C02: insignificant trace gas, and yet it warms .....

[RedAcer]

Excellent series explaining it all.
(corrected links)

CO2 � An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part One
http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/

Part Two � why different gases absorb different amounts of energy, why
some gases absorb almost no longwave radiation
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/20/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-two/

Part Three � the Beer Lambert model of absorption and the concept of
re-emission of radiation
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/31/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-three/

Part Four � band models and how transmittance of CO2 changes as the
amount of CO2 increases under �weak� and �strong� conditions
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/05/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-four/

Part Five � two results from solving the 1-d equations � and how CO2
compares to water vapor
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-five/

Part Six � Visualization -what does the downwards longwave radiation
look like at the earth�s surface
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/11/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-six-visualization/

Part Seven � The Boring Numbers � the values of �radiative forcing� from
CO2 for current levels and doubling of CO2.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-seven-the-boring-numbers/

Part Eight � Saturation � explaining �saturation� in more detail
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/12/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-eight-saturation/

CO2 Can�t have that Effect Because.. � common �problems� or responses to
the theory and evidence presented
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/15/co2-cant-have-that-effect-because/

[Tunderbar]

On May 18, 8:57 am, RedAcer <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> Excellent series explaining it all.
> (corrected links)
>

> CO2 An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Onehttp://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...
>
> Part Two why different gases absorb different amounts of energy, why
> some gases absorb almost no longwave radiationhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/20/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-tr...
>
> Part Three the Beer Lambert model of absorption and the concept of
> re-emission of radiationhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/31/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...
>
> Part Four band models and how transmittance of CO2 changes as the
> amount of CO2 increases under weak and strong conditionshttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/05/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...
>
> Part Five two results from solving the 1-d equations and how CO2
> compares to water vaporhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-tr...
>
> Part Six Visualization -what does the downwards longwave radiation
> look like at the earth s surfacehttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/11/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-tr...
>
> Part Seven The Boring Numbers the values of radiative forcing from
> CO2 for current levels and doubling of CO2.http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...
>
> Part Eight Saturation explaining saturation in more detailhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/12/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...
>
> CO2 Can t have that Effect Because.. common problems or responses to

> the theory and evidence presentedhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/15/co2-cant-have-that-effect-because/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

"Correlation does not imply causation" (related to "ignoring a common
cause" and questionable cause) is a phrase used in science and
statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does
not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation
is necessary for linear causation in the absence of any third and
countervailing causative variable, and can indicate possible causes or
areas for further investigation; in other words, correlation is a
hint).[1][2]

The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical
fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a
cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc
ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this")
and false cause. It is a common fallacy in which it is assumed that
because two things or events occur together, one must be the cause of
the other. By contrast, the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc requires
that one event occur before the other and so may be considered a
related fallacy.

*****

http://chimalaya.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/IceCores1.gif

Note that temps PRECEDE CO2. Temps have never LED CO2. Ever. And
physics isn't going to change the way things work in the real world
just for you eco-activists.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/18/12 9:04 AM, Tunderbar wrote:
> "Correlation does not imply causation"

Causation by greenhouse gasses to warm the planet has been understood
for more than 100 years. Do a bit of self-education from these two
references:

> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> APS: A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change
> http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm

[kym horsell]

On Saturday, May 19, 2012 12:04:53 AM UTC+10, Tunderbar wrote:
...

> Note that temps PRECEDE CO2. Temps have never LED CO2. Ever. And
> physics isn't going to change the way things work in the real world
> just for you eco-activists.

Rubbish.

Simple analysis using lagging and exchanging puted independent and dependent
variates can establish good evidence for causation.

A much similar strategy was used to establish a causal link between smoking and cancer back in the 60s. There is was agreed that correlations in a forward time sense (prospective), backwards (retrospective) and cross-sectional were sufficient to "prove" a causal link whether or not the exact mechanism whereby chemical agents identified or unidentified affected cells was known or not.

As for what leads or lags what, let's look -- as we have before -- at Manua Loa CO2 and NASA loti using lagging and exchanging the 2 variates.

If we find the "best fit" line for co2(t) = a temp(t-L) + b for different L
(where time is in months)
we see that the greatest explanation power -- r2 -- is for L==0. The r2
values then rapidly drop off at approx rate 1/L as L->200 months.

However, for temp(t) = a co2(t-L) + b for different L, we see the r2 value
remains approx constant up until 100 months, and only very slowly declines
up to 200 m (the largest value tested -- there's only 60*12 months of data).

Together these results are good evidence for 2 things.
(1) co2 explains future temperatures within the time horizon of 200 months.
(2) temperatures do not explain future co2 levels within the next 200 months.

AKA co2 is a "cause" of future levels in temperature, but temperatures are
not a "cause" of future levels of co2.

Graphs available at:

http://kymhorsell.dyndns.org/graphs/co2-predict-temp.gif
http://kymhorsell.dyndns.org/graphs/temp-predict-co2.gif

--
I've never lied. When shown to be wrong, I admit it and stand
corrected. Which is in direct contrast to all you agw morons who will
defend your repeatedly proven lies to the very end.
-- Tunderbar <tdco...@gmail.com>@winnipeg, 7 May 2012 14:06:59 -0700 (PDT)

[erschro...@gmail.com]

Note that now, CO2 is preceding temperatures. Logical fallacy? How
about "if X didn't cause Y in the past, it can't cause Y now." Now
THAT's a logical fallacy for you.

[Falcon]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 14:57:13 +0100
RedAcer wrote...

>
> Excellent series explaining it all.
> (corrected links)

[snipped links to *a blog*!]

I see you're well up on the scientific literature these days.

You might be interested in today's guest post on Roger Pielke's website
by Kiminori Itoh, who is Professor in the Graduate School for
Environment and Information Sciences, Yokohama National University, who
writes that the very simple picture of climate change suggested by the
IPCC, represented by the overemphasis of CO2 as the primary driver of
change is a "psychologically comfortable" one for tiny western minds.

http://bit.ly/JWYeqY

I agree. Not only is 'the problem' highly and gratuitously exaggerated
by ignorant climate activists (gordo is a prime example, but there are
many more), the environmentalist's view of what causes change and what
we need to do to "fight" it (such as it is) is simplistic and misguided.
A 'one solution fits all' approach to curing what looks increasingly
like a fairly benign problem, based almost entirely on reducing CO2
emissions and bankrupting economies is, in my opinion, both utterly
pointless and potentially dangerous. And, one might also add, utterly
mind-numbingly naive.

Still, if it keeps you happy.

--

Reference: Kiminori Itoh. Mentality of the global warming affair: socio-
psychological aspect of climate change issue, Parity, Vol. 27, No. 1,
(2012) 90-93

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

[Tunderbar]

CO2 is part of the whole. But still very minor compared to water
vapor.

CO2 certainly does not drive any ***significant*** amount of global
warming. And certainly not enough for a trace increase to drive
catastrophic climate effects. It is absurd.

[Dawlish]

> just for you eco-activists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Idiot. Learn about radiative transfer theory and google a basic
physics course before posting again. I know you didn't get the
education you needed first time round, but you could at least try to
learn now.

[Dawlish]

> catastrophic climate effects. It is absurd.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Total and utter idiot. After your initial ideas have been completely
dismantled, instead of addressing the rebuttal, you change tack and
write another pile of denier crap. Why don't you go hide under your
rock. You'd have more credibility there.

[Tunderbar]

CAGW = Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming

Warming - it is and has warmed. since the little ice age .7C per
century.

Global - yep, it is global. the last glaciation period was global and
rise in temps since then have been global

Anthropogenic - CO2 has risen approx. 100 ppm to approx 380 ppm, of
which approx 14 ppm can be attributed to man. trace amounts of CO2 =
trace amounts warming. Feedback have been found to be slightly
negative, contrary to the bleatings of the eco-loons.

Catastrophic - MWP was exceedingly positive for agriculture, the
economies of the world and world peace. Heat and CO2 is good for
crops. I see not much catastrophic happening with a mere 1.2C increase
in temps. And all doomsday predictions by alarnists have FAILED to
materialize in any way.

Check and mate.

[bjacoby]

Same old bullshit, Sam. "An insignificant trace gas produces huge
warming because what else could it be?"

