Why is It SO COLD in the US Southwest? Did All the CO2 Just Go Away?

As if progressives were any less ignorant about science.

 

There are numerous ways:

http://www.spotlight-on-science.com/2009/05/physics-problems-with-weight-of.html

Try to catch up to the CURRENT state of "Science",as opposed to the Flat Earther Warmist level...

 

From your link:
"The other main way to measure the weight of the electron is by Thompson's charge-to-mass ratio experiment." That was the method that the mass of the electron was initially determined. It uses a mathematical model based on the relationship between the charge of the electron and the mass of the electron. The same method, using a model, that the absorption and emission lines and energies of CO2 are determined.

 

You are reaching. Mass-charge is used for mass spectrometry. Its not the same kind of spectrometry.

 

And his model was later PROVEN WRONG, by actual , SCIENTIFICALLY DERIVED FACT, utilizinf SCIENTIFIC METHOD, in regards to the electron and the gold molecule.

Try again. The mass of any object can be determined by DISPLACEMENT, as well.

Learn ACTUAL SCIENCE, instead of the "Cliff's notes" nonsense you Warmists use to delude yourselves,and then mistakenly try to use to delude those FAR MORE AWARE of actual SCIENTIFIC TRUTH than yourselves.

NO MODEL can trump ACTUAL REAL WORLD SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

 

I'm not reaching for anything. You're not following the discussion (again). Grok is claiming that science is based on direct experimentation. I'm stating that science also uses modelling to understand the world around us. Determining the mass of the electron and determining the characteristics of CO2 both use mathematical models; no direct measurements of the unknown quantity required. If he wants to deny that the characteristics of CO2 are unknown, he's overthrowing QM. Quite a claim! Grok is claiming that climatologists, including Lindzen & Spencer, are not using science.

 

No! The model of how mass of an electron, using Q, can be determined is still used today. Your own link mentions it.

 

The MASS of an ELECTRON, is measured in MULTIPLE WAYS, as my link mentions. So?

More desperation from the Science-crippled Warmists. Want some more of the IDIOCY of your "religion"?

How about the "NEW" claims,that "350 ppm" (.000350), WOULD BE "JUST FINE" for the CLIMATE, according to Warmist NUMBSKULLS, embarassed that people are actually realizing how COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS their claims about CO2 are, now try to mount a FULL RETREAT.

The "Goal" for Humanity and CO2, is NOW "385 ppm"; IOW ABOUT FORTY PPM (.00004) "too much", ARE CAUSING "CLIMATE CHANGE" ..how STUPID can the WARMISTS GET?

Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?


Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3 deg-C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6 deg-C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 450 +/- 100 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO2 forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126


Are you FRIGGIN' KIDDING ME??

Now, all of a sudden reducing the ALREADY MINISCULE amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, by a RIDICULOUSLY MINISCULE .00004, will "save the climate".

Is anyone paying attention to this LUNACY???

 

That link does more to ANNIHILATE the inane stupidity of the Warmist Deluded, than even the corruption exposed in the E.Anglia emails....

The New Warmist Doctrine:

"350 PPM" (.000350) CO2 concentrations= "Just Fine".

"385 PPM" (.000385) CO2 concentrations= "Causing Climate Change".

What UTTER IDIOCY....

 

Where is that head banging smiley?

You put up a hypothesis - i.e. that green fairies are causing the current global warming then you set out to prove if that is falsifiable
You measure known green fairies and see if they are having an effect - you show they do not ergo it is a false premise

Now scientists have gone there with the sun, cosmic rays, water vapour, planetary albedo, volcanoes, right wing politician speeches............

They have ruled out everything else that may have been the cause of the current climate change EXCEPT man

 

The melting of the ice causes the jet streams to change positions, so it will leave the south cold to redistribute climate warmings.

 

: And a mere 35 PPM "too much" of CO2 is clhanging the climate....

 

You still don't seem to get it. The climate changes on its own, so far your right. BUT rising concentration of carbon dioxide accelerates this process.

 

So now man is the only cause ? Rich ... I love pseudo science!

 

I said SCIENTIFIC PROOF is established through DIRECT EXPERIMENTATION, which is correct. "Modeling" is arbitrary data.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow. SO 35 PPM of CO2 , is the difference between "OK" levels,and "Mankind Changing the Climate" levels of CO2?

Complete, total,and utter BULLCRAP. PERIOD. 35PPM of CO2 is not even usable for photosynthesis.

The PHONY PSEUDO SCIENCE of the PURELY POLITICAL Warmist Religion, has been EXPOSED, irreparably, with the above ridiculousness.

 

Yeah...except here in Michigan... one of the most northern states...which should be the coldest...we have had three consecutive warm winters with record low snow fall.

Indeed its 45 degrees here at the end of January which is supposed to be the dead of winter. It just rained and thunder stormed in the middle of winter.

Sorry, you lose by direct evidence.

 

When will the Warmists "learn the difference between ' CLIMATE' and 'WEATHER' ?"

And what's THIS all about? :

http://www.weatherstreet.com/weather-forecast/michigan-snow-cover.htm

 

Apparently you didn't read my reply very well.

I was sarcastically pointing out that fluctuation in climate don't always stay on the same curve.

Warmer for one period of time does not rule out colder for another.

Seasons change.

- - - Updated - - -

Making wild claims as if science was a religion...yep...that's someone consistent and worthy of being believed.

 

To which I "sarcastically" replied, with the Warmist Coldweather Mantra.

Not to mention your claims were completely FALSE about snowfall in Michigan.

Just like the preposterous, recently exposed Warmist declaration of "good levels" of CO2, and "Evil Climate Changing Levels" of CO2, which differ by about 35 PPM, (.000035): 350 PPM, atmospheric CO2= "just fine";
385 PPM atmospheric CO2= "changing the climate".

Complete and TOTAL NONSENSE.

 

And here's today's weather for mid-Michigan.

http://www.wnem.com/category/211235/hourly-forecast

In the mid to upper fifties.

Oh...so I'm lying. Yeah keep trying.

 

No we dont because this thread is about weather being passed off as climate.

 

I understand that.

We have had three of these warmer, less precipitation, and far milder winters in a row. Add to that the fact that we have been receiving less and less precipitation in the summers, the great lakes level are falling and you actually see a pattern beyond weather.

 

Trouble keeping track of your own bullcrap?

You said there has been little or NO SNOWFALL in Michigan= complete nonsense.

Today's "WEATHER" is immaterial.

The winters of 2009-2010,and 2010-2011, were the TWO COLDEST BACK-to-BACK Winters we have had in OVER 25 YEARS.

Feel free to continue making up whatever you need to be true...