@MontereyJack,
Quote:TO TALK ABOUT NATURAL CHANGE IN THE CLIMATE.
Are you yelling because senility has robbed you of your hearing ?
Right back at ya, dickless.
Quote:Do you happen to be unfamiliar with the commonly accepted figure of 5-6 degrees C lower average global temperature at the coldest points of our current cycle of ice ages, versus the high point of interglacials?
I'm unfamiliar with a lot of your special pleading . Do you think it might look more scientific if you happen to mention which glacial and interglacial period you are talking about? I know you are rather left behind when it comes to understanding science .
Quote:I'm sure you're familiar with the projections of a 3-4 degree C rise this century if we keep blowing out all the CO2 we are.
I'm sure you're familiar with the accuracy of most predictions of long tern weather, let alone climate, let alone a world average climate .
@MontereyJack,
Quote:I see the concept of average has totally escaped you
I see the complexity of averaging all the worlds climates at a particular time has escaped you .
Try to learn how to use a simple text editor and posting a reply, would you...
@MontereyJack,
Quote:Hardly likely, considering it's been known as in total the most important greenhouse gas for a century or so.
Which just goes to show the haste and stupidity of Global Warming Thuggees .
Quote:You have no knowledge of how climate modeling is don.
Do you imagine because it is a computer no-one tells it what effect it has to arrive at ? Do you really think a computer has intelligence ? It is a glorified number cruncher . Read carefully and I will yell because I know you are going deaf....PEOPLE PROGRAM IN THE RESULT ! THE COMPUTER DOES NOT THINK !
@Ionus,
ummm. you've got a little spittle on your chin, there...
@MontereyJack,
The original idea was a man working for the UN who wanted to make money . He now works for a polluting company in China making polluting cars . The corroboratory evidence comes from the Green movement and gullible fools like you . Scientists have spoken out against Global Warming . Are you too thick to understand that ? What about when scientists have asked for data only to be denied it ? Perhaps you are suggesting that it cant be a conspiracy because you are too clever...that is not reassuring .
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:that's not entirely correct since a climate (singular) is the statistical summary of its weather conditions.
And what does the average tell us about a climate ? Varying from -60 to +50 does not give an average of -5 . Where is the information to determine an average climate ? What is a suitable cycle ? One day ? One week ? One year ? How many days in 10,000 BC had the temp measured exactly and where were those temp measuring stations ?
Quote:When I'd studied meteorology at the naval college
Can you sue them ?
@Rockhead,
I'm sure you wouldnt want me to be a pacifist and turn the other cheek now would you ? Your criticism is a little one-sided...but you knew that .
@Ionus,
you remind me of a baptist minister I once knew.
do you do brimstone?
@Rockhead,
Quote:do you do brimstone?
Sure...whats brimstone ? And would you like fries with that ?
Isn't the other side arguing more brimstone than me ?
@Walter Hinteler,
Cimate is what we all expect, Weather is what we get----Mark Twain
(gotta love that guy)
Ionus, you really ought to learn a little about things you talk about, since you're really propounding crap. You don't program in a conclusion in computer simulations. You put in the processes, the equations that determine them, and the data. And you see what the results are, not the other way round. You start with conditions some time ago and see if you get today's conditions if you run it forward, to see if it actually works right. If it doesn't you see where your processes or your data or your math were in error and you change things. You just can't do it by hand or predict it, because you have too much data and the interactions get too complex.Sdimulations are used for all kinds of complex processes (optimal traffic flow, airplane scheduling, airflow over surfaces, to take a couple examples). You need a computer because you're likely to have tens of thousands of data sources, of dozens of differnt kinds, often with multiple data points per day, varying over the course of a year, and you allocate the influence of each of those data points into overall figures, and you do that for every day, and for every year that you have data, and you look for trends. And the trends show temperature is increasing, over the 35 years or so we have satellite data. And all the temperature trends are upward, whether you look at satellite data, or surface temperature date, or rural temperatures, or urban temperatures, or deep sea temperatures or sea surface temperatures separately, or all of them together. Different technologies, different methods of measurement, different things measured, hundreds of different people doing the measurements. That's what's going on. That's why the overwhelming majority of scientists say climate change is going on, and it's primarily anthropogenic. And you use all the available proxies there are (and there are a lot of them, from ice core data to determine past atmospheric composition since actual samples of past atmospheres are trapped in the ice, to different biotas and chemical reactions that occur at different temperatures, to dendrochronology and dendroanalysis to get other measures of temperature. to get the best picture you can of past climates. And remember a lot of these disciplines have nothing to do with climate change. That's not what theyt're looking at, but it turns out their data can give you information on that as well.