Well, there are plenty of other correlations:

It might be U.S. Postal rates causing warming:

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges/

AGW caused by postal rates!


Or maybe it's caused by clouds and water vapor like your pals at NASA say?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Why don't you believe the scientific papers from NASA Sam? Why does
everything have to be watered down in the popular media for you before
you can understand what they are saying? Or does your "clipping service"
pick these links for you?

[RedAcer]

On 18/05/12 16:58, Falcon wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 14:57:13 +0100
> RedAcer wrote...
>>
>> Excellent series explaining it all.
>> (corrected links)
>

snip irrelevant stuff.

Strange when I look at those links I see physics, maybe that's because I
studied it for 6 years and recognise it. Be honest, did you understand
any of the physics there? - There's no shame in not understanding
physics, it's difficult. Just ask questions and someone here will help
to explain it.


--
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an
understanding ... Samuel Johnson

[Bill Snyder]

But the dog ate the evidence.

>Global - yep, it is global. the last glaciation period was global and
>rise in temps since then have been global
>
>Anthropogenic - CO2 has risen approx. 100 ppm to approx 380 ppm, of
>which approx 14 ppm can be attributed to man.

But the dog ate the evidence.

> trace amounts of CO2 = trace amounts warming.

But the dog ate the evidence.

>Feedback have been found to be slightly
>negative, contrary to the bleatings of the eco-loons.

Dog.

>Catastrophic - MWP was exceedingly positive for agriculture,

Dog.

>the economies of the world

Dog.


> and world peace.

Dog. (It is good to know that the world was peaceful during the
Crusades, however. Without this information, some of us might
have been fooled into thinking otherwise.)

>Heat and CO2 is good for crops.

Dog.

>I see not much catastrophic happening with a mere 1.2C increase
>in temps.

Dog.

>And all doomsday predictions by alarnists have FAILED to
>materialize in any way.

Dog.

>Check and mate.

Arf and bow-wow.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

of only two, perfectly adequate references,
that I have seen, both showed CO2 to have a tiny absoprtive spectrum,
compared to H2O's, or "the swampcooler's." perhaps,
if wawter were not on the edge of so many phase chagnes [1]
in Eaaarth, this would be different.

however, after our massive production of water vapor,
also by bunring, it has to be of some significance.

1. this would include plasmic in the tectonics.

[Tunderbar]

Where did you study physics for 6 years?

[erschro...@gmail.com]

On May 18, 12:32 pm, bjacoby <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On 5/18/2012 10:29 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 5/18/12 9:04 AM, Tunderbar wrote:
> >> "Correlation does not imply causation"
>
> > Causation by greenhouse gasses to warm the planet has been understood
> > for more than 100 years. Do a bit of self-education from these two
> > references:
>
> >> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> >>http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
>
> >> APS: A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change
> >>http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
>
> Same old bullshit, Sam. "An insignificant trace gas produces huge
> warming because what else could it be?"
>
> Well, there are plenty of other correlations:

None involve a factor KNOWN to cause warming though.

Correlation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causation.

>
> Why don't you believe the scientific papers from NASA Sam? Why does
> everything have to be watered down in the popular media for you before
> you can understand what they are saying? Or does your "clipping service"
> pick these links for you?

NASA says GW is due mainly to CO2. Why don't you believe them?

[Dawlish]

> Where did you study physics for 6 years?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Where did you study physics.......ever?

[Dawlish]

> Check and mate.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Idiot. Learn about radiative transfer theory and google a basic
physics course before posting again. I know you didn't get the
education you needed first time round, but you could at least try to
learn now.

Do it. Actually do some learing about the science before you try to
write about it.

[Will Janoschka]

Yes absurd. The alarmist have never shown how radiative heat transfer
from the earth to the atmosphere has any effect, because it does not!
The Alarmists only talk of this one heat transfer and heat trapping, a

concept discarded over 100 years ago

No Greenhouse effect!
No Greenhouse gasses!
No radiative forcings!
No positive feedbacks.
No imbalance!
No Climate Science!
No scientific definition of "climate" even!

All political Bull Shit no science.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/18/12 10:24 AM, Tunderbar wrote:
> CO2 is part of the whole. But still very minor compared to water
> vapor.

Take the time to do a bit of self education about radiative forcing.

> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg/1000px-Radiative-forcings.svg.png
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/18/12 2:07 PM, 1treePetrifiedForestLane wrote:
> perfectly adequate references,
> that I have seen, both showed CO2 to have a tiny absoprtive spectrum,
> compared to H2O's

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/18/12 11:32 AM, bjacoby wrote:

>
> Why don't you believe the scientific papers from NASA Sam? Why does
> everything have to be watered down in the popular media for you before
> you can understand what they are saying? Or does your "clipping service"
> pick these links for you?
>

NOAA says GW is due mainly to CO2. Why don't you believe them?

[James]

"RedAcer" <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jp5kfm$8ta$1...@speranza.aioe.org

> Excellent series explaining it all.
> (corrected links)
>

> CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part One
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/
>
> Part Two – why different gases absorb different amounts of energy, why

> some gases absorb almost no longwave radiation
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/20/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-two/
>

> Part Three – the Beer Lambert model of absorption and the concept of

> re-emission of radiation
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/31/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-three/
>

> Part Four – band models and how transmittance of CO2 changes as the
> amount of CO2 increases under “weak” and “strong” conditions
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/05/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-four/
>
> Part Five – two results from solving the 1-d equations – and how CO2

> compares to water vapor
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-five/
>

> Part Six – Visualization -what does the downwards longwave radiation
> look like at the earth’s surface
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/11/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-six-visualization/
>
> Part Seven – The Boring Numbers – the values of “radiative forcing”

> from CO2 for current levels and doubling of CO2.
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-seven-the-boring-numbers/
>

> Part Eight – Saturation – explaining “saturation” in more detail
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/12/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-eight-saturation/
>
> CO2 Can’t have that Effect Because.. – common “problems” or responses

> to the theory and evidence presented
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/15/co2-cant-have-that-effect-because/

con·jec·ture (kÃn jekÆchÃr), n., v., -tured, -tur·ing.

1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without
sufficient evidence for proof.
2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
3. Obs. the interpretation of signs or omens.
4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to
ensure reliability.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <jp5kfm$8ta$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

RedAcer <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> Excellent series explaining it all.
> (corrected links)
>

> CO2 � An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part One
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/
>
> Part Two � why different gases absorb different amounts of energy, why

> some gases absorb almost no longwave radiation
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/20/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-p
> art-two/
>

> Part Three � the Beer Lambert model of absorption and the concept of

> re-emission of radiation
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/31/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-three/
>

> Part Four � band models and how transmittance of CO2 changes as the
> amount of CO2 increases under �weak� and �strong� conditions
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/05/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-four/
>
> Part Five � two results from solving the 1-d equations � and how CO2

> compares to water vapor
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-p
> art-five/
>

> Part Six � Visualization -what does the downwards longwave radiation
> look like at the earth�s surface
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/11/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-p
> art-six-visualization/
>
> Part Seven � The Boring Numbers � the values of �radiative forcing� from

> CO2 for current levels and doubling of CO2.
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-seven-
> the-boring-numbers/
>

> Part Eight � Saturation � explaining �saturation� in more detail
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/12/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-eight-
> saturation/
>

> CO2 Can�t have that Effect Because.. � common �problems� or responses to

> the theory and evidence presented
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/15/co2-cant-have-that-effect-because/

I notice that the graph conveniently omits the most important
"greenhouse gas," H2O.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/18/12 10:36 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

>
> I notice that the graph conveniently omits the most important
> "greenhouse gas," H2O.

You didn't read the material did you, Orval?

> CO2 and its effect on climate
> http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
>
> Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming
> http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf

[Dawlish]

> write about it.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

He didn't. tundy's a true delusional loser. Poorly educated, yet
thinks scientists simply don't know what they talk about. He doesn't
know why, he just knows they don't.

It's that secure knowledge knowledge that they are right; that
*certainty* when so many say they are wrong and only a tiny, minority
think they might be right, that marks deniers.

[Bill Ward]

How could anyone tax that?

