[PassedOut]

 baraka, on 2015-November-20, 08:58, said:

So how can a big chunk of ice have the sea levels rise 50cm when in 300 years of medieval warm period, where temperatures were a full 1C degree higher, had them rise only 20cm ? Mistery !

A real scientist could figure that out (or look up the answer) with no assistance. I'll leave that as an exercise for you.

But your chemtrails buddies might have glimpsed our future: Climate crisis: seaweed, coffee and cement could save the planet

Quote

Having said that, the decade of lost opportunity has made it all but impossible, using emissions reductions alone, for humanity to avoid breaching the 2C safety barrier. That lost decade established an emissions trajectory that has us aiming at 4C of warming by 2100. The actions committed to in Paris will probably put us on course for around 3C by 2100. That would be a welcome shift. But because energy systems take time to change, and greenhouse gases warm the Earth for decades or centuries after they’re released, we’re headed for 2C of warming pretty much no matter what we achieve in Paris, or in the two decades afterwards.

The realisation of this has prompted some to look at a “second way” of dealing with climate change, in addition to reducing emissions. Geoengineering involves dramatically interfering with the Earth’s systems – for example by injecting sulphur into the stratosphere to cool the Earth’s surface.

We've already reached the point where we'll have to rely upon some creative engineering solutions.

[hrothgar]

 baraka, on 2015-November-20, 08:58, said:

So how can a big chunk of ice have the sea levels rise 50cm when in 300 years of medieval warm period, where temperatures were a full 1C degree higher, had them rise only 20cm ? Mistery !

Oh, answer the previous post question please. Shurely you passed your grade school maths. Otherwise you would not post here, right ?

Poor little simpleton Baraka posts long discredited conspiracy theories and wonders why no one takes him seriously...

[y66]

Here's my favorite Glaswegian actress reading Extinction by Jackie Kay in the Guardian.

Extinction

by Jackie Kay

We closed the borders, folks, we nailed it.
No trees, no plants, no immigrants.
No foreign nurses, no Doctors; we smashed it.
We took control of our affairs. No fresh air.
No birds, no bees, no HIV, no Poles, no pollen.
No pandas, no polar bears, no ice, no dice.
No rainforests, no foraging, no France.
No frogs, no golden toads, no Harlequins.
No Greens, no Brussels, no vegetarians, no lesbians.
No carbon curbed emissions, no Co2 questions.
No lions, no tigers, no bears. No BBC picked audience.
No loony lefties, please. No politically correct classes.
No classes. No Guardian readers. No readers.
No emus, no EUs, no Eco warriors, no Euros,
No rhinos, no zebras, no burnt bras, no elephants.
We shut it down! No immigrants, no immigrants.
No sniveling-recycling-global-warming nutters.
Little man, little woman, the world is a dangerous place.
Now, pour me a pint, dear. Get out of my fracking face.

[baraka]

 PassedOut, on 2015-November-20, 10:28, said:

A real scientist could figure that out (or look up the answer) with no assistance. I'll leave that as an exercise for you.

But your chemtrails buddies might have glimpsed our future: Climate crisis: seaweed, coffee and cement could save the planet


We've already reached the point where we'll have to rely upon some creative engineering solutions.

I see that we still have people who can’t answer a 5th grade arithmetic question. All they can do is spread venom, lies, half truths, misinformation, propaganda, defamation, character assassination and ignorance.

You say I’m not a real scientist. That tells me that you believe in science and real scientists. Otherwise, why bother calling me a bad scientist ? Since you seem to be in a position to evaluate me as not being a real scientist then that makes you the real scientist. So, Mr. Real Scientist, what are your explanations on these correlations and lack of ?

Please answer this question !

http://www.vukcevic....net/CO2-Arc.gif

[baraka]

 hrothgar, on 2015-November-20, 12:00, said:

Poor little simpleton Baraka posts long discredited conspiracy theories and wonders why no one takes him seriously...

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...eenShot1824.jpg

[PassedOut]

 baraka, on 2015-November-23, 08:07, said:

What are your explanations on these correlations and lack of?

Please answer this question!

http://www.vukcevic....net/CO2-Arc.gif

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. Then report back with your answers.

[baraka]

 PassedOut, on 2015-November-23, 09:24, said:

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 !

[PassedOut]

 baraka, on 2015-November-23, 09:32, said:

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.

[billw55]

 baraka, on 2015-November-12, 08:00, said:

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.

[hrothgar]

 baraka, on 2015-November-23, 08:08, said:

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...eenShot1824.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.

[baraka]

 PassedOut, on 2015-November-23, 09:49, said:

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

[baraka]

 hrothgar, on 2015-November-23, 09:58, said:

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.

[baraka]

 hrothgar, on 2015-November-23, 09:58, said:

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 ?

[PassedOut]

 baraka, on 2015-November-23, 11:16, said:

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.

[baraka]

 PassedOut, on 2015-November-23, 11:36, said:

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 !

[PassedOut]

 baraka, on 2015-November-23, 11:49, said:

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.

[baraka]

 PassedOut, on 2015-November-23, 12:10, said:

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....h?v=4LkMweOVOOI

Oh well. I guess we can all stay incompetant !

[baraka]

 billw55, on 2015-November-23, 09:54, said:

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.

[hrothgar]

 baraka, on 2015-November-23, 13:32, said:

Oh well. I guess we can all stay incompetant !

You misspelled "incompetent".

[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2015-November-23, 12:10, said:

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.