PassedOut Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 What are your explanations on these correlations and lack of? Please answer this question! http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.gifAgain, you should be able to determine the answers to your questions with no assistance. That is the best way to learn. If you really do want to learn and understand, use the internet wisely, and study diligently. Then report back with your answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baraka Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Again, you should be able to determine the answers to your questions with no assistance. That is the best way to learn. If you really do want to learn and understand, use the internet wisely, and study diligently. You're still circling the drain not answering the questions ! You're going to end up falling in it. I want your scientific explanation since you are the scientific authority here, not the internet. So please answer the question. I beg of you ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 I want your scientific explanation since you are the scientific authority here, not the internet. So please answer the question. I beg of you!The best way for you to get your answers is to search for and study peer-reviewed papers by climate scientists. You shouldn't be begging for answers from forum posters instead of making the effort yourself. The peer-reviewed papers are not difficult to find. Reread Zelandakh's posts to get a sense of what to look for. Zelandakh and Hrothgar explained what was wrong with your initial posts on this topic, but you seem to be stuck in that same rut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Furthermore, Mars and the moon don’t have an atmosphere and are unbelievably cold. The earth has an atmosphere with less then 0,05% CO2 in it. I’d say that our atmosphere is just about 99,95% oxygen and nitrogen and that the temperatures on earth are more then comfortable. So, I’d say that it’s the oxygen and nitrogen in our atmosphere, that Mars and the moon don’t have, that are the greenhouse effect gases here on earth (convection). Besides, what’s so special about the CO2 molecular structure that would make it so greenhouse effect maniac at those concentrations ? Now that we have that CO2 fairy tale out of the way, let’s see the bigger picture…This is pretty funny even for this thread. +1 for entertainment. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 I guess the same goes for you. You really are a real scientist since I’m a simpleton ! So… The European Space Agency has a satellite in orbit with a radar altimeter. So I guess that if they are capable of putting a satellite in orbit with a functioning radar altimeter they must be real good scientists. So Mr. Real Scientist, may I have your scientific expertise explaning these ice data collected over Greenland by the ESA’s satellite ? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/S_gXUF-nn5I/AAAAAAAABIo/Bwaw4dz1B2s/s1600/ScreenShot1824.jpg Baraka, You don't seem to understand how this all works. It's not my job to spend valuable time and effort debunking the random pieces of crap that you post on this list.It was sufficient to demonstrate that a enough of your postings are sufficiently flawed that we can safely ignore anything that you have to say. As a practical example, your posting of Friday the 20th shows that you are clueless about the Medieval Climatic Anomaly and unwilling to invest a rudimentary amount of time / effort to sanity check your own postings. And if you're not willing to take yourself seriously, there's no reason that I should bother to do so. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baraka Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 The best way for you to get your answers is to search for and study peer-reviewed papers by climate scientists. You shouldn't be begging for answers from forum posters instead of making the effort yourself. The peer-reviewed papers are not difficult to find. Reread Zelandakh's posts to get a sense of what to look for. Zelandakh and Hrothgar explained what was wrong with your initial posts on this topic, but you seem to be stuck in that same rut. So you admit to not being a peer-reviewer, just a forum poster and not being capable of answering the question. To sum it up... You're not a scientist. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baraka Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Baraka, You don't seem to understand how this all works. It's not my job to spend valuable time and effort debunking the random pieces of crap that you post on this list.It was sufficient to demonstrate that a enough of your postings are sufficiently flawed that we can safely ignore anything that you have to say. As a practical example, your posting of Friday the 20th shows that you are clueless about the Medieval Climatic Anomaly and unwilling to invest a rudimentary amount of time / effort to sanity check your own postings. And if you're not willing to take yourself seriously, there's no reason that I should bother to do so. You're also circling the drain by not answering a specific question. You seemed so shure of yourself. Since it's not your job to search then go away. Let it be and stop posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baraka Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Baraka, You don't seem to understand how this all works. It's not my job to spend valuable time and effort debunking the random pieces of crap that you post on this list.It was sufficient to demonstrate that a enough of your postings are sufficiently flawed that we can safely ignore anything that you have to say. As a practical example, your posting of Friday the 20th shows that you are clueless about the Medieval Climatic Anomaly and unwilling to invest a rudimentary amount of time / effort to sanity check your own postings. And if you're not willing to take yourself seriously, there's no reason that I should bother to do so. 20 cm in 300 years... http://c3headlines.t...33ac485d970c-pi You're just saying anything to distort everything. How about you answer the 2 questions ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 To sum it up... You're not a scientist. Thanks.No problem. Although my degree is in mathematics -- a subject I've always found fun and interesting as well as very useful for making demand models in my work -- I've been in business all of my life. I don't pretend to be a professor or a scientist, but I do understand what I read. No one claims that variations in heat from the sun have no influence on earth. You, though, claim that CO2 has no influence on our