[hanson]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
NOAA says GW is due mainly to CO2.

Ben, why don't you believe them?
>
hanson wrote:
Sam, perhaps Ben did listen to the News@11
which said:
>
Sen. Scott Brown: NOAA has a "Culture of Corruption"
Google for "NOAA corruption". -- 1 million hits.
>
Sam: there is nothing more corrupt then a AGWer
in the hordes of those "Always Green Wankers"





--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[Dawlish]

> >  http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Nope. He didn't read the material and like the good denier that he is,
he won't read the information I've posted (yet again) telling him that
CO2 most certainly *does* produce warming of the atmosphere, despite
it being a trace gas.

Why deniers won't accept that CO2 produces atmospheric warming is
beyond me and anyone else the would be involved in science. It does.
End of story.

[kym horsell]

On Saturday, May 19, 2012 5:01:13 PM UTC+10, hanson wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> NOAA says GW is due mainly to CO2.
> Ben, why don't you believe them?
> >
> hanson wrote:
> Sam, perhaps Ben did listen to the News@11
> which said:
> >
> Sen. Scott Brown: NOAA has a "Culture of Corruption"
> Google for "NOAA corruption". -- 1 million hits.
> >
> Sam: there is nothing more corrupt then a AGWer
> in the hordes of those "Always Green Wankers"

...

No choker. Googling "NOAA corruption" (with the quotes) gets 486 results.
You were googling for NOAA or mafia corruption.

We have a summer google school in the prison library if you're interested.

--
[Shifting goalposts/random ranting:]

Still waiting for the source code for all those "feedback" models...

[Someone mentions google]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_radiative_transfer_codes>

You know it's all been obfuscated and hidden. If it's so "obvious"
just post a quick link to it. Wormley posts links to his "proofs" all
the time. And if you knew any science or math or engineering at all,
you'd know that a positive "feedback" mechanism is virtually assured
to introduce instability (which of course has NEVER been observed)
into the system. I'd LOVE to pick THAT code apart! Which is EXACTLY
why it's all such a secret!
-- Ben "google boy" Jacoby, 19 Apr 2012

[RedAcer]

Nottingham University

[RedAcer]

Did you read any of the articles? Please say where you found errors or
incorrect assumptions.

[Earl Evleth]

On 19/05/12 5:36, in article
orfairbairn-F013...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net, "Orval

Fairbairn" <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I notice that the graph conveniently omits the most important
> "greenhouse gas," H2O.

That statement means you understand nothing about this issue.

Water plays a feed back role in both driections. The CO2 concentration is
central, without any in the atmosphere the earth would be a snow ball.

As the CO2 drops, the temperature drops the water in the atmosphere drops
and eventually snows and ices out, even to make the problem worse
by increasing the earth's albedo. Water is a switch hitter, it can
either serve as a green house gas and increase the temperature
or ice out and increase the temperature drop.

[Tom P]

On 05/18/2012 04:04 PM, Tunderbar wrote:

> On May 18, 8:57 am, RedAcer<red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> Excellent series explaining it all.
>> (corrected links)
>>

>> CO2 An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Onehttp://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...

>>
>> Part Two why different gases absorb different amounts of energy, why

>> some gases absorb almost no longwave radiationhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/20/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-tr...

>>
>> Part Three the Beer Lambert model of absorption and the concept of

>> re-emission of radiationhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/31/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...

>>
>> Part Four band models and how transmittance of CO2 changes as the

>> amount of CO2 increases under weak and strong conditionshttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/05/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...

>>
>> Part Five two results from solving the 1-d equations and how CO2

>> compares to water vaporhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-tr...

>>
>> Part Six Visualization -what does the downwards longwave radiation

>> look like at the earth s surfacehttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/11/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-tr...

>>
>> Part Seven The Boring Numbers the values of radiative forcing from

>> CO2 for current levels and doubling of CO2.http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...
>>
>> Part Eight Saturation explaining saturation in more detailhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/12/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...

>>
>> CO2 Can t have that Effect Because.. common problems or responses to
>> the theory and evidence presentedhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/15/co2-cant-have-that-effect-because/
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
>
> "Correlation does not imply causation" (related to "ignoring a common
> cause" and questionable cause) is a phrase used in science and
> statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does
> not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation
> is necessary for linear causation in the absence of any third and
> countervailing causative variable, and can indicate possible causes or
> areas for further investigation; in other words, correlation is a
> hint).[1][2]
>
> The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical
> fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a
> cause-and-effect relationship.

It may be a fallacy in the strict logical sense, but correlation, or in
the wider sense, statistical significance is the basis of most research
in the natural sciences for confirming the hypothesis.

The fallacy is also known as cum hoc
> ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this")
> and false cause. It is a common fallacy in which it is assumed that
> because two things or events occur together, one must be the cause of
> the other. By contrast, the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc requires
> that one event occur before the other and so may be considered a
> related fallacy.
>
> *****
>
> http://chimalaya.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/IceCores1.gif
>
> Note that temps PRECEDE CO2. Temps have never LED CO2. Ever. And
> physics isn't going to change the way things work in the real world
> just for you eco-activists.

In fact looking at that graph there really isn't much evidence for your
statement. On the contrary, at 32,000 BP you can see CO2 preceding the
temperature rise. You should also consider that recent work has shown
that the processes of glaciation and deglaciation took place at slightly
different times in the northern and southern hemispheres, meaning that
any statements based purely on the antarctic ice cores are of
questionable value. For example take a look at Shakun et al "Global
warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the
last deglaciation", Nature 2012.

Incidentally, has it occurred to you that if "correlation proves
causation" is a fallacy, then your the argument that "temps precede CO2"
is fallacious? It's ironic that you should make both assertions in the
same posting.

[Bill Ward]

That's why, if you understand anything about signal analysis, you don't
eyeball the graph, you perform a cross-correlation to determine the
actual time relation between the signals. That result from the ice cores
is a delay on the order of a thousand years between the temperature
change and the CO2 change, which rules out the hypothesis of CO2 causing
temperature changes.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-correlation>

"As an example, consider two real valued functions f and g differing only
by an unknown shift along the x-axis. One can use the cross-correlation
to find how much g must be shifted along the x-axis to make it identical
to f."

> On the contrary, at 32,000 BP you can see CO2 preceding the
> temperature rise. You should also consider that recent work has shown
> that the processes of glaciation and deglaciation took place at slightly
> different times in the northern and southern hemispheres, meaning that
> any statements based purely on the antarctic ice cores are of
> questionable value. For example take a look at Shakun et al "Global
> warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the
> last deglaciation", Nature 2012.
>
> Incidentally, has it occurred to you that if "correlation proves
> causation" is a fallacy, then your the argument that "temps precede CO2"
> is fallacious? It's ironic that you should make both assertions in the
> same posting.

Correlation showing a time lag is sufficient to rule out the later signal
as a cause of the earlier one, except for systems including Deloreans,
flux capacitors, and time travel.

[Sam Wormley]

Hey Bill--Don't you care are the coming mass extinction?

> Ocean acidification on track to be among the worst of the last 300 million years
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/03/ocean-acidification-could-become-worst-in-at-least-300-million-years.ars
>

[kym horsell]

He's busy exploring new google keywords. :)

--
[After bringing up Miskolczi for the 100th time:]
I respect repeatable data and logical explanation. Expert opinion I can
do without. If you're forced to rely on them, that's your problem, not mine.
-- Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com>, 26 Apr 2012 19:11:06 -0500

[Tom P]

I take note of the fact that you snipped the main part of my reply.

[Tom P]

On 05/19/2012 10:08 AM, RedAcer wrote:
> On 18/05/12 20:20, Tunderbar wrote:
>> On May 18, 11:42 am, RedAcer<red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 18/05/12 16:58, Falcon wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 18 May 2012 14:57:13 +0100
>>>> RedAcer wrote...
>>>
>>>>> Excellent series explaining it all.
>>>>> (corrected links)
>>>
>>> snip irrelevant stuff.
>>>
>>> Strange when I look at those links I see physics, maybe that's because I
>>> studied it for 6 years and recognise it. Be honest, did you understand
>>> any of the physics there? - There's no shame in not understanding
>>> physics, it's difficult. Just ask questions and someone here will help
>>> to explain it.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an
>>> understanding ... Samuel Johnson
>>
>> Where did you study physics for 6 years?
>
> Nottingham University
>

Red, Tundy didn't know that it is possible to study physics for 6 years,
as his physics education ended at school. Apart from which, Tundy
thinks that anyone who knows what they are talking about is biased.

