ExiledInIllinois Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 What's the take on volcanic activity in South East Asia? Is that a factor with our weather patterns in the middle of the US? Speaking of this last arctic blast (10 out now and moderating)... It will shift to the east and the Canadian Maritimes which will bring 20's and 30's here and a slight "January Thaw."
OCinBuffalo Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Don Paul said that the pause in warming is due to a regular cycle of cooling that is covering the increased warming, so once that temporary cooling passes we will get a lot more warming. I mean carbon does cause warming, you admit that, and we are dumping tons of it in the air, so it reasons to expect the higher temps Why the F do I care what Don Paul said? Who the F is he? And why is he scurrying about providing yet another speculation to cover the ass of "settled" science? I'll remind you again: look at the behavior. All of these speculations aren't necessary, if the 18 year pause isn't real. But, it is, thus, they are. Did the entire concept of CO2 sensitivity being significantly, and empirically, lower than the models state....blow right by you/go over your head? Or, are you simply following the standard environtologist format: talk only about carbon, as if carbon, not CO2 is the ONLY variable? And more importantly: we have been told that no such "regular cycle of cooling" could possibly prevent the catastrophic(your words, not mine...I believe an awful movie was made) effects of Global Warming. We have been told that NOTHING is going to stop the cataclysm...other than driving electric cars, and all of us living in ****ty apartments in cities. Now, all of a sudden, after years of "certainty" and "settled" science...along comes a guy who tells us things...coincidentally...aren't as absolute as has been stated, repeatedly, by the left since 2005? Do the words "Kyoto is the bare minimum" mean anything to you? Or have you forgotten your own retarded rallying cry? The fact remains that the modeling, and the alarmist-->socialism nonsense that is based on it, are flat out wrong. The observations do not match the theory. Period. Expect? F, I can expect the Bills to win the SB next year. So the F what? "Expect" is not science. Nothing "reasons" when it's -9 degrees, I'm freezing my ass off in NY, when I planned to be in SC by now, and the very same clowns who got hacked in England were the ones predicting, 10 years ago, how sad it would be that English children would never know snow, and would only be able to learn about it in books. English children today, know all about snow, and freezing their asses off as well. You really want to use the word "expect"? Given the Global Warming "scientists" history with "expectations"? I wonder how many English children are "expecting" to go sledding this winter? But however will they do it....when nobody is selling sleds, because snow is in the "past". I thought it was 42. No. The standard answer here is 3.5. Learn it, be one with it, own it. Edited January 15, 2015 by OCinBuffalo
Azalin Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) No. The standard answer here is 3.5. Learn it, be one with it, own it. I will. My mistake was in assuming that we were discussing Earth in the context of life, the universe, and everything. Edited January 15, 2015 by Azalin
DC Tom Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 I will. My mistake was in assuming that we were discussing Earth in the context of life, the universe, and everything. Anything that's not 3.5 is measurement error. You're six feet tall? Nope, you're 3'6", and the other two and a half feet are you being the wrong height.
Azalin Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Anything that's not 3.5 is measurement error. You're six feet tall? Nope, you're 3'6", and the other two and a half feet are you being the wrong height. That's bad news for my wiener.
Tiberius Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 I really want to know...do you know the difference between six billion tons of carbon and six billion tons of carbon dioxide? You sure waste a lot of time on line....
DC Tom Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 You sure waste a lot of time on line.... So you don't even know?