climate, and in that you are clearly wrong. The nature of your error has been explained, and anyone with a reasonable education can understand where you are wrong. Like your chemtrails buddies, though, you continue to make the same error over and over, even after your error has been pointed out clearly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baraka Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Like your chemtrails buddies, though, you continue to make the same error over and over, even after your error has been pointed out clearly. Here we go again... character assasination and defamation. Do you even know why oxygen and nitrogen cannot absorb infrared light known as heat other then by conduction and convection (direct contact). They are symmetrical molecules (O=O and N=N) which means they can’t be polarized. Therefore, no infrared absorption. The atmosphere is composed of 78.08% N2, 20.95% O2, 0.93% Argon, and 0.04% CO2. The rest is trace. Methane is 0.0002% and reacts with hydroxyl radicals (OH) at high altitudes to form water and CO2. So, not only is it insignificant in the atmosphere, it’s lifetime is limited. It’s a non starter for climate change. How can 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere be so miraculous as causing all this heat retention ? It’s a fantasy ! Ten times zero is still zero ! It’s the water vapor in the atmosphere that does the bulk of the heat retention job and the water vapor in the atmosphere is falling down all the time as precipitation. Water vapor does not stay indefinitely in the atmosphere, so, no climate change due to long time accumulation of water vapor isn't possible either. It’s also a myth. What's so hard to understand about that. Now if you are a math graduate then you know what correlation means, so answer the question ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 How can 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere be so miraculous as causing all this heat retention ?Again, the basic physics were explained to you earlier in this thread, and records show that, since the industrial revolution, variations in heat from the sun no longer solely account for temperature changes on earth. No matter how many graphs you show nor how many times you restate your position, the fact remains that CO2 does affect our climate. The extent of the problem can be debated, but not the fact of it. As a conservative businessman, I consider it irresponsible to oppose reducing CO2 emissions until we can get a good handle on how to mitigate the damage that our kids and grandkids will face. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baraka Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Again, the basic physics were explained to you earlier in this thread, and records show that, since the industrial revolution, variations in heat from the sun no longer solely account for temperature changes on earth. No matter how many graphs you show nor how many times you restate your position, the fact remains that CO2 does affect our climate. The extent of the problem can be debated, but not the fact of it. As a conservative businessman, I consider it irresponsible to oppose reducing CO2 emissions until we can get a good handle on how to mitigate the damage that our kids and grandkids will face. No graphs, no proof no nothing. Only words. Your full of air. You're willing to say just about anything no matter what. I guess your take is that this geologist is also incompetant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI Oh well. I guess we can all stay incompetant ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baraka Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 This is pretty funny even for this thread. +1 for entertainment. Oh, I forgot about you. Sorry... For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum. The atmosphere of Mars is a layer of gases composed mostly of carbon dioxide. The atmospheric pressure on the Martian surface averages about 0.6% of Earth's mean sea level pressure So no, for your information, there is no atmosphere on the Moon nor Mars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 Oh well. I guess we can all stay incompetant ! You misspelled "incompetent". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 the fact remains that CO2 does affect our climate. The extent of the problem can be debated, but not the fact of it. AND it is the ONLY part of the atmosphere that we CAN affect. So, just what is the extent and how much can we adjust its effect? The models are all wrong and they say [CO2] effect is tripled by increased water vapor such that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 3 to 5 degrees C. Empirical analysis (peer-reviewed) has brought that down to 1 degree or less and the latest analyses are tending towards 0.5 degrees or less. The current lack of climate "response" to [CO2] is just par for the course. When you look at the agenda of the IPCC and the UNFCCC it becomes clear that they put all of their eggs in the CO2 basket, they prevaricated the SPMs to show human effect on climate through CO2 and they continue to bluff and bluster to intimidate those that believe them at face value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 20 cm in 300 years... http://c3headlines.t...33ac485d970c-pi You're just saying anything to distort everything. How about you answer the 2 questions ? You destroyed all of your credibility when you posted a series of easily falsifiable assertions.It's simply not worth the time to treat anything new that you post as a serious claim, something worthy of study, or even consideration. Look at this from my perspective. It's already been demonstrated that you're a fool and a troll.Why should I or anyone else waste time treating you or anything that you post with anything other than contempt? What's in it for me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 I guess your take is that this geologist is also incompetant (sic). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOII understand that your Dr. Don Easterbrook is truly a great hero of the chemtrails set: CHEMTRAILS: THE EXOTIC WEAPON No doubt your chemtrails buddies find his reasoning as convincing as you do. :rolleyes: But let's move above the level of the chemtrails people. Easterbrook is a geologist, and clearly outside his field of competence. To get the facts about climate science, you go to climate scientists. When the fools in government call an incompetent person to testify on climate change, it is because they cannot find a competent climate scientist to support their political aims. Your first clue to his incompetence should be his assertion that climate change is a hoax. No sane, competent scientist would assert that. You've provided charts, for sure, but they don't confirm what you claim about them. And, when confronted with that, you simply ignore the problems that have been pointed out and restate your position (just like the chemtrails people always do). If you really wanted a discussion, you'd react to Zelandakh and Hrothgar by saying something like, "Yes, the problems you point out are real ones in most cases, but in this particular case they are not. Here is why..." And you'd provide what you thought to be supporting information. But you don't do that, and I know why you don't. (We all know why you don't.