Australian Politics Forum - Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #255 - May 17^th, 2015 at 6:16pm

Bobby. wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 10:41pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 11:58am:

Bobby. wrote on May 7^th, 2015 at 11:21pm:

Dear beloved Chimp,
you have taken this thread off course with wild speculation.

CO2 may very well have almost no affect on temperature.

Ever notice how cold it is when there are no clouds at night?
It's the water vapor that keeps the heat in - not CO2.

forgiven

namaste

Water Vapor is the greenhouse effect: CO2 is a major GHG that drives it!

Solubility in water decreases with increasing temperature so when the planets pull the earth into a warm orbit CO2 outgasses and drives more water vapour into the air sustaining an enhanced greenhouse effect in a what's known as a positive feedback loop.

When the planets pull the earth back into a cold orbit the CO2 returns to the ocean because solubility in water has increased with the decreasing temperature and another positive feedback loop in the oppositie direction results in a sustained and decreasing greehouse effect.

Shall we do another billion word circle jerk?? (You really haven't done much reading yourself have ya buddy Cheesy

..or are you just pretending and playing pause button politics so industry can retool for the new paradigm Roll Eyes

)

It's called a complex relationship but you know all that and pretend you don't because you hate the kids that much Cheesy

You sound like the beloved Chimp with a new nick name.

When the planets pull the earth back into a cold orbit.

What are you talking about?

I see

So Jethro, tell me how strong the outer planets pull is compared to that of the Sun (and also the moon and inner planets)

You would need to know and understand this comparison before you could estimate any changes in the orbital trajectory of the earth. Then you would need to understand and predict the change in global temperature as the Earth orbit shifts. I trust that you have done all the ground work Jethro.

Or did you consult with the Great Dr Sircus again?

Grin

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 17^th, 2015 at 6:28pm by Chimp_Logic »

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 78311 Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #256 - May 17^th, 2015 at 6:19pm So Jethro good name for bobby
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

Ajax Gold Member Offline CO2 has never controlled temperature on Earth Posts: 11070 Australia Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #257 - May 17^th, 2015 at 6:50pm When predictions don't match observations its out with the baby and its water. Too bad the IPCC will not concede that it's circulation models haven't been able to forecast Jack's sh!t. Back to the drawing board for the IPCC and all you suckers that follow them.
Back to top	1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax 2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #258 - May 17^th, 2015 at 7:21pm

Ajax wrote on May 17^th, 2015 at 6:50pm:

When predictions don't match observations its out with the baby and its water.

Too bad the IPCC will not concede that it's circulation models haven't been able to forecast Jack's sh!t.

Back to the drawing board for the IPCC and all you suckers that follow them.

so you want every month predicted by long term modelling?

Are you disputing that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and de forestation?

Are you disputing that CO2 is a Greenhouse?

Are you disputing that the earth has warmed over the past century - and in particular over the past 5 or 6 decades?

Are you hiding behind Dr Sircus too Batman?

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #259 - May 18^th, 2015 at 1:30am

Soren wrote on May 17^th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 10:50pm:

Soren wrote on May 12^th, 2015 at 6:11pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 5:42pm:

So what you're saying is that you're the better class of denialist, who realises that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect, but you question the extent of the negative (and positive ) feedbacks . Is that right?

So you distance yourself from the froth at the mouth (CO2 is a tiny amount) Soren types?

Two things to note, pal

CO2 is a tiny proportion of the athmophere.
But what is even more important is that human generated CO2 is a small percentage of that tiny proportion.

The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another

220 Gt.

These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.

Similarly, parts of the oceans release about

330 Gt

of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up slightly more.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-ar...

So that's 550 Gt, on round figures.

Human emissions? 26.4 Gt (in 2007). Less than 5%.

Tiny is correct in every sense and from every angle.

But let's go back to the New Scientist:
How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.

D'oh. No evidence or explanation of how "we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere."

To conclude:

Human CO2 IS A TINY amount when looked at as a proportion of all CO2 (iself a small part) in the athmosphere and nobody can or has explained how this tiny proportion of a tiny proportion makes all the huge, catastrophic difference.

And you know why?
Because nobody quite understands how the climate works.

Black is white Wink

(ETC)

Thank you, you have just demonstrated that you have no actual argument, only a party line that you expect everyonbe to toe.

define the word 'TINY': thanx for playing tryhard-kaffer afficionado Shocked

(consensus starts with nomenclature for those that are 'just looking' Wink

)

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #260 - May 21^st, 2015 at 9:45pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 1:30am:

Soren wrote on May 17^th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 10:50pm:

Soren wrote on May 12^th, 2015 at 6:11pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 5:42pm:

So what you're saying is that you're the better class of denialist, who realises that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect, but you question the extent of the negative (and positive ) feedbacks . Is that right?