[Bill Ward]

I snipped nothing. Here's the post I replied to, in full:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<repost>

Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin2!goblin3!
goblin.stu.neva.ru!bolzen.all.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!
individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Tom P <wero...@freent.dd>
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming,sci.physics
Subject: Re: C02: insignificant trace gas, and yet it warms .....
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 12:23:38 +0200
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <a1palb...@mid.individual.net>
References: <jp5kfm$8ta$1...@speranza.aioe.org> <0a57abe2-7334-4110-
a6d1-6c7...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 6EbE
+szf03bt9BHGL0vflQh0rgmqrPecAo8Tbs8Dj8X61aj0owyAKd/DPcQ5+P28E=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mn6RAp5ycYN84ruyD86rpJ568sI=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430
Thunderbird/12.0.1
In-Reply-To: <0a57abe2-7334-4110-
a6d1-6c7...@n9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Bytes: 5223
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com sci.physics:1832171 alt.global-
warming:699196

statement. On the contrary, at 32,000 BP you can see CO2 preceding the

temperature rise. You should also consider that recent work has shown that
the processes of glaciation and deglaciation took place at slightly
different times in the northern and southern hemispheres, meaning that any
statements based purely on the antarctic ice cores are of questionable
value. For example take a look at Shakun et al "Global warming preceded by
increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation",
Nature 2012.

Incidentally, has it occurred to you that if "correlation proves
causation" is a fallacy, then your the argument that "temps precede CO2"
is fallacious? It's ironic that you should make both assertions in the
same posting.

</repost>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Are you now so lacking in logical response you're reduced to making false
claims? You can do better than that.

[Bill Ward]

Funny, but when people feel the need to tell me how smart they are, it
always raises doubts. Why don't they just show me?

[Dawlish]

> always raises doubts.  Why don't they just show me?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Lindzen and Choi bilbo. No-one needs to know how smart you are.
<laughing>

[James]

"RedAcer" <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message

news:jp7kgs$rla$2...@speranza.aioe.org

> On 19/05/12 03:38, James wrote:
>> "RedAcer" <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:jp5kfm$8ta$1...@speranza.aioe.org
>>> Excellent series explaining it all.
>>> (corrected links)
>>>

>>> CO2 � An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part One
>>> http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/
>>>
>>>
>>> Part Two � why different gases absorb different amounts of energy,

>>> why some gases absorb almost no longwave radiation
>>> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/20/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-two/
>>>
>>>

>>> Part Three � the Beer Lambert model of absorption and the concept of

>>> re-emission of radiation
>>> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/31/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-three/
>>>
>>>

>>> Part Four � band models and how transmittance of CO2 changes as the
>>> amount of CO2 increases under �weak� and �strong� conditions
>>> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/05/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-four/
>>>
>>>
>>> Part Five � two results from solving the 1-d equations � and how CO2

>>> compares to water vapor
>>> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-five/
>>>
>>>

>>> Part Six � Visualization -what does the downwards longwave radiation
>>> look like at the earth�s surface
>>> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/11/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-six-visualization/
>>>
>>>
>>> Part Seven � The Boring Numbers � the values of �radiative forcing�

>>> from CO2 for current levels and doubling of CO2.
>>> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-seven-the-boring-numbers/
>>>
>>>

>>> Part Eight � Saturation � explaining �saturation� in more detail
>>> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/12/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-eight-saturation/
>>>
>>>
>>> CO2 Can�t have that Effect Because.. � common �problems� or

>>> responses to the theory and evidence presented
>>> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/15/co2-cant-have-that-effect-because/
>>

>> con�jec�ture (k�n jek�ch�r), n., v., -tured, -tur�ing.

>>
>> 1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without
>> sufficient evidence for proof.
>> 2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
>> 3. Obs. the interpretation of signs or omens.
>> 4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to
>> ensure reliability.
>
> Did you read any of the articles? Please say where you found errors or
> incorrect assumptions.

Why do pricks like you alarmists post a list of links that does not tell
you what you want to know? People have posted long shit as answers when
it doesn't mention anything of any subject that was being discussed AGW
facts is good at it.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/19/12 9:35 PM, James wrote:

>
> Why do pricks like you alarmists post a list of links that does not tell
> you what you want to know? People have posted long shit as answers when
> it doesn't mention anything of any subject that was being discussed AGW
> facts is good at it.

Actually, James, this is an excellent explanation of CO2 and

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

http://scienceofdoom.com/about/

"Being skeptical is a positive thing."

"Some aspects of current "Climate Science" have become more like a faith.
The science has been pressed nto a political agenda and consequently the
spirit of free inquiry has been squashed."

For once the swormley1 ass hat posts a link with truth in it.

[Dawlish]

On May 20, 3:35 am, "James" <kingk...@iglou.com> wrote:
> "RedAcer" <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:jp7kgs$rla$2...@speranza.aioe.org
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 19/05/12 03:38, James wrote:
> >> "RedAcer" <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:jp5kfm$8ta$1...@speranza.aioe.org
> >>> Excellent series explaining it all.
> >>> (corrected links)
>

> >>> CO2 An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part One
> >>>http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...
>
> >>> Part Two why different gases absorb different amounts of energy,

> >>> why some gases absorb almost no longwave radiation

> >>>http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/20/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-tr...
>
> >>> Part Three the Beer Lambert model of absorption and the concept of
> >>> re-emission of radiation
> >>>http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/31/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...
>
> >>> Part Four band models and how transmittance of CO2 changes as the
> >>> amount of CO2 increases under weak and strong conditions
> >>>http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/05/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...
>
> >>> Part Five two results from solving the 1-d equations and how CO2
> >>> compares to water vapor
> >>>http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-tr...

>
> >>> Part Six Visualization -what does the downwards longwave radiation
> >>> look like at the earth s surface

> >>>http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/11/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-tr...

>
> >>> Part Seven The Boring Numbers the values of radiative forcing

> >>> from CO2 for current levels and doubling of CO2.

> >>>http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...

>
> >>> Part Eight Saturation explaining saturation in more detail

> >>>http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/12/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...
>
> >>> CO2 Can t have that Effect Because.. common problems or

> >>> responses to the theory and evidence presented
> >>>http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/15/co2-cant-have-that-effect-because/
>

> >> con jec ture (k n jek ch r), n., v., -tured, -tur ing.

>
> >> 1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without
> >> sufficient evidence for proof.
> >> 2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
> >> 3. Obs. the interpretation of signs or omens.
> >> 4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to
> >> ensure reliability.
>
> > Did you read any of the articles? Please say where you found errors or
> > incorrect assumptions.
>
> Why do pricks like you alarmists post a list of links that does not tell
> you what you want to know? People have posted long shit as answers when
> it doesn't mention anything of any subject that was being discussed AGW

> facts is good at it.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

"Long shit"..........jimmy-cut-and-paste means *science*, of course.
<laughing>

[gordo]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 22:06:35 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Actually cut and paste James who opens web pages on command is now
using abusive language. Gordo lied but I consider it a prank. Now no
more abusive language because you will have to pick up your toys and
answer to Dawlish. Time for James to give it up and join the ranks of
science and not Lord Hee Haws.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

The same goes for those who claim to be pilots, and yet play stupid
about the when it comes to the topic of mountain waves.

[JohnM]

Remember the story about the boy who cried,"WOLF!"? Now that you have
been "shown" so many times over the past ten years, nobody is going to
bother doing that any more for you. You refused to look before - why
will you perform differently this time?

P.s. You are not alone. Turdenbar has positioned himself in that self-
same corner - with so many layers of paint it's beginning to peel off
under its own weight.

[AGWFacts]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 14:57:13 +0100, RedAcer <red...@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:

> C02: insignificant trace gas, and yet it warms .....

We can all assume you mean "CO2" and not "C02." :-) Many months
ago I wrote "C02" and I was utterly mortified.

> Excellent series explaining it all.
> (corrected links)
>

> CO2 � An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part One

> http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/

>
> Part Two � why different gases absorb different amounts of energy, why
> some gases absorb almost no longwave radiation

> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/20/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-two/

>
> Part Three � the Beer Lambert model of absorption and the concept of
> re-emission of radiation

> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/31/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-three/

>
> Part Four � band models and how transmittance of CO2 changes as the
> amount of CO2 increases under �weak� and �strong� conditions

> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/05/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-four/

>
> Part Five � two results from solving the 1-d equations � and how CO2
> compares to water vapor

> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-five/

>
> Part Six � Visualization -what does the downwards longwave radiation
> look like at the earth�s surface

> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/11/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-six-visualization/

>
> Part Seven � The Boring Numbers � the values of �radiative forcing� from
> CO2 for current levels and doubling of CO2.

> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-seven-the-boring-numbers/

>
> Part Eight � Saturation � explaining �saturation� in more detail

> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/12/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-eight-saturation/

>
> CO2 Can�t have that Effect Because.. � common �problems� or responses to
> the theory and evidence presented
> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/15/co2-cant-have-that-effect-because/

And a damn fine essay series it be, too. Thank you.


--
"A 'crank' is defined as a man who cannot be turned." --- _Nature_, 8 Nov 1906

[AGWFacts]

> "Correlation does not imply causation"

Nobody claimed it does, Shit-for-brains.

[AGWFacts]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 08:24:15 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
<tdco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:29:33 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On 5/18/12 9:04 AM, Tunderbar wrote:
> > > "Correlation does not imply causation"
> >

> > Causation by greenhouse gasses to warm the planet has been understood
> > for more than 100 years. Do a bit of self-education from these two
> > references:
> >
> > > The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> > > http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
> > >
> > > APS: A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change
> > > http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm

> CO2 is part of the whole. But still very minor compared to water
> vapor.

An increase in CO2 caused and causes an increase in water vapor,
Shit-for-brains.

> CO2 certainly does not drive any ***significant*** amount of global
> warming.

Every expert on the subject says it does. How do you explain that?

> And certainly not enough for a trace increase to drive
> catastrophic climate effects. It is absurd.

Yet it has already happened. How do you explain that?

CO2 is not insignficant:

[AGWFacts]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 07:59:00 -0700 (PDT), kym horsell
<kymho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, May 19, 2012 12:04:53 AM UTC+10, Tunderbar wrote:
> ...

> > Note that temps PRECEDE CO2. Temps have never LED CO2. Ever.

Note that the paleoclimate data shows the previous glacial period
ended due to an increase in CO2, after which an increase in global
average temperature followed.

> Rubbish.

Of course.

> Simple analysis using lagging and exchanging puted independent and dependent
> variates can establish good evidence for causation.

Yes, and the latest Antarctic bore hole proxy data show
"tunderbar" is full of shit.

> A much similar strategy was used to establish a causal link between smoking
> and cancer back in the 60s. There is was agreed that correlations in a forward
> time sense (prospective), backwards (retrospective) and cross-sectional were
> sufficient to "prove" a causal link whether or not the exact mechanism whereby
> chemical agents identified or unidentified affected cells was known or not.

Yes. Correlation was better than 0.6 in several studies between
tobacco smoking and lung cancer; it was better than .45 in at
least one study between "environmental smoking" and lung cancer
among Japanese women whose spouses smoked tobacco.

Meanwhile, the correletion between increased CO2 and oincreased
global average temperature was:

YEAR PPMCC
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983 0.47
1984 0.48
1985 0.45
1986 0.47
1987 0.54
1988 0.61
1989 0.63
1990 0.68
1991 0.71
1992 0.70
1993 0.68
1994 0.70
1995 0.73
1996 0.74
1997 0.77
1998 0.79
1999 0.80
2000 0.80
2001 0.82
2002 0.84
2003 0.85
2004 0.86
2005 0.87
2006 0.88
2007 0.89
2008 0.89
2009 0.90
2010 0.90
2011 0.91

> As for what leads or lags what, let's look -- as we have before -- at
> Manua Loa CO2 and NASA loti using lagging and exchanging the 2 variates.
>
> If we find the "best fit" line for co2(t) = a temp(t-L) + b for different L
> (where time is in months)
> we see that the greatest explanation power -- r2 -- is for L==0. The r2
> values then rapidly drop off at approx rate 1/L as L->200 months.
>
> However, for temp(t) = a co2(t-L) + b for different L, we see the r2 value
> remains approx constant up until 100 months, and only very slowly declines
> up to 200 m (the largest value tested -- there's only 60*12 months of data).
>
> Together these results are good evidence for 2 things.
> (1) co2 explains future temperatures within the time horizon of 200 months.
> (2) temperatures do not explain future co2 levels within the next 200 months.
>
> AKA co2 is a "cause" of future levels in temperature, but temperatures are
> not a "cause" of future levels of co2.
>
> Graphs available at:
>
> http://kymhorsell.dyndns.org/graphs/co2-predict-temp.gif
> http://kymhorsell.dyndns.org/graphs/temp-predict-co2.gif

Ah, thank you. I have saved the links for future reference.

[RedAcer]

On 20/05/12 17:24, AGWFacts wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 14:57:13 +0100, RedAcer <red...@tiscali.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> C02: insignificant trace gas, and yet it warms .....
>
> We can all assume you mean "CO2" and not "C02." :-) Many months
> ago I wrote "C02" and I was utterly mortified.

Yeah. The 0 is just above the o on my keyboard. Too much for my aging
digits :(
Although a bit of my brain tried to compensate by using the shift key :)

[RedAcer]

Hmmm. Too much wine for lunch. That last sentence doesn't make much sense!

[Bill Ward]

I didn't refuse to look. You showed me clearly how smart you are, and
I'm not impressed. You can't explain your claims convincingly, and too
much of what you think you know is wrong.

> P.s. You are not alone. Turdenbar has positioned himself in that self-
> same corner - with so many layers of paint it's beginning to peel off
> under its own weight.

I haven't noticed Tunderbar trying to sell a concept he can't explain.
That alone puts him far ahead of you.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
<67dfd869-57cc-4f3a...@jx17g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation

Please enlighten us with your knowledge of mountain waves, then. I am
very familiar with the pheomenon.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <sm6ir7djkh02s2l59...@4ax.com>,

A crank also lies, which "AGWFacts" does in the above statement.
Correlation is the running thread in the whole CO2/AGW myth. I see that
"AGWFacts" cites correlation in another post after this one.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <or6ir7p2uhehm3e97...@4ax.com>,

> "Correlation does not imply causation"

Nobody claimed it does, Shit-for-brains." -- AGWFacts

Which way is it?

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/20/12 3:10 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> A crank also lies, which "AGWFacts" does in the above statement.
> Correlation is the running thread in the whole CO2/AGW myth. I see that
> "AGWFacts" cites correlation in another post after this one.

I'll make my point with this graph:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/PiratesVsTemp%28en%29.svg/2000px-PiratesVsTemp%28en%29.svg.png

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <wsednXJAZY4zyiTS...@mchsi.com>,

It obvious from the graph that a warmist would recognize the inverse
correlation of global temperature with the incidence of piracy.

Therefore, let us have more pirates and cool the globe!

Shouldn't the recent outbreak of piracy be lowering the temperature by
now?

[hersheyh]

On Friday, May 18, 2012 10:04:53 AM UTC-4, Tunderbar wrote:

> On May 18, 8:57 am, RedAcer <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > Excellent series explaining it all.
> > (corrected links)
> >

> > CO2 An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Onehttp://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...

> >
> > Part Two why different gases absorb different amounts of energy, why

> > some gases absorb almost no longwave radiationhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/20/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-tr...

> >
> > Part Three the Beer Lambert model of absorption and the concept of

> > re-emission of radiationhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/31/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...

> >
> > Part Four band models and how transmittance of CO2 changes as the

> > amount of CO2 increases under weak and strong conditionshttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/05/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...

> >
> > Part Five two results from solving the 1-d equations and how CO2

> > compares to water vaporhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-tr...

> >
> > Part Six Visualization -what does the downwards longwave radiation

> > look like at the earth s surfacehttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/11/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-tr...

> >
> > Part Seven The Boring Numbers the values of radiative forcing from

> > CO2 for current levels and doubling of CO2.http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...
> >
> > Part Eight Saturation explaining saturation in more detailhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/12/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...

> >
> > CO2 Can t have that Effect Because.. common problems or responses to
> > the theory and evidence presentedhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/15/co2-cant-have-that-effect-because/
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
>
> "Correlation does not imply causation" (related to "ignoring a common
> cause" and questionable cause) is a phrase used in science and
> statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does
> not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation
> is necessary for linear causation in the absence of any third and
> countervailing causative variable, and can indicate possible causes or
> areas for further investigation; in other words, correlation is a
> hint).[1][2]
>
> The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical
> fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a

> cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc

> ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this")
> and false cause. It is a common fallacy in which it is assumed that
> because two things or events occur together, one must be the cause of
> the other. By contrast, the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc requires
> that one event occur before the other and so may be considered a
> related fallacy.
>
> *****
>
> http://chimalaya.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/IceCores1.gif
>
> Note that temps PRECEDE CO2. Temps have never LED CO2. Ever. And
> physics isn't going to change the way things work in the real world
> just for you eco-activists.

And all the previous warmings were related to mechanisms other than
man-made burning of fossil fuels. CO2 was merely a positive feedback
to warming that was precipitated by other mechanisms.

The exception to both the idea that the warmings are due to other
mechanisms (like solar cycles) and the idea that CO2 increase
thus follows warming caused by these other factors is the current
200 year 35% increase in CO2 levels, which, unfortunately for your argument,
represent only the last 2% of the last marked space (each space is
10,000 years) on the graph you show. There, CO2 levels have essentially
spiked almost vertically, an aberration not seen in any other period.
Your graph is irrelevant.

What would be relevant would be evidence presented by you that other
cause(s) of warming have increased rapidly. Or evidence that CO2
is not a greenhouse gas. Or evidence that CO2 has not increased rapidly
in recent times. Or pretty much any sort of evidence that is meaningful.

Otherwise, known causality mechanisms (CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas; CO2
levels *have* increased largely due to human activity in the last 200 years;
there are no other known reason that can account for the *observed* amount
of temperature increase globally) indicate that CO2 is largely the cause of
the current global temperature increase.

[kym horsell]

On Monday, May 21, 2012 2:33:20 AM UTC+10, AGWFacts wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 07:59:00 -0700 (PDT), kym horsell
> <kymho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, May 19, 2012 12:04:53 AM UTC+10, Tunderbar wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > Note that temps PRECEDE CO2. Temps have never LED CO2. Ever.
>
> Note that the paleoclimate data shows the previous glacial period
> ended due to an increase in CO2, after which an increase in global
> average temperature followed.

...


You can do the same kind of lagged TS regressions with the vostok data
as with the short-term Mauna Loa & LOTI data to check for cause-and-effect.

My methods at the moment are even rougher than usual. But they do show
that co2 & temp on a resolution of centuries are neck-and-neck at 80%
r2 for the first 1000 years or so.

Co2 explaining Temp then trails away gradually to r2= .2 at 10000 years, but
Temp explaining Co2 trails away even more gradually to r2=.55 at 10000.
There are also a couple of bumps 4500 and 6000 years, but these could be just
noise from the bad method.

So it seems there is no visible bump where temps explain co2 800 years later.
Merely that global temps do "explain" the Co2 that appears for up to 2000 years after the Temp changes.

A better method might split the "up swings" from the "down swings" so we can see the explanation power of a "wiggle" in each direction, as well as improve the resolution of the method by using a better interpolation than simple linear-between-the-known-data as present.

Graphs at
http://kymhorsell.dyndns.org/graphs/vostok-co2-explain-temp.gif
and
.../vostok-temp-explain-co2.gif

--
Denialists are not honest brokers in the debate. They aren't
interested in truth, data, or informative discussion, they're
interested in their world view being the only one, and they'll say
anything to try to bring this about. [O]nce you've shown that what
they say is deceptive, or prima-facie absurd, you don't have to spend
a graduate career dissecting it and taking it apart.
-- Mark Hoofnagle, http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php

[Crankish version:]
Subject: Refusal to Debate is Inconsistent With Good Science
Trolls like him will never show us anything useful. No point wasting bandwidth.
-- Tunderbar <tdco...@gmail.com>, 10 May 2012 10:56:18 -0700 (PDT)

[AGWFacts]

Idiot.

[Last Post]

On Saturday, May 19, 2012 4:14:37 AM UTC-4, Earl Evleth wrote:
> On 19/05/12 5:36, in article
> orfairbairn-F013...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net, "Orval
> Fairbairn" <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I notice that the graph conveniently omits the most important
> > "greenhouse gas," H2O.
>
>
> That statement means you understand nothing about this issue.
>
> Water plays a feed back role in both driections. The CO2 concentration is
> central, without any in the atmosphere the earth would be a snow ball.
>
> As the CO2 drops, the temperature drops the water in the atmosphere drops
> and eventually snows and ices out, even to make the problem worse
> by increasing the earth's albedo. Water is a switch hitter, it can
> either serve as a green house gas and increase the temperature
> or ice out and increase the temperature drop.

ø Evleth — You persist in creating fairy tales
in this group. CO2 concentrations do not
have any thermal effect. Water absorbs
thermal energy - solar etc and in season
warms its zones. \

ø You are probably that you once again is to
be ruled by another fascist -
Mange la merdre.

[Bill Ward]

Are you claiming to be a pilot? If you really are, with your attitude
you're lucky to be alive.

[James]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:S8qdnexgJ8QmwiXS...@mchsi.com

A climate science blog. Stop posting crap with a bloggers take on it and
get to the point. It can be done if it is true.

Right now it's conjecture.
con·jec·ture (kĂn jekĆchĂr), n., v., -tured, -tur·ing.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/20/12 9:15 PM, James wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:S8qdnexgJ8QmwiXS...@mchsi.com
>> On 5/19/12 9:35 PM, James wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why do pricks like you alarmists post a list of links that does not
>>> tell you what you want to know? People have posted long shit as
>>> answers when it doesn't mention anything of any subject that was
>>> being discussed AGW facts is good at it.
>>
>> Actually, James, this is an excellent explanation of CO2 and
>> its effect on climate
>> http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
>
> A climate science blog. Stop posting crap with a bloggers take on it and
> get to the point. It can be done if it is true.
>
> Right now it's conjecture.

> con·jec·ture (kÃn jekÆchÃr), n., v., -tured, -tur·ing.

>
> 1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without
> sufficient evidence for proof.
> 2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
> 3. Obs. the interpretation of signs or omens.
> 4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to
> ensure reliability.

James--What's causing global warming?

[Sam Wormley]

What's causing global warming, jimp?

[Sam Wormley]

What's causing Global Warming, Orval?

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/18/12 11:32 AM, bjacoby wrote:
>
> Same old bullshit, Sam. "An insignificant trace gas produces huge
> warming because what else could it be?"

What's causing global warming, Ben?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

More than likely, a lot of factors, you arrogant little ass hat with
delusions of competence.

[hersheyh]

A lot of factors *could* cause global warming. The sun could be
giving off more radiant energy. The earth could be closer to
the sun than it has been. Or it could be an increase in the
amount of a greenhouse gas. The evidence points to the latter.

Remember that the reason why the earth is as warm as it is is
that it has an atmosphere with greenhouse gases. That atmosphere
accounts for about a 30 C difference in mean global temperature
(given the same reflectivity of about 30%; only a 10 C difference if
the earth were a perfect black body). But that 30 C difference
is small compared to the near absolute zero of outer space (-273 C).

Temperature changes of about 15 C represent the maximum difference
between a cold earth and a hot one over geological time-frames.
Those "small" differences have had major consequences for life
on this planet. "Small" differences that are rapid (in geological time
frames) cause even more disruption.

[James]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:qYOdnfHWD7GIOyTS...@mchsi.com

It must be co2 what else could it beeeee. That's the alarmist answer
when scads of links don't work..

[James]

"Dawlish" <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b077eabc-c1b0-4ab3...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com
> On May 20, 3:35 am, "James" <kingk...@iglou.com> wrote:
>> "RedAcer" <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:jp7kgs$rla$2...@speranza.aioe.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 19/05/12 03:38, James wrote:
>>>> "RedAcer" <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:jp5kfm$8ta$1...@speranza.aioe.org

>>>>> Excellent series explaining it all.
>>>>> (corrected links)
>>

>>>> con jec ture (k n jek ch r), n., v., -tured, -tur ing.

>>
>>>> 1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without
>>>> sufficient evidence for proof.
>>>> 2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
>>>> 3. Obs. the interpretation of signs or omens.
>>>> 4. to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to
>>>> ensure reliability.
>>

>>> Did you read any of the articles? Please say where you found errors
>>> or incorrect assumptions.

>>
>> Why do pricks like you alarmists post a list of links that does not
>> tell you what you want to know? People have posted long shit as
>> answers when it doesn't mention anything of any subject that was

>> being discussed AGW facts is good at it.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> "Long shit"..........jimmy-cut-and-paste means *science*, of course.
> <laughing>

No Dawlish. I mean no answer. Just rhetoric that's not even your own.
IOW. No answer at all. Do you believe a multitude of graphs and tons of
bullshit from a blogger, whose web site is dedicated to defending AGW?
Oh wait. I guess you do. Never mind.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/20/12 10:49 PM, James wrote:
> No Dawlish. I mean no answer. Just rhetoric that's not even your own.
> IOW. No answer at all. Do you believe a multitude of graphs and tons of
> bullshit from a blogger, whose web site is dedicated to defending AGW?
> Oh wait. I guess you do. Never mind.

The climate science happens to be correct. Was there something
specific in the material you can articulate a scientific against?

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 15:45:01 -0700 (PDT), hersheyh
<hers...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Friday, May 18, 2012 10:04:53 AM UTC-4, Tunderbar wrote:
> > On May 18, 8:57 am, RedAcer <red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Excellent series explaining it all.
> > > (corrected links)
> > >
> > > CO2 An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part Onehttp://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...
> > >
> > > Part Two why different gases absorb different amounts of energy, why
> > > some gases absorb almost no longwave radiationhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/20/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-tr...
> > >
> > > Part Three the Beer Lambert model of absorption and the concept of
> > > re-emission of radiationhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/31/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...
> > >
> > > Part Four band models and how transmittance of CO2 changes as the
> > > amount of CO2 increases under weak and strong conditionshttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/05/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...
> > >
> > > Part Five two results from solving the 1-d equations and how CO2
> > > compares to water vaporhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-tr...
> > >
> > > Part Six Visualization -what does the downwards longwave radiation
> > > look like at the earth s surfacehttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/11/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-tr...
> > >
> > > Part Seven The Boring Numbers the values of radiative forcing from
> > > CO2 for current levels and doubling of CO2.http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...
> > >
> > > Part Eight Saturation explaining saturation in more detailhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/12/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-pa...
> > >
> > > CO2 Can t have that Effect Because.. common problems or responses to
> > > the theory and evidence presentedhttp://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/15/co2-cant-have-that-effect-because/

> > http://chimalaya.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/IceCores1.gif
> >
> > Note that temps PRECEDE CO2. Temps have never LED CO2. Ever. And
> > physics isn't going to change the way things work in the real world
> > just for you eco-activists.

"Tunderbar" is pretending to be ignornat of the facts again. He
has seen the evidence that shows CO2 preceeds temperature; he
merely denies the evidence exists.

> And all the previous warmings were related to mechanisms other than
> man-made burning of fossil fuels. CO2 was merely a positive feedback
> to warming that was precipitated by other mechanisms.

Exactly so. See for example:

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/emartin/GLY6075F08/papers/Ruddiman%2703.pdf

Ormital mechanics triggers glacial and interglacial epochs; CO2
increase and decrease then drives warming and cooling.

> The exception to both the idea that the warmings are due to other
> mechanisms (like solar cycles) and the idea that CO2 increase
> thus follows warming caused by these other factors is the current
> 200 year 35% increase in CO2 levels, which, unfortunately for your argument,
> represent only the last 2% of the last marked space (each space is
> 10,000 years) on the graph you show. There, CO2 levels have essentially
> spiked almost vertically, an aberration not seen in any other period.
> Your graph is irrelevant.

Some paleoclimate data goes back 800,000 years. The Antarctic bore
hole data goes back 35 million years. The data show how extremely
sensitive climate is to tiny changes; for example, the variation
in global average temperature which has triggered glacial and
interglacial periods was only about 1.5c

> What would be relevant would be evidence presented by you that other
> cause(s) of warming have increased rapidly. Or evidence that CO2
> is not a greenhouse gas. Or evidence that CO2 has not increased rapidly
> in recent times. Or pretty much any sort of evidence that is meaningful.
>
> Otherwise, known causality mechanisms (CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas; CO2
> levels *have* increased largely due to human activity in the last 200 years;
> there are no other known reason that can account for the *observed* amount
> of temperature increase globally) indicate that CO2 is largely the cause of
> the current global temperature increase.

"Tunderbar" ignores the laws of physics.

[Marvin the Martian]

What's funny is, it did! No warming for the last 15 years.

[Bill Snyder]

But the dog ate the evidence.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/21/12 9:43 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
> No warming for the last 15 years.

Not very smart to ignore the warming of the oceans, Marvin.
With an imbalance of 0.6 W/m^2 heating the earth globally,
where did you convince yourself about where the energy is
going?

[Will Janoschka]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 02:33:46, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> What's causing Global Warming, Orval?

Who is promoting the fraud of Global Warming, Sam?

[Will Janoschka]

Not very smart to promote the fraud, Sam.
The oceans are storing energy just like the trees. Sam.
>
>
>
>

[Bill Snyder]

Who is promoting the Fraud of Will Janoschka, wackjob? Where's
that calculation?

[Bill Snyder]

You're the fraud. Or have you got that calculation yet?

[kym horsell]

Eruh? If dem oshun iz storin energee then accord to thermydoomatics they is getten warmera.

So yu *doz* accep tha GW and GHG afta alls?

--

[On solving a(Ts+.001)^4 = b(Te+x)^4 over past 8 weeks:]
> [Y]ou can't solve a linear equation or do arithmetic.
What linear equation? Oh! The one with the fourth power
of the intended variable. Linear indeed!
[Only a 15 yo would immediately see that x = (a/b)^(1/4)(Ts+.001)-Te
and that x = .001 Te/Ts approx= 50e-6 K].
-- Will "I'm a math genius" Janoschka, 25 Apr 2012 12:06:01 -0500

[Tom P]

On 05/20/2012 10:10 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article<sm6ir7djkh02s2l59...@4ax.com>,
> AGWFacts<AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 May 2012 07:04:53 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
>> <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>> On Fri, 18 May 2012 14:57:13 +0100, RedAcer<red...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Excellent series explaining it all.
>>>> (corrected links)
>>>>
>>>> CO2 – An Insignificant Trace Gas? Part One

>>>> http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-on
>>>> e/

>>>>
>>>> Part Two – why different gases absorb different amounts of energy, why
>>>> some gases absorb almost no longwave radiation

>>>> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/20/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-g
>>>> as-part-two/

>>>>
>>>> Part Three – the Beer Lambert model of absorption and the concept of
>>>> re-emission of radiation

>>>> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/31/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-th
>>>> ree/

>>>>
>>>> Part Four – band models and how transmittance of CO2 changes as the

>>>> amount of CO2 increases under “weak” and “strong” conditions
>>>> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/05/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-fo
>>>> ur/

>>>>
>>>> Part Five – two results from solving the 1-d equations – and how CO2
>>>> compares to water vapor

>>>> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/10/co2-%e2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-g
>>>> as-part-five/

>>>>
>>>> Part Six – Visualization -what does the downwards longwave radiation
>>>> look like at the earth’s surface

>>>> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/11/co2-%E2%80%93-an-insignificant-trace-g
>>>> as-part-six-visualization/

>>>>
>>>> Part Seven – The Boring Numbers – the values of “radiative forcing” from
>>>> CO2 for current levels and doubling of CO2.

>>>> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-se
>>>> ven-the-boring-numbers/

>>>>
>>>> Part Eight – Saturation – explaining “saturation” in more detail

>>>> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/12/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-ei
>>>> ght-saturation/

>>>>
>>>> CO2 Can’t have that Effect Because.. – common “problems” or responses to
>>>> the theory and evidence presented
>>>> http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/15/co2-cant-have-that-effect-because/
>>

>>> "Correlation does not imply causation"
>>
>> Nobody claimed it does, Shit-for-brains.
>>
>>

>> --
>> "A 'crank' is defined as a man who cannot be turned." --- _Nature_, 8 Nov
>> 1906
>

> A crank also lies, which "AGWFacts" does in the above statement.
> Correlation is the running thread in the whole CO2/AGW myth. I see that
> "AGWFacts" cites correlation in another post after this one.

What myth? CO2 is a greenhouse gas and humans produce 30 gigatons a year.

[Tom P]

So by calling it "storing" that makes it different from warming?

I'll remember that for next time I store some energy in some soup.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Tom P]

James, it is very simple. Prove that one of the known facts is false:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. humans are currently producing around 30 gigatons of CO2 every year.

[Bill Ward]

CO2 is a GHG. H2O is a much more effective GHG. H2O evaporates from the
ocean and condenses to cloud in the lower troposphere, shading the
surface, and emitting LWIR to space. That has allowed H2O to stabilize
the surface temperature within a couple percent for hundreds of millions
of years. There is an excess of H2O available in the oceans.

CO2 doesn't change state, so it just gets lost in the shuffle.

You need to either accept this, explain and defend your reasons for
thinking it's wrong, or look foolish. Your choice.

> 2. humans are currently producing around 30 gigatons of CO2 every year.

And I should worry about that?

[Bill Snyder]

"A couple percent," numbnuts, is about 6 degrees C. You need to
explain why you imagine anyone sane would agree with simply
shrugging that off.

You also need to explain why you imagine anyone sane would shrug
off a large scale die-off of coral reefs due to ocean warming and
acidification.

>> 2. humans are currently producing around 30 gigatons of CO2 every year.
>
>And I should worry about that?

If, as the Scarecrow said, you only had a brain.

[Marvin the Martian]

How does that prove that humans have caused global warming?

If I piss a quart into the ocean, and the tide comes in, does that prove
that my piss made the ocean rise?

[Marvin the Martian]

I've been pointing out the warming oceans for longer than you've been
using it as "Plan B" once it was clear that your surface temperature
argument failed.

So, Worm... Explain the chemistry of equilibrium balance how the
equilibrium shift between CO2 dissolved in the ocean and CO2 in the air.

Continue to explain how CO2 is in equilibrium with calcium carbonate, and
elaborate on how corals are dissolving.

What is the ONLY THING that can change the point of equilibrium? And
explain how reactions always proceed towards reaching the equilibrium
point.

Then explain how the science of chemistry proves CO2 is an EFFECT of
warming and not a CAUSE of warming.

And then explain how that is consistent with the known physics that says
that additional CO2, from any source, will not cause more warming.


Take your time. I don't expect you to be able to Grokk it in your
lifetime.

[hersheyh]

On Monday, May 21, 2012 1:34:59 PM UTC-4, Tom P wrote:
> On 05/21/2012 05:49 AM, James wrote:
> > "Dawlish"

Specifically, humans are producing 30 gigatons of CO2 every year that
otherwise would have remained in the earth as fixed fossil fuels.

[Bill Snyder]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 17:29:28 -0500, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 May 2012 10:34:04 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> On 5/21/12 9:43 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>> No warming for the last 15 years.
>>
>> Not very smart to ignore the warming of the oceans, Marvin. With an
>> imbalance of 0.6 W/m^2 heating the earth globally, where did you
>> convince yourself about where the energy is going?
>
>I've been pointing out the warming oceans for longer than you've been
>using it as "Plan B" once it was clear that your surface temperature
>argument failed.
>
>So, Worm... Explain the chemistry of equilibrium balance how the
>equilibrium shift between CO2 dissolved in the ocean and CO2 in the air.
>
>Continue to explain how CO2 is in equilibrium with calcium carbonate, and
>elaborate on how corals are dissolving.

Of course, the death of coral reefs is an observation, not a
deduction. But I guess once you start denying reality, it can get
kinda hard to stop.

>What is the ONLY THING that can change the point of equilibrium? And
>explain how reactions always proceed towards reaching the equilibrium
>point.

Pity Marvie has never hit an equilibrium point.

>Then explain how the science of chemistry proves CO2 is an EFFECT of
>warming and not a CAUSE of warming.

But the dog ate the proof.

>And then explain how that is consistent with the known physics that says
>that additional CO2, from any source, will not cause more warming.

But the dog ate all the known physics.

>Take your time. I don't expect you to be able to Grokk it in your
>lifetime.

"Have you, or have you not, stopped beating your wife? Take all
the time you need to think it over."

[hersheyh]

Because it is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. No other source for the
observed amount of increase in atmospheric CO2 exists, the amount
we *know* is produced by burning fossil fuels is more than enough to
account for the increase in atmospheric CO2 (there are few other anthropogenic
sources -- forest clearing and cement manufacture) and the amount
absorbed by the oceans, seen as a decrease in pH. And the isotopic signature
of the increased CO2 is that of burned fossil fuels.

>
> If I piss a quart into the ocean, and the tide comes in, does that prove
> that my piss made the ocean rise?

If you pissed enough to increase the water content of the ocean by 35% in
200 years, your piss would certainly be sufficient to make the ocean rise.
The amount of atmospheric CO2 has risen that much in 200 years (mostly
in the last 50 years).

We are not talking about a "quart" of piss in the ocean. Well maybe you
are divorced enough from reality to confuse a "quart" in the ocean with
a 35% increase.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

you can't burn a fossil, Jim!... anyway,
there are organic seeps of oil, like in the Gulf of Mexico,
one Exxon Valdez per annum, although
this seems to be based upon a baseline of big-pumping.

out here, it's teh Redondo Seep between here & Santa Catalina;
maybe the Chumash have some datum,
beyond their use of "bitumen."

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

I would say that the relative sizes of the spectra
are somewhat more fundamental;
I've been blasting this for months,
without a single "hit" from denierist or confirmerist.
(no, wait; Bill Ward showed one graph .-)

one of the elements missing from the "hole(s)
in the ozonosphere" model, is centrifugal;
supposedly, even though the South polar vortex
is Eaaarth's biggest anticyclone (or,
the Father of all hurricanes), turbulence wahses it all out,
or back in.

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing-

[Will Janoschka]

You store energy in soup by carrying it upstairs.
What is a scientific definition of warming? Is isothermal heat
transfer
warming?

[Will Janoschka]

No!!

A 1% change in cloud cover or a 2% change in the specular reflectivity
of the oceans
surface near grasing angles, would cause more of a surface temp change
than
tripling atmospheric CO2 to 1000 ppmv.

Just think of all the nice stuff dumped into the oceans. Yet no one
measures these
obvious effect on earth radation in and out! Measurements, not
computer models are
needed Lots of symmitries to hasten analysis. but each part of the
ocean needs
measurement Radiation is so non linear, that averages, especially
of temperature,
force large errors. If the CO2 clowns would stop their shit,
earthlings might get a clue.

[kym horsell]

On Thursday, May 24, 2012 11:31:52 AM UTC+10, Will Janoschka wrote:
...

> A 1% change in cloud cover or a 2% change in the specular reflectivity
> of the oceans
> surface near grasing angles, would cause more of a surface temp change
> than
> tripling atmospheric CO2 to 1000 ppmv.

...

And another science less from Lord Hee Haw.

--
[Bullshit:]
A milli-kelvin change the sun temperature would
result in a 1 kelvin change in earth temperature.
[Can't solve a(Ts+.001)^4 approx= b(Te+x)^4?]
Please do the numbers, so as, to prove to yourself,
that Hansens claims are Political BS.'
Logic does not work against Political BS!
-- Will Janoschka, 1 Mar 2012 7:18 PM