@gungasnake,
Gosh gunga... Using your "common sense" I guess you just proved that Cynaide will never kill you in small amounts.
average weight of adult male - 70 kg
amount of cyanide that can kill human - .2 grams
Now, based on the percentages and "common sense" or "first principles" cyanide won't kill you gunga. Why don't you go eat .2 grams and prove your "common sense" works?
For the benefit of paradork, monkeyjerk, and the handfull of other superlosers who'll never figure this out on their own, the guy is saying that CO2 is about 4% of the 1% greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and that 95% of that 1% of anything which acts like a greenhouse gas is water vapor.
Implied is the obvious fact that anybody like Algor or Michael Mann who wants to shut down the world's economies with all the grief and disaster that would entail for the purpose of eliminating CO2 while ignoring water vaper, is either an idiot of the worst possible sort or a criminal of the vilest possible sort.
Ignatius Donnelly's description of the Neanderthal comes to mind:
Quote:In another cave, in the Neanderthal, near Hochdale, between
Duesseldorf and Elberfeld, a skull was found which is the most ape-like of all known human crania. The male to whom it belonged must have been a barbarian brute of the rudest possible type.... ...the beast-like proportions of "the Neanderthal skull" speak, with no less certainty, of undeveloped, brutal, savage man, only a little above the gorilla in capacity....
That's about what any rational person ought to think of global warmists at this juncture.
@gungasnake,
I know exactly what you are saying gunga.
If mere percentages are how you are going to judge the ability of a chemical to cause bad things then don't you agree that Potassium cyanide in a smaller percentage than CO2 would be perfectly healthy for you to take?
.2g of cyanide would be less than .0002% of your body weight so certainly it MUST be safe based on your argument about percentages. So, why don't you prove your argument gunga and take the cyanide?
Let me boil this down for you, gungasnaKKKe. The greenhouse effect is not something that just started to kick in when we started increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect, consisting of water vapor, CO2, methane, ozone in the stratosphere, NO2, and all the other trace gases, in the concentrations in the atmosphere they historically were at, are the reason the earth is not around 30 degrees C colder, far far colder than it has been during any ice age, so cold any life more complicated than maybe single cells if that, would not exist. that's the temperature it would be at when in thermal equilibrium with the sun. That's what water vapor, in the levels it has been at, plus CO2, plus methane, etc. at historic concentrations do. Start increasing those concentrations and it gets hotter. That's physics. Most of the atmosphere is irrelevant for warming discussions (or cooling) because those gases simply do not absorb infrared radiation and prevent it from escaping to space (warning, very simplified treatment). Greenhouse gases do. Simple physics. They're a small part of the atmosphere, but their effect is out of all proportion to the amounts, simply because of their physical properties. H20 vapor is irrelevant because it's a major factor in the temperature we were at before we started mucking about, and the only large change in it that so far can be seen is that we expect more water vapor in the atmosphere as global temperatures rise, since more liquid water will evaporate as temperature rises, but increased water vapor isn't the cause of temp rise, but the resultant effect of temp rise. In other words, it's a feedback effect, the result of something else that causes temps to rise, which then amplifies the effect caused by something else (hence "feedback"). And that something else is anthropogenic CO2 andmethane, and NO2.
@MontereyJack,
And of course gunga's argument ignores the fact that infrared is a spectrum not just a single wavelength. Water vapor absorbs a different part of the spectrum than CO2 does.
@parados,
Comparing potassium cyanide, a deadly poison, to CO2 which is a basic element of our atmosphere which is necessary to all plant life...
Aren't you even a little bit worried about ODing on the stupid pills??
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
Comparing potassium cyanide, a deadly poison, to CO2 which is a basic element of our atmosphere which is necessary to all plant life...
Aren't you even a little bit worried about ODing on the stupid pills??
Ah.... so now you are running away from your percentage argument? I am not the one that made the argument gunga. You did. I only pointed out that you MUST include other factors than just percentage in order for an argument to be valid. You seem to agree with me on cyanide but still want to make the same argument with CO2? Perhaps it is YOU that is ODing on the stupid pills gunga.
@parados,
Too much like trying to argue with a lower animal...