So you distance yourself from the froth at the mouth (CO2 is a tiny amount) Soren types?

Two things to note, pal

CO2 is a tiny proportion of the athmophere.
But what is even more important is that human generated CO2 is a small percentage of that tiny proportion.

The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another

220 Gt.

These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.

Similarly, parts of the oceans release about

330 Gt

of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up slightly more.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-ar...

So that's 550 Gt, on round figures.

Human emissions? 26.4 Gt (in 2007). Less than 5%.

Tiny is correct in every sense and from every angle.

But let's go back to the New Scientist:
How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.

D'oh. No evidence or explanation of how "we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere."

To conclude:

Human CO2 IS A TINY amount when looked at as a proportion of all CO2 (iself a small part) in the athmosphere and nobody can or has explained how this tiny proportion of a tiny proportion makes all the huge, catastrophic difference.

And you know why?
Because nobody quite understands how the climate works.

Black is white Wink

(ETC)

Thank you, you have just demonstrated that you have no actual argument, only a party line that you expect everyonbe to toe.

define the word 'TINY': thanx for playing tryhard-kaffer afficionado Shocked

Already did, guber. Now made it red for ya so you can see it.

But here are the baby steps:
Total CO2 in atmosphere = 400 parts per million = 0.04%
Proportion of total CO2 to emissions (550 Gt) that is human emission (26.4 Gt) = 4.8% of all CO2 in atmosphere.
Human CO2 in atmosphere as proportion of all atmospheric gases = 4.8% of 0.040% = 0.00192%

Considering that nobody actually understands how the climate works (other than it is not exclusively controlled by atmospheric gases) it is really laughable to make such a huge deal out of 0.00192% of atmospheric gases. Juts ridiculous.

Back to top

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic Gold Member Offline πολιτικός Posts: 4826 Mawson Base Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #261 - May 21^st, 2015 at 11:02pm Soren is hilarious when he tries to post serious comments
Back to top	Mini Ice Age (2014-2029) Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #262 - May 22^nd, 2015 at 6:25am

Soren wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 9:45pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 18^th, 2015 at 1:30am:

Soren wrote on May 17^th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 14^th, 2015 at 10:50pm:

Soren wrote on May 12^th, 2015 at 6:11pm:

John_Taverner wrote on May 8^th, 2015 at 5:42pm:

So what you're saying is that you're the better class of denialist, who realises that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect, but you question the extent of the negative (and positive ) feedbacks . Is that right?

So you distance yourself from the froth at the mouth (CO2 is a tiny amount) Soren types?

Two things to note, pal

CO2 is a tiny proportion of the athmophere.
But what is even more important is that human generated CO2 is a small percentage of that tiny proportion.

The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another

220 Gt.

These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.

Similarly, parts of the oceans release about

330 Gt

of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up slightly more.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-ar...

So that's 550 Gt, on round figures.

Human emissions? 26.4 Gt (in 2007). Less than 5%.

Tiny is correct in every sense and from every angle.

But let's go back to the New Scientist:
How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.

D'oh. No evidence or explanation of how "we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere."

To conclude:

Human CO2 IS A TINY amount when looked at as a proportion of all CO2 (iself a small part) in the athmosphere and nobody can or has explained how this tiny proportion of a tiny proportion makes all the huge, catastrophic difference.

And you know why?
Because nobody quite understands how the climate works.

Black is white Wink

(ETC)

Thank you, you have just demonstrated that you have no actual argument, only a party line that you expect everyonbe to toe.

define the word 'TINY': thanx for playing tryhard-kaffer afficionado Shocked

Already did, guber. Now made it red for ya so you can see it.

But here are the baby steps:
Total CO2 in atmosphere = 400 parts per million = 0.04%
Proportion of total CO2 to emissions (550 Gt) that is human emission (26.4 Gt) = 4.8% of all CO2 in atmosphere.
Human CO2 in atmosphere as proportion of all atmospheric gases = 4.8% of 0.040% = 0.00192%

Considering that nobody actually understands how the climate works (other than it is not exclusively controlled by atmospheric gases) it is really laughable to make such a huge deal out of 0.00192% of atmospheric gases. Juts ridiculous.

lol, balance is what?

Mugabe is what percent??

