ITS funny watchiNG THIS DE-BAIT..OF A GRAPH...WHEM the real topic is
n fact, here is a complete list of all the things blamed on global warming: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

what strIKES ME ABOUT THE WELL POISENING [THE GRAPH]..
IS WHY 30 YEAR CYCLES/BECAUSE THAT NUMBER DONT FALL ON THE 11 YEAR CYCLE NOR THE oTHER CYCLES..so if you pICK THE BEST PROJECTION..IT CAN PROject whatever the person who set it up to projects..

MUCH DEPENDS ON THE WHO/DID WHAT
if we deniers used their graph..the source of the poisen is clear

WHAT IS CLEAR..IS HERE WE ARE DISPUTING 'THE PROBLEM'
INSTEAD OF HOw a tax will fix it/[ITS CLASIc redirection]

here are the real issues/how many of them are proven
n fact, here is a complete list of all the things blamed on global warming: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

most of em i rekon..thats why ALL THESE PAGES RE A GRAPH
thats the ONLY POINT THEY CANWIN BY[thing is is it their grpah..or ours[who made the poisen/or rather set it up..ANYHOW THE TOPIC BEGINS WITH A POINT/THEN REFINES it[or rather topic used to]..before the delusional warmists cooled off into cli-mate changers/so the money changers get A NEW WORLD Value unit

its inevitaBLE..but by being built on the lie/will fail
hence i invented the wikiseedwikigeld..FOR WHEN WE DOnt trust no one and nuthin

i recall we had a topc lAST WEEK..where..the money from carbon credit will 'pay' for a huge pipE LINE[NO DOUDT A DECADES LONG PROJECT]..WHEN COAL ON SMALL SCALE COULD BE RUN OUT GLOBALLY..IN NO time/much more diverse work..that pipeline making

anyhow i swore off TRYING TO PREVENT THE INEVITABLE
MOVE THE DEBATE TO HOW DOES C02 TAX FIX IT...[simpless]

OUG,

Pray tell....why do you spend half your posts shouting these days?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/rules.asp

Item 3: Do not "shout" (use capital letters excessively).

Not necessary.

sorry its not shouting..its computer problem
IT JUST AT RANDOM STARTS SHIFTING Keys..and it it what it is
then if i try to edit it gets worse..the computer is dying/and im not bying another..[i hate this forced consumerism]

also most as much as i HATE THE TAX
BUT I FORGET..WE STAND ON OPPOSING SIDES Of the fence ...now

so how will the tax fix things?
how has the price doubling by enron affected you
[or were yOU ONE OF THE CLEVER ONES LIKE BELLY/FOXIE PAUL ETC

mate this issue has divided the forum..i stay away from this important topic..because all my mate now hate me..NOW I CHANGED SIDES

HOW CAN A TAX ON INVIABLE WEIGHTLESS gas by the toN/FIX ANYTHING
RECALL THAT OTHER DEBAITE..recently//the dude is going to build pipelines with the tax

EDIT ABANDONED..

ANYHOW LIKE I SAY REFUTE WHAT I SAY
NOT How a computer bug limits me saying..it.
im not yelling/in the old days you would have known this
now your quoting the rues at me..in lue of refuting what i say.

OUG,

"im not yelling/in the old days you would have known this"

Which is why I inquired - and you've just explained the reason.

I'll leave this one now to the posters commenting on topic...fascinating.

The brains trust is annoyed at attempts to direct the discussion back to the point at hand.

Jeremy is very snarky and says its not his responsibility to do research. Well, sorry Jeremy, as a supporter of the doomsday cult of AGW it is YOUR responsibility. I'm just some poor punter doing his best who thinks your cult is crap.

More specifically, Bugs is worried about this graph beginning at 235 W/m^2:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

The effective temperature was defined earlier and is 255K; in forcing terms radiated energy increases as the 4th power of temperature, T^4, so 255K is 235W/m2. Below 235W/m2 CO2 has no effect. Which Bugs knew and is just making a nuisance of himself.

Likewise Agro with his asymptote concerns about the same graph. An asymptote is, essentially, a line that a graph approaches, but does not intersect. Agro wants to use the natural log and says:

"Actually it doesn’t asymptote at all. If you extend the graph out to 1 million ppm CO2 (i.e. 100%) it reaches 292."

Apart from once again showing the 'log decline' which constrains further CO2 effect this raises a point I mentioned earlier about decaying exponentials and also in my reference to a logarithm asymptotic to 1. Which is as the effect of CO2 diminishes does it become tangential or asymptotic

Hey witless

asking for what you claim is misleading to be fixed and claiming you know olo has high standards

when you won't withdraw you own misleading statement that denigrates others by comparing then to your mate the socialist mass murderer Hitler is just a tad hypocritical.

Don't you think witless?