motherfucker.
Why do you wish to avoid discussing the formula that you posted from your cut-and-paste? Are the connotations of that uncomfortable for you? Probably do, as it appears you are a closet AGW. lol
Sent from my iPhone 10S
It's not a trace anything fool, it is essential to all life on Earth.
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Good, now we're getting somewhere.
Now, back to your formula. You do realize it outs you as an AGW proponent, don't you?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Good, now we're getting somewhere.
Now, back to your formula. You do realize it outs you as an AGW proponent, don't you?
Holy fuck I must have posted this a million times already but there is always yet another ignorant peasant. This is what Prof. Richard Lindzen said in his opening statement to a House of Commons committee in 2012, I concur wholeheartedly with it.
"Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest."
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Holy fuck I must have posted this a million times already but there is always yet another ignorant peasant. This is what Prof. Richard Lindzen said in his opening statement to a House of Commons committee in 2012, I concur wholeheartedly with it.
"Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest."
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Since you're going to be so fucking stubborn about it, I can condense what the formula YOU provided indicates.
It indicates delta T, the change in global temperatures, will increase about 3.5 degrees C with doubling of CO2 levels. Now, even though you wish to avoid the uncomfortable answer to my question, that doubling in CO2 is not a result of cow farts or volcanoes. It's from the combustion of fossil fuels by humans.
You want to argue the consequences of a delta T of 3.5? Different subject. But you provided the equation and that's what it indicates. It also indicates you are a closet AGW. How does it feel coming out of the closet?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Since you're going to be so fucking stubborn about it, I can condense what the formula YOU provided indicates.
It indicates delta T, the change in global temperatures, will increase about 3.5 degrees C with doubling of CO2 levels. Now, even though you wish to avoid the uncomfortable answer to my question, that doubling in CO2 is not a result of cow farts or volcanoes. It's from the combustion of fossil fuels by humans.
You want to argue the consequences of a delta T of 3.5? Different subject. But you provided the equation and that's what it indicates. It also indicates you are a closet AGW. How does it feel coming out of the closet?
God you are truly fucking dense, it is the equation for climate forcing due to CO2, delta F is expressed in Watts per square metre and the current value for CO2 doubling is 3.71, this is equivalent to a theoretical temperature rise of around 1.2k.
I have already said this but you're just too fucking stupid for words!!
Delta F = 5.35 ln (C/Co), (1)
where C is CO2 concentration in parts per million by volume and Co is the reference concentration. The formula predicts a radiative forcing of 3.71 Wm-2 for a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration from 1770 to 2070.
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Last edited:
God you are truly fucking dense, it is the equation for climate forcing due to CO2, delta F is expressed in Watts per square metre and the current value for CO2 doubling is 3.71, this is equivalent to a theoretical temperature rise of around 1.2k.
I have already said this but you're just too fucking stupid for words!!
Delta F = 5.35 ln (C/Co), (1)
where C is CO2 concentration in parts per million by volume and Co is the reference concentration. The formula predicts a radiative forcing of 3.71 Wm-2 for a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration from 1770 to 2070.
Sent from my iPhone 10S
The equation neglects feedback. Increased temps increase water vapor, another greenhouse gas.
Best estimate is 2.1 degrees. Yours was low estimate, mine was high.
The new formula gives 3.71Wm-2 for doubling carbon dioxide; 15% less than the previous formula. It is also below the mean of 4.0Wm-2 of the models (Cess 1993).
Reduced Greenhouse Warming
"The replacement of the previous formula (1) for calculating radiative forcing from carbon dioxide concentrations by the revised, more accurate formula (3), means that all existing and previous estimates for future temperature rise due to the greenhouse effect, should be reduced by 15%. In particular, the "temperature climate sensitivity" (temperature change for doubling carbon dioxide) figures of 2.5°C "Best Estimate", 4.5°C "High Estimate" and 1.5°C "Low Estimate" which are the basis for most IPCC projections, should be revised to 2.1°C, 3.8°C and 1.3°C respectively.
http://www.john-daly.com/bull-121.htm
Deal with the 2.5, AGW advocate!
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Outside of models there is no real empirical evidence for positive feedbacks. They have been invented because a rise of 1.2k over 3 centuries is not going to scare anyone hence the need to scare the shit out of the bewildered like you.The equation neglects feedback. Increased temps increase water vapor, another greenhouse gas.
Best estimate is 2.5 degrees. Yours was low estimate, mine was high.
The new formula gives 3.71Wm-2 for doubling carbon dioxide; 15% less than the previous formula. It is also below the mean of 4.0Wm-2 of the models (Cess 1993).
Reduced Greenhouse Warming
"The replacement of the previous formula (1) for calculating radiative forcing from carbon dioxide concentrations by the revised, more accurate formula (3), means that all existing and previous estimates for future temperature rise due to the greenhouse effect, should be reduced by 15%. In particular, the "temperature climate sensitivity" (temperature change for doubling carbon dioxide) figures of 2.5°C "Best Estimate", 4.5°C "High Estimate" and 1.5°C "Low Estimate" which are the basis for most IPCC projections, should be revised to 2.1°C, 3.8°C and 1.3°C respectively.
http://www.john-daly.com/bull-121.htm
Deal with the 2.5, AGW advocate!
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Outside of models there is no real empirical evidence for positive feedbacks. They have been invented because a rise of 1.2k over 3 centuries is not going to scare anyone hence the need to scare the shit out of the bewildered like you.
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Right. Water vapor levels will not increase with increasing temperatures.
This is what tickles me. I haven't taken any position on AGW. Yet you have been here, publically trashing those that are. With your own posts, you admit you, in fact, ARE an AGW proponent.
Try to be more honest with your 1.5, pal. That represents the low estimate in every reference I have encountered. Scientific honesty requires you provide the range, which is about 1.5-3.8, 2.5
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Right. Water vapor levels will not increase with increasing temperatures.
This is what tickles me. I haven't taken any position on AGW. Yet you have been here, publically trashing those that are. With your own posts, you admit you, in fact, ARE an AGW proponent.
Try to be more honest with your 1.5, pal. That represents the low estimate in every reference I have encountered. Scientific honesty requires you provide the range, which is about 1.5-3.8, 2.5
So why you getting so agitated about AGW then? I am telling you what I believe, you are free to choose whatever floats your boat. Suffice to say this is what happens when you let green zealots control policy.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4380806/Man-dash-diesel-called-C02-worse-terror.html
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Last edited: