What Do We Think About Climate Change

Could we avoid the hitler stuff please.
It make me sad and I am in the forum to exchanges ideas not to be sad.
The humanity had passed some very troubled times, and a lot of familly incocent bystanders pay for the unbelievable criminal and racist attitude of some dictators.
we have some left in the world, I hope they will disappear and peace will be again for everybody.
It is not that we can exchanges, and sometime in a heated way, our ideas, we grow with the disagreement.
But please let the pol pot, hitler, staline, and other very far from this forum.
It will be appreciated
And can somebody remove the hitler cross, even if for a good cause, the cross is in display.
Thanks
Daniel

 

Done as requested.

Please Troy, do the same in your quote of me.

The cross had the forbidden sighn over it but as it makes Daniel unhappy I'm happy to remove it.

Like Daniel says, it was there for a good cause.

Good luck!
Angel

 

Its snowing allright

 

Thank you much, I apreciate your understanding.
Daniel

 

Done.

 

I appreciate your sensitivity to my concern. I don't have to ask anything to anybody, I have not the right to do that, so your gesture of you both is really great for me.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Daniel

 

e gads almost one whole page of cooperation on the climate thread
now thats new

who are you people and what have to done with my friends

G my point is that you on the one hand use modeled evidence to support your shrinking planet theory and on the other complain about people using modeled evidence.
you cant have it both ways there mate.



as you can see your half life theory of residency time is irrelevant considering the nonlinear nature of the life span of c02 in the atmosphere

 

here is another excellent example of how both direct and indirect measurements are used to assist in a more complex analysis

 

How do we know that these methods of analyzing complex data sets of varying forms of measured data are accurate ?

its simple
by taking previously derived data and checking against subsequently produced measurements

 

"e gads almost one whole page of cooperation on the climate thread"
Eat Dirt, Bos. I'm not doing anything you say!

 

here is yet another excellent example this time of one of the early pioneers in climate research showing that even way back then by combining various forms of data sets both derived measurements and actual measurements accurate predictions could be made concerning future measurements

 

"My shift is done, good day."
Good Union workers, MasRapido, Troy, Angel, have a definate internet time advantage over the rest...

 

the point that Guillermo and a few others are about to ignore is that within the scientific process measurements of all kinds are used to produce various hypothesis, these hypothesis are often modeled in the form of a computer program then checked and double checked against previous data sets ( a process called calibration ) and once shown to be able to accurately predict previous known findings are then asked to predict future findings

these models through incorporating multiple sets of data both directly and indirectly measured have proven to be extremely accurate in estimating future findings

as shown in the examples most recently posted

suggesting that science limit itself to only one small fraction of the available data is simply laughable

its the difference between adding and dividing is what your having trouble with on this issue G

but feel free to continue the hypocrisy

one moment complaining about one kind of measurement and the next touting it as your life's blood

its got a huge humor value to it and I for one always get a bang out of reading some of the more flagrant posts

cheers
B

 

You have no brains, Boston. Definitely.
Where is the data on CO2 residence time on what you have posted? where is the calibration? I don't see them.
And, why do you post things having nothing to do with the discussion about the residence time? to distract? do you think we are as stupid as you are?

The only answer to all that is you do not know what you are talking about. You just have a compulsory needing of proving at all times you are wiser than you really are ("I'm a Scientist" and all that crap of yours), you really know nothing, your formation is very, very poor, you are not able to eficiently reason by yourself, you are not able to search for information out of the RC blog, and consequently you only follow the Climatist Church of the Warmnotology commandments without the minimum critic. All of it is a clear sign of a mental disorder, in my opinion.

Now, quoting Archer in your only post on the subject: "My model indicates that about 7% of carbon released today will still be in the atmosphere in 100,000 years"

MODEL. MODEL. MODEL. How many times do I have to highlight this for you?

Archer is simply speculating with the residence time. where are his proofs? are the sedimentary records from 55 million years ago his only clues? how does he then explain the Ordovician glaciation when atmospheric CO2 concentration was 10 times the present one?

On top of this: 7% in 100.000 years. OK. And how much for 1.000.000 years? 1% or the like? what is the interest of it? what is the relevance for present climate to know how many CO2 is still remaining in the atmosphere from Nero's burning of Rome? the relevant thing, if any, is the total concentration figure at a given time, its real greenhouse effect (logaritmic decrease and other issues) and if it precedes or follows temperature, like the +/-800 years delay of the CO2 in the Vostok cores from temperature. You, Climatists, are forgetting all that and trying to frighten people (Archer's work is a perfect example) based just in speculations.

I'm really doubting about continuing arguing with you. I'm a perfect idiot by doing that, I'm afraid.

 

Back to the climate

Prtend the tree is Al Gore.