11 May 15
Originally posted by humyYou cast the first stone and you call me a hypocrite? Which one of us started the insulting? It was you and you know it.
what? You complain when you get a dose of your own medicine? After all the arrogant condescending insults you give all us scientists, who know a lot more than you do, and everyone else here? Really?
Well then, if that bothers you, it would be highly fitting to give you this one as well: [b]you are a hypocrite.
[quote] Do you feel better after you insu ...[text shortened]... ou feel better after insult all us scientists and others here? Does it make you feel like a man?[/b]
You are the most condescending person on the science forum. All I have been doing is proving my point. Is that heresy to you? Does being wrong really feel that insulting? How is me being right about climate change an insult?
Maybe if you had the facts on your side you would not feel so insulted. Was it my mention of the Eocene that ticked you off so much? Did it bother you to find out the Eocene had 10 times the CO2 as now? Are you disappointed that the world didn't end chicken little?
I don't recall insulting all scientists on here. What makes you lie about that? You lie about a lot. If you don't read my posts to other people on here why do you reply to them? They were not meant for you. Can't you be patient enough to wait for Deepthought to reply?
11 May 15
Originally posted by humyThere you go again. Not just floods, but droughts too. I suppose asteroids will fall to the earth because of AGW too. 🙄
Nope. The devastating damage done to crops be the increased incidence of hurricanes, droughts and flooding from having such excessively higher levels of CO2 would more than offset any gains from increased photosynthesis thus result in a net decrease in average yields and increased tendency towards world hanger and famines and more human deaths.
CO2 level of 400 ppm is a bad thing. When that level increases, this would be a worser thing.
The Pliocene had more rainfall. More rain results in more floods, but more droughts? Have you lost your mind? Can you show that the Pliocene was plagued with droughts? Of course not you silly goose!
Do you still claim you are not an alarmist? Out of all of your lies that is quite a whopper. Are you not done embarrassing yourself? Why do you continue to allow me to make you look foolish to everyone on the science forum? If I am stupid what does that make you? Are you an idiot aspiring to be a moron?
11 May 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeIf 400 PPM of CO2 is so bad why is it not as warm as the Pliocene? You do realize that plants cannot grow if CO2 falls below 150 PPM, right?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy.html
There are people out there who still will poopoo this, saying carbon dioxide is good for us, and plants love it. Let me be clear: This is the single dumbest thing climate change deniers have ever said, and that’s a deep, deep well of dumbosity.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/10/carbon_dioxide_and_global_warming_more_is_not_better.html
Alarmists like you calling CO2 a pollutant has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It is as if propagandists decided to take advantage of many peoples inability to distinguish carbon dioxide from carbon monoxide.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html
Originally posted by Metal BrainI and others have already answered that question to you more than three times and in depth and yet you keep asking it. Just for starters, basic physics tells us it will take TIME before the new temperature equilibrium is reached. Exactly which part of that do you fail to comprehend? Not enough TIME has yet elapsed for us to
If 400 PPM of CO2 is so bad why is it not as warm as the Pliocene? l
experience the full warming effects of that 400ppm.
Look up heat capacity, which is just one of the physical properties that delays/slows down temperature change, and come back to us.
You do realize that plants cannot grow if CO2 falls below 150 PPM, right?
That is simply false and shows just how ignorant you are of the subject, which just happens to be one of the subjects I have formally studied and have some expertise in (with C&G qualification -distinction level ) so I know exactly what I am talking about. A lower CO2 concentration would result in a lower maximum rate of photosynthesis, NOT stop photosynthesis! There would be less rate of growth, which could be disastrous for us, but, no, plants will NOT stop growing below 150ppm unless you are talking here something vaguely like ~10ppm or less.
+ who suggested that below 150ppm is a good thing? As I said in my last post, 150ppm would be a disaster for us!
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou certainly insult some of them.
I don't recall insulting all scientists on here.
here is examples of your insults to scientists here:
"alarmist" and "You are the true denialist." (what you called Sonhouse, who is a scientist, at http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=163068&page=3#post_3396957 )
and
"You are just a coward" (do you deny this is an INSULT made by you!!!? WOW!, not even I ever shout coward at you!!)
and
"You are clearly a simpleton aspiring to be somebody and not doing a very good job of it."
both comments made to C Hess at http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=163591&page=13#post_3393672
shall I go on?
I am just feeding you your own medicine when I insult you and I don't care who cast the first stone; you don't stop throwing it at them, so I don't stop throwing it at you.
OK, seriously, I tell you what; if you stop insulting them, I will stop insulting you. Deal?
Message me privately on this if you like.
12 May 15
Originally posted by humyYou are being dishonest again. You made the ridiculous claim that heat capacity was delaying temp change for years and nobody else. I already showed you heat capacity cannot delay temps for much more than 1 month. Your assertion that it could be years contradicts real world observations. The average highest temperature in summer is about 1 month after the summer solstice. Even a child can see your claim is insane.