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted November 23, 2015 Report Share Posted November 23, 2015 New York, New York, it's a hell of an energy consumer. (Shutterstock) David Roberts interviews New York's new "energy czar", Richard Kauffman: New York is in the midst of a comprehensive, wildly ambitious plan to reform its energy systems, aiming to make them more resilient, cleaner, and more affordable. By 2030, the state aims to reduce its carbon emissions by 40 percent (from 1990 levels) and draw 50 percent of its electricity from renewable sources. Behind those broad goals is an enormous range of programs, primarily focused on electricity, from research to financing to utility reform. Under the state's Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) program, its electric utilities will be restructured to allow for more market competition and more distributed energy resources like rooftop solar panels, batteries, and home energy management systems. (I wrote about NY REV in some detail in this post.) The man charged with administering this sprawling effort is Richard Kauffman, New York's first "energy czar," or rather, chair of energy and finance for New York. Kauffman was a partner at Goldman Sachs and head of a renewable energy investment firm before he became a senior adviser to Energy Secretary Steven Chu during Obama's first term. That's where New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo found him. I recently called Kauffman to geek out over energy, getting his thoughts on the state's energy strategy, the politics around it, and the mechanics of utility reform. What follows is a transcript of our conversation, edited for length and clarity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel1960 Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 Again, the basic physics were explained to you earlier in this thread, and records show that, since the industrial revolution, variations in heat from the sun no longer solely account for temperature changes on earth. No matter how many graphs you show nor how many times you restate your position, the fact remains that CO2 does affect our climate. The extent of the problem can be debated, but not the fact of it. As a conservative businessman, I consider it irresponsible to oppose reducing CO2 emissions until we can get a good handle on how to mitigate the damage that our kids and grandkids will face. Good point. Exactly how much of our recent temperature change can be attributed to the sun or CO2 or any other factor is a major player in what should be done now and in the future. The other major factor is what the results of such changes will be. Too many people hold fast to its is all the sun or CO2, and refuse to look at the issue objectively. Too many also tend to view every weather anomaly as a result of climate change, rather than natural occurrence. The other issue is neglecting the benefits, such as lower heating bills and enhanced agriculture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 New York, New York, it's a hell of an energy consumer. (Shutterstock) David Roberts interviews New York's new "energy czar", Richard Kauffman: Kauffman was a partner at Goldman Sachs and head of a renewable energy investment firm before he became a senior adviser to Energy Secretary Steven Chu during Obama's first term. Be very, very afraid, Solyndra-type afraid :ph34r: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 Kauffman was a partner at Goldman Sachs and Oh look, another dog whistle from Al about the evil international Jewish bankers... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baraka Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 You misspelled "incompetent". That's the only inteligent thing you have to say ? How about ansewring the question ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baraka Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 I understand that your Dr. Don Easterbrook is truly a great hero of the chemtrails set: CHEMTRAILS: THE EXOTIC WEAPON No doubt your chemtrails buddies find his reasoning as convincing as you do. :rolleyes: Easterbrook is a geologist, and clearly outside his field of competence. Some other defamation and character assasinaton ! If you were a real math graduate you would answer that 5th grade question about the % of the Greenland icesheet that the falling ice bloc was. Since you cant answer my question about arctic correlation with arctic temperature them, either... A) You're not a math graduate B) Skipped or failled your stattistics classes C) You just wont answer because that would prove Al Gore's CO2 scam. So which is it ? Oh, forgot... D) Pure ignorance Sorry, not telling, just asking ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baraka Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 Good point. Exactly how much of our recent temperature change can be attributed to the sun or CO2 or any other factor is a major player in what should be done now and in the future. The other major factor is what the results of such changes will be. Too many people hold fast to its is all the sun or CO2, and refuse to look at the issue objectively. Too many also tend to view every weather anomaly as a result of climate change, rather than natural occurrence. The other issue is neglecting the benefits, such as lower heating bills and enhanced agriculture. Maybe everyone should have a look at these 2 videos. Shurely, not everyone in these viseos are mistaken... CO2 global warming scam, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth… A Greenpeace cofounder is warning of the man made global warming scam… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted November 24, 2015 Report Share Posted November 24, 2015 Maybe everyone should have a look at these 2 videos. Shurely, not everyone in these viseos are mistaken... Here's another video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP3ZlTBT050 Surely the folks who this video out aren't mistaken... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.