Tiberius Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Why the F do I care what Don Paul said? Who the F is he? And why is he scurrying about providing yet another speculation to cover the ass of "settled" science? I'll remind you again: look at the behavior. All of these speculations aren't necessary, if the 18 year pause isn't real. But, it is, thus, they are. Did the entire concept of CO2 sensitivity being significantly, and empirically, lower than the models state....blow right by you/go over your head? Or, are you simply following the standard environtologist format: talk only about carbon, as if carbon, not CO2 is the ONLY variable? You are from Buffalo? He is the channel 4 weather dude. He explained the pause and it makes sense Can I ask you and all the other denies a question? Why would this guy lie? Or is he just stupid? So you don't even know? I don't know some incredible simple question? Only an incredibly ignorant and arrogant internet shut in would ask such a stupid question. Do you get out much? What's the take on volcanic activity in South East Asia? Is that a factor with our weather patterns in the middle of the US? Speaking of this last arctic blast (10 out now and moderating)... It will shift to the east and the Canadian Maritimes which will bring 20's and 30's here and a slight "January Thaw." And I can jog on Saturday then! I've run 6 miles once a week since April. Trying to keep streak going. Ran in 10 degrees last week. Most years I don't run in winter and have to build stamina back up in April.
DC Tom Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 I don't know some incredible simple question? Only an incredibly ignorant and arrogant internet shut in would ask such a stupid question. Do you get out much? Then answer it, dumbass.
DC Tom Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 no Of course not. You're afraid to give me the satisfaction of showing you're ignorant. Never mind that I demonstrate that every day.
Tiberius Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Of course not. You're afraid to give me the satisfaction of showing you're ignorant. Never mind that I demonstrate that every day. You are great!
birdog1960 Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 So you don't even know? atomic mass of C =12. atomic mass of CO2 = 44. 44/12 = 3.66. there are 3.66 tons of CO2 for every ton of C. brilliant. someone taking HS gen chem could answer this, not that it is necessary to the discussion.
DC Tom Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 You are great! Likewise, snapperhead. For those following our nonsense who are curious: 6 billion tons of CO2 is only about 1.6 billion tons of carbon. 6 billion tons of carbon would create 22 billion tons of CO2. That's the difference between "carbon" emissions and "CO2" emissions. atomic mass of C =12. atomic mass of CO2 = 44. 44/12 = 3.66. there are 3.66 tons of CO2 for every ton of C. brilliant. someone taking HS gen chem could answer this, not that it is necessary to the discussion. Like I just said, it's the difference between "carbon" emissions and "CO2" emissions. You think a factor of 3.66 is unimportant. You also think aerosols melt ice and cause global warming. You're an idiot.
birdog1960 Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Likewise, snapperhead. For those following our nonsense who are curious: 6 billion tons of CO2 is only about 1.6 billion tons of carbon. 6 billion tons of carbon would create 22 billion tons of CO2. That's the difference between "carbon" emissions and "CO2" emissions. Like I just said, it's the difference between "carbon" emissions and "CO2" emissions. You think a factor of 3.66 is unimportant. You also think aerosols melt ice and cause global warming. You're an idiot. whether you surpuss the threshold for harm by a factor of 1, 10, 100 or 3.66 is irrelevant in regards to whether you produce harm. is the discussion not about the fundamental question of man made harm to the environment?
DC Tom Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 whether you surpuss the threshold for harm by a factor of 1, 10, 100 or 3.66 is irrelevant in regards to whether you produce harm. is the discussion not about the fundamental question of man made harm to the environment? No, the discussion is about people who don't understand or misrepresent, whether through malice or ignorance, the science behind it. Fact is, you and gatorman don't discuss the fundamental question of man-made harm to the environment. You discuss the politics of man-made harm to the environment. You just think you're discussing fundamental questions, because combined you both have the brains of a turnip. All these little nitpicky points serve to highlight 1) exactly what you're discussing, and 2) just how unqualified and ignorant you are to discuss the topic in any way.
birdog1960 Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 No, the discussion is about people who don't understand or misrepresent, whether through malice or ignorance, the science behind it. Fact is, you and gatorman don't discuss the fundamental question of man-made harm to the environment. You discuss the politics of man-made harm to the environment. You just think you're discussing fundamental questions, because combined you both have the brains of a turnip. All these little nitpicky points serve to highlight 1) exactly what you're discussing, and 2) just how unqualified and ignorant you are to discuss the topic in any way. no, they serve to illustrate your pettiness and insecurity
DC Tom Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 no, they serve to illustrate your pettiness and insecurity Is the greenhouse effect of CO2 linear or logarithmic?
Recommended Posts