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Rider

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2669
OnTheRoad
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #263 - May 22^nd, 2015 at 9:51am

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 17^th, 2015 at 7:21pm:

Ajax wrote on May 17^th, 2015 at 6:50pm:

When predictions don't match observations its out with the baby and its water.

Too bad the IPCC will not concede that it's circulation models haven't been able to forecast Jack's sh!t.

Back to the drawing board for the IPCC and all you suckers that follow them.

so you want every month predicted by long term modelling?

Are you disputing that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and de forestation?

Are you disputing that CO2 is a Greenhouse?

Are you disputing that the earth has warmed over the past century - and in particular over the past 5 or 6 decades?

Are you hiding behind Dr Sircus too Batman?

I was going to accuse you of being a gullible twat, but you aren't, you're a fraud who is masking their socialist agenda in an environmental cloak.

Your game is up Chump. Hope you choke on your own CO2.

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #264 - May 22^nd, 2015 at 10:49am

Rider wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 9:51am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 17^th, 2015 at 7:21pm:

Ajax wrote on May 17^th, 2015 at 6:50pm:

When predictions don't match observations its out with the baby and its water.

Too bad the IPCC will not concede that it's circulation models haven't been able to forecast Jack's sh!t.

Back to the drawing board for the IPCC and all you suckers that follow them.

so you want every month predicted by long term modelling?

Are you disputing that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activities such as fossil fuel combustion and de forestation?

Are you disputing that CO2 is a Greenhouse?

Are you disputing that the earth has warmed over the past century - and in particular over the past 5 or 6 decades?

Are you hiding behind Dr Sircus too Batman?

I was going to accuse you of being a gullible twat, but you aren't, you're a fraud who is masking their socialist agenda in an environmental cloak.

Your game is up Chump. Hope you choke on your own CO2.

Money is socialism!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #265 - May 22^nd, 2015 at 3:04pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 6:25am:

Soren wrote on May 21^st, 2015 at 9:45pm:

Already did, guber. Now made it red for ya so you can see it.

But here are the baby steps:
Total CO2 in atmosphere = 400 parts per million = 0.04%
Proportion of total CO2 to emissions (550 Gt) that is human emission (26.4 Gt) = 4.8% of all CO2 in atmosphere.
Human CO2 in atmosphere as proportion of all atmospheric gases = 4.8% of 0.040% = 0.00192%

Considering that nobody actually understands how the climate works (other than it is not exclusively controlled by atmospheric gases) it is really laughable to make such a huge deal out of 0.00192% of atmospheric gases. Juts ridiculous.

lol, balance is what?

Mugabe is what percent??

I invite you to show how my calculations are incorrect.

Until then, you have nothing.

Back to top

IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #266 - May 22^nd, 2015 at 4:50pm

Soren wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 3:04pm:

I invite you to show how my calculations are incorrect.

Until then, you have nothing.

Until now, I thought that Sir Bobby was the biggest troll. That's your argument? It's er tiny so it er can't be too important.... yeah!

Challenge my highly complex calculations. Grin

In the words of McEnroe, you cannot be serious!

I'll leave you to battle this out with copperinternet. I am not worthy.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:36pm by John_Taverner »

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic Gold Member Offline πολιτικός Posts: 4826 Mawson Base Gender:	Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS Reply #267 - May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:33pm Ajex, Rider, Soren, lee, Gizmo and Jethro, the world's premier thinkers and scientific analysts, disciples of the Great Dr Soren, the Easterbrook bunny and Selby the brain maggot freak
Back to top	« Last Edit: May 22^nd, 2015 at 6:05pm by Chimp_Logic » Mini Ice Age (2014-2029) Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #268 - May 22^nd, 2015 at 7:46pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:33pm:

Ajex, Rider, Soren, lee, Gizmo and Jethro, the world's premier thinkers and scientific analysts, disciples of the Great Dr Soren, the Easterbrook bunny and Selby the brain maggot freak

http://www.monkeyworld.org/images/monkeys.jpg

Well, certainly the forums premier thinkers and scientific analysts.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2217
Gender: male

Re: Abbott and Liberal Party were correct. AGW BS
Reply #269 - May 22^nd, 2015 at 9:43pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 7:46pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on May 22^nd, 2015 at 5:33pm:

Ajex, Rider, Soren, lee, Gizmo and Jethro, the world's premier thinkers and scientific analysts, disciples of the Great Dr Soren, the Easterbrook bunny and Selby the brain maggot freak

http://www.monkeyworld.org/images/monkeys.jpg

Well, certainly the forums premier thinkers and scientific analysts.

That response was very short, therefore it can't be that important Grin

Back to top

IP Logged