OT: Ping Cursitor Doom

[Martin Brown]

You can do ab initio calculations to see how a chunk of moist atmosphere behaves including all the relevant effects. It will within a fairly short period evolve away from its initial conditions towards a dynamic equilibrium compatible with the solar forcing and energy balance.

It is just impossible to do that for the entire planet at once. A chunk of atmosphere is now realistically within the remit of simulation.

This sort of modelling is common and uncontroversial in astrophysics where it is used to model things like relativistic jets and accretion disks. We don't know the initial conditions there either but we can still model them and then compare the simulations with reality.

[Tim Lamb]

Nicely set out.

The niggle at the back of my mind is the *who benefits* question.

The green lobby?

Clearly not the fossil fuel companies.

If it is the pro-nuclear lobby they are not doing very well.

Govts. using it as a tool to frighten their voters?

Siemens stock holders enjoying gearbox/generator sales profits?

An oblique strategy to slow depletion of Earth's resources?

ETC!

[Fredxx]

Then guide me with my good eye to the actual evidence CD has posted.

It's not evidence either. are you saying only a troll would make a claim he couldn't substantiate?

[Fredxx]

The only fool is the one that says it exists when it doesn't. Either post your evidence or forever be seen a liar.

I'm sure you are. You don't like your claims about Co2 levels in 1900 being scrutinised.

A feeble excuse for non-existent evidence.

I did and it doesn't exist.

Then don't make false claims you can never, ever backup.

AGW is an entirely different subject. We are considering CO2 levels at

1900. Do keep up.

The only only bias here is someone making claims they can't substantiate.

[Spike]

You must have had the telescope to your blind eye in order for you to say that CD's evidence doesn't exist.

What CD has done is to indicate his evidence of his obtaining and studying the evidence, and he has mentioned this in enough detail, including costs, for others with interest to do likewise. Are you now saying that you can't find the evidence of his evidence, or can't find the evidence, or both?

Then don't mention peer review if you're not going to like the response.

[Fredxx]

All this because I asked for your non-existent evidence to back your silly claims of CO2 levels in 1900?

This really has nothing to do with AGW, Globalism or Al Gore.

[Fredxx]

My method is to cite my sources or I shut up. You, on the other hand, are bleating loudly when you cannot backup your false claims with imaginary evidence.

I am very aware of Antoine Lavoisier. He was also naive enough to beleive he wouldn't lose his head on the guillotine.

His methodology was to cite his sources, publish data and to not rely on hearsay.

So once again I don't see how this is relevant to your claimed CO2 levels in 1900.

[Fredxx]

The results were flawed for two reasons and were still less that 1% in error.

This whole thread is about evidence of CO2 measurements taken in 1900. I would accept even a 10% error.

I think it it useful to note that Millikan's methodology was sufficiently poor he wasn't awarded his PhD for some time after his measurements.

[Fredxx]

Which is why it is such an important piece of evidence that the ice corer samples taken far away from Mauna Loa Observatory still correlate so well.

The only ones who look stupid here are the ones that believe CD's uncorroborated levels of CO2 in 1900 without any evidence.

All I want is the claimed non-existent evidence of CO2 levels in 1900, so I'm wondering who is the one accepting a few words from people on a political web site?

[Cursitor Doom]

Jeez, I can't believe he's still bleating about this supposed lack of evidence. I suspect he's crossed the rubicon into the realms of mental illness to be still obsessing over this. If he wants to see the evidence for himself I've told him exactly how to do it and where to find it and for him to claim it doesn't exist is the hallmark of a lunatic. Spike, take a tip from me and KF him. You'll be glad you did, believe me.

[Fredxx]

If you stopped taking though hallucinogenic drugs you will see there is no evidence that CD can come up with.

He has indicated he might have seen something but admits he can't be arsed to disclose.

Is that your way of agreeing that only a troll would make a claim he couldn't substantiate?

[Fredxx]

That surprises me. You seem happy to believe that CO2 levels in the 1900 are equivalent to current levels. Most sensible people, who can some up with evidence, believe otherwise.

I'm not the one making things up about CO2 levels in 1900.

I have and it doesn't exist. You're the one obsessing about CO2 levels in 1900, making claims with nothing to back them up. Keep dreaming and wishing it existed.

That would be very convenient for you. You know Spike can't provide the evidence here either, and yet wishes to argue your corner. Why don't you put us all out of our misery and post the actual evidence, or links to it. But we all know you can't.

[Spike]

He didn't. Someone else made a jibe involving Zyklon B.

[Spike]

CD has already said why he won't be posting his evidence.

[Spike]

No. It's my way of saying that you're talking out of your bottom.

[Spike]

Your problem is that you haven't done the research that you were pointed to, and so can't say whether CD is right or wrong. Perhaps you ought to follow your own advice, and shut up.

[Spike]

The only ones who look stupid are those that call CD a liar without any evidence.

He might or might not have evidence, but you haven't looked for it.

Well, you know the answer to that: DYOR.

[Fredxx]

He has, h4e claims because he can't be arsed to. We all know it doesn't exist.

[Fredxx]

So when I ask CD to provide the evidence behind his false claims it is me who is talking out of my bottom?

Your world must be surreal.

[Fredxx]

The facts are:

1) I did't make the false claims 2) I have looked at the evidence CD has cited and his claims are not there.

I do follow my own advice. I'm not the one claiming about CO2 levels in

1900. If I did, the onus would be on me to provide the evidence