I and others have already answered that question to you more than three times and in depth and yet you keep asking it. Just for starters, basic physics tells us it will take TIME before the new temperature equilibrium is reached. Exactly which part of that do you fail to comprehend? Not enough TIME has yet elapsed for us to
experience the full warming effects ...[text shortened]... hat below 150ppm is a good thing? As I said in my last post, 150ppm would be a disaster for us!
12 May 15
Originally posted by humy"Bad. Very bad! That is far too low as it would not only tend to make the climate too cold"
Bad. Very bad! That is far too low as it would not only tend to make the climate too cold (with all else equal, of course ). But, even without that drop in temperature, it would directly greatly reduce the amount of photosynthesis and thus measurably reduce crop yields thus increasing the tendency for world hunger. In fact, with all else equal, it would be a di ...[text shortened]... ughly something like ~300 ppm with any amount being much greater or smaller than that being bad.
You are making the same mistake again. CO2 levels lag behind temperatures, NOT the other way around! Low CO2 levels do not cause ice ages. This is another false inference on your part. You have been brainwashed into thinking CO2 causes climate change for so long you can't see the truth even after it is revealed to you. How many times do I have to remind you of this before you accept the true cause and effect?
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/ice-age-at-2000-ppm-co2/
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 May 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainWell that's a whole new level of stupid.
You are being dishonest again. You made the ridiculous claim that heat capacity was delaying temp change for years and nobody else. I already showed you heat capacity cannot delay temps for much more than 1 month. Your assertion that it could be years contradicts real world observations. The average highest temperature in summer is about 1 month after the summer solstice. Even a child can see your claim is insane.
Ok lets take just one tiny example to completely refute your idiotic argument.
Melting ice.
It takes quite a lot of energy to melt ice, first you have to heat it to 0 C [from whatever
temp it was below that] and then you have to provide the latent heat energy required
to induce the water to phase change from solid to liquid.
This is why when you have ice in your drink it stays cool until the ice melts and then
it starts heating up.
There is an annual cycle of polar/glacial ice melting and freezing which acts as a
damper on temperature changes as heat is stored and released.
As you start adding more energy to the system by increasing the insulation then
you start melting more and more of the ice as the system gains energy BUT that
process stops temperatures from rising.
As we observe, there is an average significant year on year reduction in polar and glacial
ice which requires that there is an increase in the energy of the system because it took
large amounts of energy to melt the ice. Energy that wasn't their previously because the
ice didn't melt before.
There are a huge number of other reasons why your argument is stupid.
But one example refutes your argument and that was one such example.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 May 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou can't make direct comparisons to the climate multi millions of years ago because
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/ice-age-at-2000-ppm-co2/
over those time scales the Suns energy output changes AND the continents move.
Which means you are no-longer comparing like with like.
As time goes on the Suns energy output increases, which means that in the past more
insulation would have been required to maintain the same temperature.
And in the past the continents were in different places which would and did have a massive
effect on the climate. with different ocean circulations and energy absorption.
Also, when going back that far the resolution of measurements gets much less detailed.
So a crash in CO2 over a [comparatively] short time period might be missed, and so the average
CO2 levels for that period might well not tell the whole story.
12 May 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeHere is a study of Antarctic ice dating back 1 million years.
You can't make direct comparisons to the climate multi millions of years ago because
over those time scales the Suns energy output changes AND the continents move.
Which means you are no-longer comparing like with like.
As time goes on the Suns energy output increases, which means that in the past more
insulation would have been required to mai ...[text shortened]... be missed, and so the average
CO2 levels for that period might well not tell the whole story.
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-ice-cores-atmospheric-million-years.html
The gist of it is, measuring CO2 levels, they measured no more than 300 PPM and it is only in the 20th century the level goes to 400+.
12 May 15
Originally posted by C HessI never claimed CO2 is not a cause for warming. I said the amount CO2 that causes warming is greatly exaggerated. You are making more false assumptions as always.
Co2 being the independent variable, and temperature being the dependent variable, explain why the temperature rises when co2 concentrations are increased, if co2 can't be the cause for warming.
Explain why the Pliocene was far warmer than now even though CO2 concentrations were at about the same level. You all fail to do that for a reason.
12 May 15
Originally posted by googlefudge"over those time scales the Suns energy output changes"
You can't make direct comparisons to the climate multi millions of years ago because
over those time scales the Suns energy output changes AND the continents move.
Which means you are no-longer comparing like with like.
As time goes on the Suns energy output increases, which means that in the past more
insulation would have been required to mai ...[text shortened]... be missed, and so the average
CO2 levels for that period might well not tell the whole story.
Thank you. That is the number one denial of AGW alarmists and you just went against them. Almost all AGW alarmists say changes in the sun's output is negligible and should be discounted. Thanks for making a mockery of your own kind.